Unit 1st

Nature of Management

1. Universality: Management is an universal phenomenon in the sense that it is common and essential element in all enterprises. Managers perform more or less the same functions irrespective of their position or nature of the organization. The basic principles of management can be applied in all managerial situations regardless of the size, nature and location of the organization. Universality of managerial tasks and principles also implies that managerial skills are transferable and managers can be trained and developed. 2. Purposeful: Management is always aimed at achieving organizational goals and purposes. The success of management is measured by the extent to which the desired objectives are attained. In both economic and non-economic enterprises, the tasks of management are directed towards effectiveness (i.e., attainment of organizational goals) and efficiency (i.e., goal attainment with economy of resource use). 3. Social process: Management essentially involves managing people organized in work groups. It includes retaining, Developing and motivating people at work, as well as taking care of their satisfaction as social beings. All these interpersonal relations and interactions makes the management as asocial process. 4. Coordinating force: Management coordinates the efforts of organization members through orderly arrangement of inter-related activities so as to avoid duplication and overlapping. Management reconciles the individual goals with the organizational goals and integrates human and physical resources. 5. Intangible: Management is intangible. It is an unseen force. Its presence can be felt everywhere by the results of its effort which comes in the form of orderliness, adequate work output, satisfactory working climate, employees satisfaction etc. 6. Continuous process: Management is a dynamic and an on-going process. The cycle of management continues to operate so long as there is organised action for the achievement of group goals. 7. Composite process: Functions of management cannot be undertaken sequentially, independent of each other. Management is a composite process made up of individual ingredients. All the functions are performed by involving several ingredients. Therefore, the whole process is integrative and performed in a network fashion.

8. Creative organ: Management creates energetics effect by producing results which are more than the sum of individual efforts of the group members. It provides sequence to operations, matches jobs to goals, connects work to physical and financial resources. It provides creative ideas, new imaginations and visions to group efforts. It is not a passive force adopting to external environment but a dynamic life giving element in every organization.

The Six Different Types of Managers and How to Work with Their Styles

Posted by Resources for Humans on December 12, 2004 at 3:00am View Blog Over a period of several years we have researched the different types of managers in Corporate America, and we have identified the following six types of bosses and their leadership styles. Read through the descriptions below to find your own manager and discover the best strategies for dealing with his/her particular management style. We encourage you to read through all the types, as it is most likely that your boss will be heavily identified with one type, but may have some characteristics and influences of the others.

The Control Freak: This person needs to have everything that is going on in the palm of her/his hand. She doesnt like subordinates making any decisions, no matter how small or innocuous, without first consulting his opinion. Control Freaks will also tend to hoard information. They may assign you to work on a task, but then not tell you everything you need to know to complete the task. You could spend hours working on the task only to find out that half the information you needed was sitting on your boss desk and that he already knew it. Things a Control Freak would never dream of doing: Running into you in the hall and not asking about the status of a project Let you enjoy your lunch in peace without interrupting to get the latest update on what you are working on Allowing you to make a decision without being involved Coaching you on handling a problem independently Delegating responsibility How to get along with a Control Freak

Control Freaks need constant information. The best way to deal with a Control Freak is to status report them to death.This can be a timeconsuming pain, but continuously keeping him in the loop is one of the surest ways to keep him off your back. For example, if you are working on a presentation for a Control Freak and you decide to change the background color to better match your corporate color scheme, send him an e-mail just to let him know before sending him the updated presentation. Another way to keep yourself sane while working with a Control Freak is to ask lots of questions about assignments or projects he may give you. Control Freaks use information as power. As long as he has the information, he has the power. As discussed above, Control Freaks have been known to withhold information that was critical to the success of a project. Asking questions will help you to get a better feel for what he knows. Keep in mind that Control Freaks do not withhold information to make you fail. They do it because it assures them that you will return to them for more information/ assistance, etc. When you return it gives them a sense of importance, being needed, and most importantly, still being in control. Unfortunately, Control Freaks do not trust anyone easily. They tend to live in fear of what if. For example, What if my boss asks me a question and I dont know the answer? He might think Im incompetent and so forth. So they use manipulative tactics to keep others pandering to them and to ensure that they will be involved in everything that is going on in their department. The trick to keeping your own sanity is to surrender to the knowledge that you cant change your boss. However, delivering what they want and gaining their confidence and trust are critical for your success while working with them. Give him his status reports daily, even hourly if thats what it takes. Send him drafts of your emails and memos. Know that it will take twice as long to complete projects because you will have to wait in line with everyone else to have him review your work. Therefore, keep several projects going concurrently so you can switch back and forth between them while you are waiting to hear back on other projects.

The Autocrat: This manager has one objective, his own. He does not care about his employees, and nothing anyone ever does is good enough to satisfy him. He is impossible to get along with and is convinced that he is the only competent person working in the company. Things an Autocrat would never dream of doing: Ask how you think a problem should be solved Admit to making a mistake Tell you what a great job you did

 Tell you how much he appreciates your efforts Empower you to make appropriate decisions at your level How to get along with an Autocrat: Autocrats are tough, no doubt about it. They typically have one objective. If you can get them to share that objective with you, it will make your job that much easier, because what you want to do is make their objective your objective. For example, if your boss objective is to be promoted to vice president, then you need to do everything in your power to help him achieve that objective. You might even be promoted along with him. If not, at least you will have made your life easier while coping with him or her. While there is a lot out of your direct control, such as what your boss boss thinks of him, you can demonstrate to your boss that you are a team player (and on his team), and as he starts to see you working for his benefit, he will hopefully begin to gain some confidence and respect in you. Just dont expect him to verbally express as much. You will know that your plan is working when he makes you his go to person with any problem that arises. Autocrats and Control Freaks have a lot in common, but the difference is that Autocrats are usually pretty clear about what they want. Control Freaks are less definate about what they want, so they try to control everything in order to keep their options open if they need to change direction at a later date. That being said, there are many tactics that will work for both, such as keeping them apprised of the status of your projects and clearing any decisions you may be making with them before moving ahead. One critical difference between the two is that an Autocrat will respect you if you take a clear position on a problem or situation. Even if the Autocrat does not agree with you, they will typically recognize you for your position. However, if you take a position but are not clear or are unsure about yourself look out. The Autocrat will smell your insecurity and crush you for it. Control Freaks, on the other hand, will not appreciate you having your own opinions, unless, of course, it is completely in line with his or hers.

The Blame Fixer: This type of boss makes it his/her job to make everyone else responsible for fixing his/her problems. He/she takes no responsibility for his own employees, department, or results. He/she is however, the first to take credit for something which went well. Things a Blame Fixer would never dream of doing: Standing up at a meeting and accepting full responsibility for a problem Accepting responsibility for the mistake of one of his/her employees Actually getting something accomplished Creating an environment of creativity and openness on his team Sharing the credit with his team on a successful project How to get along with a Blame Fixer Blame Fixers are great at going around an organization and finding all the problems in everyone elses job, department, team, project, etc. The problem is that all they do is point out the problems and then wipe their hands of any responsibility to fix them. There is a Dilbert cartoon that shows Dilbert, his boss and co-workers sitting around a table having a meeting. Every time one of the characters mentions an issue, Wally pipes up and says, Someone should fix that problem or Someone should do something about that. Wally is a Blame Fixer. Blame Fixers will also be the first to point out any potential problems with an idea someone has. Nothing will ever work because any potential solution has problems that the Blame Fixer will say are insurmountable. The important thing to remember is that fixing blame and responsibility does not ever fix the problem. It is easy to get sidetracked by a blame fixer because we all want to take

pride in our work and we get offended when someone tries to blame us for something that went wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. The Blame Fixers strategy is to get ahead by making everyone else look bad. But the strategy never really works, and the people who get ahead are the ones who actually solve the problems and get the team behind them. So in a situation like this, try fix the problem, not the accusation. While it isnt exactly fun to have a Blame Fixer for a boss, we suggest that you do. Make an effort to document everything that occurs between you and your boss, particularly on projects, task, assignments and goals. This way, if your boss screws up his work, you will have your own alibi. Be aware than in the event of an extreme blow up, he or she will try to evade accountability, and may try to blame you. However, if you have documented what you were told to do and how to do it, you will be more likely to come through unscathed.

The Soft Heart: When you first meet this person you will at first think that you have just met the sweetest, most wonderful boss in the world. You will initially get the warm fuzzies and youll believe that its going to be a great job. Do not be fooled. This person is actually spineless. They will tell you exactly what you want to hear, then turn around and do the exact opposite. He or she will leave you hanging out to dry and will be anything but supportive. Things a Soft Heart would never dream of doing Giving you honest and direct feedback Being up front and open with you Consistently aligning their words and actions Being sincere Openly vacillate about a decision How to get along with a Soft Heart How to get along with a Soft Heart Soft Hearts are generally good people, they usually just dont have the intestinal fortitude to be a manager, or they have just been promoted to the position. Being a manger takes guts to tell people what they need to hear, regardless of whether or not the employee likes it. Soft Hearts want their employees to like them, so they try to act nice and supportive. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be a good manager and not piss your employees off every once in a while. Good managers have to make tough decisions, like asking employees to work overtime or to change their behavior. The best way to deal with a Soft Heart is to let them know up front that you would rather they be frank with you instead of telling you what they think you want to hear. Every once in while, challenge his or her praises on you. Ask why he really believes everything is fine and beautiful. Share your concerns and your perception of reality. Demand that when receiving feedback, he or she also gives you your areas for development and how you can overcome them. Do take note that once you have asked for your boss to be up front and honest with you, you will then need to back up your request by listening to what they have to say and respecting it. If you fail to back up your words by not listening to your boss, you will destroy any chance of having the Soft Heart be honest with you in the future.

The Politician: This person is charismatic and is always the life of the party. Always fun to be around, the Politican always has something positive to say. The problem is that there is rarely any truth or substance behind it. This person has no real competence,

they got to where they are by schmoozing the right people. Your companys organizational culture and values weigh heavily on whether these type of individuals can flourish and thrive, but be assured that you will always find one of this kind at any employer. Politicians depend on individuals who are competent to make them look good, then turn on them and make them a scapegoat when the employee gets tired of being used. Things a Politician would never dream of doing: Actually being competent at their job Telling the whole truth Having achievement orientation on their own Working their way up the corporate ladder Not blaming a problem on a disgruntled employee How to Get Along with a Politician: Politicians are naturally gregarious people. When Bill Clinton went on the Arsenio Hall Show and played the saxophone, everyone loved him for it. Bill Clintons ability to be the President had nothing to do with playing the saxophone. However, It did make for great entertainment, just like his presidency. Politicians need someone to make them look good. Politicians may never admit to their weak spots but they do know the value of covering their ass with someone who makes them look the part. You need to be that person. The Politician will recognize you for it and take you with them as they get promoted and move through an organization. The best part about working for a politician is that they know everyone, as well as knowing how to talk to them. Use this opportunity for networking potential. Since you will be the Politicians right hand man, you will get the chance to meet everyone he/she meets. Get their business cards and get to know them yourself. This network will be invaluable to you in the event your relationship with the politician sours. The worst part about working for a Politician is that you will never really get the full spotlight for your accomplishments. The Politician will always be center stage. And if he/she does share the spotlight with you, believe us when we tell you that they will make sure you know that its his/her spotlight and that you are only there because they allowed it. Once you get tired of being the brains in the Politicians organization, put that network to use and find another job or boss within your current company.

The Team-Builder: This is the kind of manager we all want to work for. They are competent at what they do, they know how to be open, and they solicit ideas and creativity from their employees. They are a pleasure to work with. They know how to make the tough decisions, but can do it in a way that is respectful and professional to all involved. Things a Team-Builder would never Dream of Doing Blocking a subordinates promotion/transfer Ignoring what an employee had to say Not keeping his word on a promise Telling a lie or withholding the truth Being disrespectful to an employee Taking credit for something one of his team members did How to get along with a Team-Builder Team-Builders are truly the best kind of manager to work for. They know that their success is your success and vice versa. They give you the tools you need to succeed and enough rope to hang yourself if you want to. However they will also be there to catch you when you fall. Team-Builders will coach you while letting you grow at your own pace. The best way to work with a Team Builder is to be open with them. Dont hold

anything back. Tell them what you want and what you think. Dont be afraid to share your ideas and creativity. They may not always agree with you, but know that they will respect any idea you bring to the table. Ask them for help when you need it. Dont expect them to fix your problems for you, but know that they will be there to help you think through problems and provide you with additional resources so that you can solve them. Be aware that Team Builders delegate and empower their team members, and in exchange they expect commitment and involvement. Like in a football team, they will make sure that a player who isnt doing his/her part will be addressed. Make sure you understand your role in the team and know what is expected of you. You need to work well with both, if you only focus on your boss and not the team, this type of behavior will bite you back sooner rather than later.

Why Organizations Need Managers Who Can Both Manage and Lead
Good management and leadership are critical for organizations to function and thrive. When organizations are well managed, they operate effectively and efficiently. They have clear plans, organized structures, systems, and processes. Staff are able to carry out activities efficiently and monitor and evaluate results. When organizations are well led, they adapt to changes in the environment and develop cultures that inspire commitment and innovation. Both good management and good leadership are necessary to sustain organizational performance. When an organization is managed well, managers effectively perform four essential management functions: planning, organizing, implementing, and monitoring and evaluating. They work with their staff to:

plan how to achieve a set of intentional results in a work group or organization; organize resources, structures, and processes over time to facilitate operations and actions; implement plans by carrying out activities and expediting efforts so that everyone can contribute toward results; monitor and evaluate actions and results against plans and use feedback from the evaluation to adjust plans, structures, and processes for future results.

Good management does not, however, ensure results in all circumstances. When conditions are variable, intricate, and interconnected, managers must do more than apply traditional management functions to a consistent process of delivering services.

They must also lead their staff through a change process that enables them to face strategic challenges and focus their energy on achieving sustainable results that will satisfy clients. Managers need to support their staff in questioning assumptions, altering beliefs, and changing ways of working to overcome obstacles that would otherwise undermine the quality of the services their organization provides to clients.

Unit 2nd The Classical School of Management

The classical school is the oldest formal school of management thought. Its roots pre-date the twentieth century. The classical school of thought generally concerns ways to manage work and organizations more efficiently. Three areas of study that can be grouped under the classical school are scientific management, administrative management, and bureaucratic management. The classical school (of management) has sought to define the essence of management in the form of universal fundamental functions. These, it was hoped, would form the cognitive basis for a set of relevant skills to be acquired, by all would-be managers through formal education. Body of the classical school's management thought was based on the belief that employees have only economical and physical needs, and that social needs and need for jobsatisfaction either don't exist or are unimportant. Accordingly, this school advocates high specialization of labor, centralized decision making, and profit maximization. See also behavioral school of management, contingency school of management, quantitative school of management, and systems school of management.

Weaknesses of the Classical Management Theories

management, classical management theories, weaknesses of classical management theories, administration, managers, managerial roles Classical theories and the principles derived from them continue to be popular today with some modifications. Many criticisms have been directed at the classicists. Several major ones are discussed here. Reliance on experience Many of the writers in the classical school of management developed their ideas on the basis of their experiences as managers or consultants with only certain types of organizations. For instance, Taylor's and Fayol's work came primarily from their experiences with large manufacturing firms that were experiencing stable environments. It may be unwise to generalize from those situations to othersespecially to young, high-technology firms of today that are confronted daily with changes in their competitors' products. Untested assumptions Many of the assumptions made by classical writers were based not on scientific tests but on value judgments that expressed what they believed to be proper life-styles, moral codes, and attitudes toward success. For instance, the classical approaches seem to view the life of a worker as beginning and ending at the plant door. Their basic assumption is that workers are primarily motivated by money and that they work only for more money. They also assume that productivity is the best measure of how well a firm is performing. These assumptions fail to recognize that employees may have wants and needs unrelated to the workplace or may view their jobs only as a necessary evil. Failure ot consider the informal organization In their stress on formal relationships in the organization, classical approaches tend to ignore informal relations as characterized by social interchange among workers, the emergence of group leaders apart from those specified by the formal organization, and so forth. When such things are not considered, it is likely that many important factors affecting satisfaction and performance, such as letting employees participate in decision making and task planning, will never be explored or tried. Unintended consequences Classical approaches aim at achieving high productivity, at making behaviors predictable, and at achieving fairness among workers and between managers and workers; yet they fail to recognize that several unintended consequences can occur in practice. For instance, a heavy emphasis on rules and regulations may cause people to obey rules blindly without remembering their original intent. Oftentimes, since rules establish a minimum level of performance expected of employees, a minimum level is all they achieve. Perhaps much more could be achieved if the rules were not so explicit.

Human machinery Classical theories leave the impression that the organization is a machine and that workers are simply parts to be fitted into the machine to make it run efficiently. Thus, many of the principles are concerned first with making the organization efficient, with the assumption that workers will conform to the work setting if the financial incentives are agreeable. Static conditions Organizations are influenced by external conditions that often fluctuate over time, yet classical management, theory presents an image of an organization that is not shaped by external influences. Since many of these criticisms of the classical school are harsh, several points need to be made in defense of writers during this period. First, the work force was not highly educated or trained to perform many of the jobs that existed at the time. It was not common for workers to think in terms of what "career" they were going to pursue. Rather, for many, the opportunity to obtain a secure job and a level of wages to provide for their families was all they demanded from the work setting. Second, much of the writing took place when technology was undergoing a rapid transformation, particularly in the area of manufacturing. Indeed, for many writers, technology was the driving force behind organizational and social change. Thus, their focus was on finding ways to increase efficiency. It was assumed that all humankind could do was to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions. Finally, very little had been done previously in terms of generating a coherent and useful body of management theory. Many of the classical theorists were writing from scratch, obliged for the most part to rely on their own experience and observations. Thus their focus is understandably narrow.

The strength and weakness of Classical School?

As Oliver Wendel Holmes quoted, When we want to know what is going on today or want to make sure what will happen tomorrow, I will look back the past. We can find out the process of development from this sphere to nowadays in a deep-going way by reviewing organizational behavior history which has gone through Classical School of Management, Behavioral School of Management and Human Relations School of Management. Organizations can be viewed as two or more people coordinate and combine in use of their knowledge as well as technique for the purpose of accomplishing common objectives that transform resources into goods and service which are needed by consumers. Organizational behavior refers to the systematic study that primarily access influence of individuals, groups and structure on interior organizational conducts in order that organizational effectiveness can be improved and perceived.

The Classical School of Management was effectively the first coherent set of theoretical perspectives about organization and management covering Scientific Management, Administrative Management and Structuralized Management. As we know, F.W.Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber are outstanding contributors of Classical School of management thought who made great contribution and laid a foundation for contemporary management. F W Taylor Taylor is the founding father of Classical School of management thought, who advocates scientific management and attached importance to heighten effectiveness of workers through greatly improving workers productivity leading to maximized benefit of workers and employers caused due to scientific management.

His works named The Principles of Scientific Management was published in the early 1900s. In the initial stage, Taylor was being affected by some moral principles; therefore, he had a profound respect for the following principles: Brought up scientific working methods for basic formative section of each staffs job. Scientifically selected, trained, fostered and cultivated the workers. Cooperated with staffs enthusiastically so that ensuring jobs done are suitable to scientific theory which has been set forth. Basically actualized equal division of labor between jobs and responsibilities of the managements and the workers. All work processes should be systematically analyzed and broke down into specialized discrete tasks. Payment depended on piecework basis which taken as an incentive to maximize productivity and produce high wages for the workers.

At the same time, his insufficient understanding towards organizational behavior gave rise to the following situations: Changed workers role into that was required to strictly abide by methods and procedures of affairs on which they had no discretions. Fragmentation of work due to its emphasis on the analysis and organization of individual tasks and operation, His thought over payment that was mainly reliance on output performance rather than giving remuneration to workers in accordance with overall performance of the workers. His inclination to consider planning and control of workforce activities which were only in the managements hands rather than allowing staffs to involve. Every job which was measured, timed, and rated. Occurrence of boredom stemmed from repetitive jobs and tight management control. Poor understanding between grass-roots workers and managements.

Henri Fayol Fayol is the representative of Classical School of management thought. Administrative management is the managerial mode he stood for where it applied essential points to administrative management principles of controllers.

Fayol's famous works, Industrial management and common management ,divided management into five segments. Therefore, it denoted controllers were to carry out the five segments, i.e. to forecast , to organize, to command, to coordinate, to control. By now, these five segments are still the functional basis and basic process by which controllers research into management. According to his thought over management, therefore, 14 principles of organization came into being. 14 universal principals of organization Division of work. Professionally increased output through improving effectiveness of the workers. Authority.The managers were required to be good at giving commands as authority conferred them right to do so but responsibility were accompanying authority. Discipline. The workers must adhere to and respect organizational rules and regulations. The managers and workers must have clear understanding towards organizational rules and regulations. Organization must enforce effective sanction upon those workers who broke organizational rules and regulations. Interests of the individual should subordinate to interests of the collective. Interests of Any individuals or groups should not exceed organizational interest as the collective. Remuneration. It was required to improve the workersjobs and offer equal wages treatment. Concentration of power. It refers the level of the workers involvement in decisionmaking. Scalar chain. The establishment of a line of authority by which communication must comply with the chain by levels of authority from the seniors to the subordinate. Order. The workers and substance should be on the corresponding position at appropriate time. Equality. Managers ought to keep kindness and equality for the workers. Stability of employees terms of office as high mobile labor would lead to low effectiveness and efficiency. Initiative. When being allowed to participate in formulation and enforcement of planning, employees would complete works with their great efforts. Stability of employees terms of office. High mobile labor would lead to low effectiveness. The managers should formulate plans of human affairs in order as to find the right substitute as positions appeared vacant. Espirt de corps. It publicized that esprit de corps would be established and unified harmoniously.

There is no doubt that Fayol did have misunderstanding towards the organizational behavior. This can be discerned from which he hypothesized universal principles that were applicable to all organizational situations; only acknowledged the formal organization and focused on the structure of organizations; took management as critical paternalistic; his ideas was stiff to desires and needs of both individuals and groups; his rational and deterministic approach lacked suitability towards structures and behaviors of people as individuals and groups; the 14 universal principles set forth by him were not will fit into an organic organization;

Hawthorne effect
The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation. The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analysing older experiments from 1927-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.[3][4][5]

[edit]Relay

assembly experiments

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (19271932) assembling telephone relays. Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each worker dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an

experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were:

giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.

providing food during the breaks shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo,[citation needed] was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Bank wiring room experiments

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on.[11] The study was conducted by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as

mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.

behavioral school of management

Definition
Body of management thought based on the belief that use of psychological techniques in motivating employees worksbetter than rules and regulations proposed by classical school of management. See also contingency school of management, quantitative school of management, andsystems school of management.

Unit 4th
Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling

A managers primary challenge is to solve problems creatively. While drawing from a variety of academic disciplines, and to help managers respond to the challenge of creative problem solving, principles of management have long been categorized into the four major functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (the P-O-L-C framework). The four functions, summarized in the P-O-L-C figure, are actually highly integrated when carried out in the day-to-day realities of running an organization. Therefore, you should not get caught up in trying to analyze and understand a complete, clear rationale for categorizing skills and practices that compose the whole of the P-O-L-C framework. It is important to note that this framework is not without criticism. Specifically, these criticisms stem from the observation that the P-O-L-C functions might be ideal but that they do not accurately depict the day-to-

day actions of actual managers.[5] The typical day in the life of a manager at any level can be fragmented and hectic, with the constant threat of having priorities dictated by the law of the trivial many and important few (i.e., the 80/20 rule). However, the general conclusion seems to be that the P-O-L-C functions of management still provide a very useful way of classifying the activities managers engage in as they attempt to achieve organizational goals.[6]

Planning Planning is the function of management that involves setting objectives and determining a course of action for achieving those objectives. Planning requires that managers be aware of environmental conditions facing their organization and forecast future conditions. It also requires that managers be good decision makers. Planning is a process consisting of several steps. The process begins withenvironmental scanning which simply means that planners must be aware of the critical contingencies facing their organization in terms of economic conditions, their competitors, and their customers. Planners must then attempt to forecast future conditions. These forecasts form the basis for planning. Planners must establish objectives, which are statements of what needs to be achieved and when. Planners must then identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives. After evaluating the various alternatives, planners must make decisions about the best courses of action for achieving objectives. They must then formulate necessary steps and ensure effective implementation of plans. Finally, planners must constantly evaluate the success of their plans and take corrective action when necessary. There are many different types of plans and planning. Strategic planning involves analyzing competitive opportunities and threats, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, and then determining how to position the organization to compete effectively in their environment. Strategic planning has a long time frame, often three years or more. Strategic planning generally includes the entire organization and includes formulation of objectives. Strategic planning is often based on the organizations mission, which is its fundamental reason for existence. An organizations top management most often conducts strategic planning.

Tactical planning is intermediate-range (one to three years) planning that is designed to develop relatively concrete and specific means to implement the strategic plan. Middle-level managers often engage in tactical planning. Operational planning generally assumes the existence of organizationwide or subunit goals and objectives and specifies ways to achieve them. Operational planning is short-range (less than a year) planning that is designed to develop specific action steps that support the strategic and tactical plans. Organizing Organizing is the function of management that involves developing an organizational structure and allocating human resources to ensure the accomplishment of objectives. The structure of the organization is the framework within which effort is coordinated. The structure is usually represented by an organization chart, which provides a graphic representation of the chain of command within an organization. Decisions made about the structure of an organization are generally referred to as organizational design decisions. Organizing also involves the design of individual jobs within the organization. Decisions must be made about the duties and responsibilities of individual jobs, as well as the manner in which the duties should be carried out. Decisions made about the nature of jobs within the organization are generally called job design decisions. Organizing at the level of the organization involves deciding how best to departmentalize, or cluster, jobs into departments to coordinate effort effectively. There are many different ways to departmentalize, including organizing by function, product, geography, or customer. Many larger organizations use multiple methods of departmentalization. Organizing at the level of a particular job involves how best to design individual jobs to most effectively use human resources. Traditionally, job design was based on principles of division of labor and specialization, which assumed that the more narrow the job content, the more proficient the individual performing the job could become. However, experience has shown that it is possible for jobs to become too narrow and specialized. For example, how would you like to screw lids on jars one day after another, as you might have done many decades ago if you worked in company that made and sold jellies and jams? When this happens, negative outcomes result, including decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment, increased absenteeism, and turnover.

Recently, many organizations have attempted to strike a balance between the need for worker specialization and the need for workers to have jobs that entail variety and autonomy. Many jobs are now designed based on such principles as empowerment, job enrichment and teamwork. For example, HUI Manufacturing, a custom sheet metal fabricator, has done away with traditional departments to focus on listening and responding to customer needs. From company-wide meetings to team huddles, HUI employees know and understand their customers and how HUI might service them best.[7] Leading Leading involves the social and informal sources of influence that you use to inspire action taken by others. If managers are effective leaders, their subordinates will be enthusiastic about exerting effort to attain organizational objectives. The behavioral sciences have made many contributions to understanding this function of management. Personality research and studies of job attitudes provide important information as to how managers can most effectively lead subordinates. For example, this research tells us that to become effective at leading, managers must first understand their subordinates personalities, values, attitudes, and emotions. Studies of motivation and motivation theory provide important information about the ways in which workers can be energized to put forth productive effort. Studies of communication provide direction as to how managers can effectively and persuasively communicate. Studies of leadership and leadership style provide information regarding questions, such as, What makes a manager a good leader? and In what situations are certain leadership styles most appropriate and effect.

Controlling Controlling involves ensuring that performance does not deviate from standards. Controlling consists of three steps, which include (1) establishing performance standards, (2) comparing actual performance against standards, and (3) taking corrective action when necessary. Performance standards are often stated in monetary terms such as revenue, costs, or profits but may also be stated in other terms, such as units produced, number of defective products, or levels of quality or customer service.

The measurement of performance can be done in several ways, depending on the performance standards, including financial statements, sales reports, production results, customer satisfaction, and formal performance appraisals. Managers at all levels engage in the managerial function of controlling to some degree. The managerial function of controlling should not be confused with control in the behavioral or manipulative sense. This function does not imply that managers should attempt to control or to manipulate the personalities, values, attitudes, or emotions of their subordinates. Instead, this function of management concerns the managers role in taking necessary actions to ensure that the work-related activities of subordinates are consistent with and contributing toward the accomplishment of organizational and departmental objectives. Effective controlling requires the existence of plans, since planning provides the necessary performance standards or objectives. Controlling also requires a clear understanding of where responsibility for deviations from standards lies. Two traditional control techniques are budget and performance audits. An audit involves an examination and verification of records and supporting documents. A budget audit provides information about where the organization is with respect to what was planned or budgeted for, whereas a performance audit might try to determine whether the figures reported are a reflection of actual performance. Although controlling is often thought of in terms of financial criteria, managers must also control production and operations processes, procedures for delivery of services, compliance with company policies, and many other activities within the organization.

The management functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are widely considered to be the best means of describing the managers job, as well as the best way to classify accumulated knowledge about the study of management. Although there have been tremendous changes in the environment faced by managers and the tools used by managers to perform their roles, managers still perform these essential functions The planning process:Every planning process goes through a series of stages. In essence the aim is to complete each of the following steps:

Analyse the external environment Analyse the internal environment

Define the business and mission Set corporate objectives Formulate strategies Make tactical plans Build in procedures for monitoring and controlling

An overview of the traditional business planning process is illustrated below:

Staffing in Management
Staffing is that part of the process of management which is concerned with acquiring, developing, employing, appraising, renumerating and retaining people so that right type of people are available at right positions and at right time in the organisation. In the simplest terms, staffing is putting people to jobs.

Staffing Definition
"Staffing is the function by which managers build an organisation through the recruitment, selection, and development of individuals as capable employees" McFarland

Importance of Staffing

Filling the Organisational positions Developing competencies to challanges Retaining personnel - professionalism Optimum utilisation of the human resources

Staffing Process
Analyzing Manpower requirements: It is making an analysis of work and estimating the manpower requirement to accomplish the same. Recruitment: It is identifying and attracting capable applicants for employment. it ends with the submission of applications by the aspirants. Selection: It is choosing the fit candidates from the applications received in the process of recruitment. Placement: This may be on probation and on successfully completion of the same the candidate may be offered permanent employment. Training and Development: It is concerned with imparting and developing specific skills for a particular purpose. Performance Appraisal: Systematic evaluation of personnel by superiors or others familiar with their performance so as to rank employees to ascertain their eligibilty for promotions.

Unit 8th
Family business
.

family business is a business in which one or more members of one or more families have a significant ownership interest and significant commitments toward the business overall wellbeing. In some countries, many of the largest publicly listed firms are family-owned. A firm is said to be family-owned if a person is the controlling shareholder; that is, a person (rather than a state, corporation, management trust, or mutual fund) can garner enough shares to assure at least 20% of the voting rights and the highest percentage of voting rights in comparison to other shareholders.[1]

[edit]Definition In a family business, one or more members within the management team are drawn from the owning family. Family businesses can have owners who are not family members. Family businesses may also be managed by individuals who are not members of the family. However, family members are often involved in the operations of their family business in some capacity and, in smaller companies, usually one or more family members are the senior officers and managers. Many businesses that are now public companies were family businesses. Family participation as managers and/or owners of a business can strengthen the company because family members are often loyal and dedicated to the family enterprise. However, family participation as managers and/or owners of a business can present unique problems because the dynamics of the family system and the dynamics of the business systems are often not in balance. [edit]Problems

The interests of a family member may not be aligned with the interest of the business. For example, if a family member wants to be president but is not as competent as a non-family member, the personal interest of the family member and the well being of the business may be in conflict. Or, the interests of the entire family may not be balanced with the interests of their business. For example, if a family needs its business to distribute funds for living expenses and retirement but the business requires those to stay competitive, the interests of the entire family and the business are not aligned. Finally, the interest of one family member may not be aligned with another family member. For example, a family member who is an owner may want to sell the business to maximize their return, but a family member who is an owner and also a manager may want to keep the company because it represents their career and they want their children to have the opportunity to work in the business. [edit]Structuring When the family business is basically owned and operated by one person, that person usually does the necessary balancing automatically. For example, the founder may decide the business needs to build a new plant and take less money out of the business for a period so the business can accumulate cash needed to expand. In making this decision, the founder is balancing his personal interests (taking cash out) with the needs of the business (expansion). Most first generation owner/managers make the majority of the decisions. When the second generation (sibling partnership) is in control, the decision making becomes more consultative. When the larger third generation (cousin consortium) is in control, the decision making becomes more consensual, the family members often take a vote. In this manner, the decision making throughout generations becomes more rational (Alderson, K., 2011). [edit]Scenarios But balancing competing interests often become difficult in three situations. The first situation is when the founder wants to change the nature of their involvement in the business. Usually the founder begins this transition by involving others to manage the business. Involving someone else to manage the company requires the founder to be more conscious and formal in balancing personal interests with the interests of the business because they can no longer do this alignment automaticallysomeone else is involved.

The second situation is when more than one person owns the business and no single person has the power and support of the other owners to determine collective interests. For example, if a founder intends to transfer ownership in the family business to their four children, two of whom work in the business, how do they balance these unequal differences? The four siblings need a system to do this themselves when the founder is no longer involved. The third situation is when there are multiple owners and some or all of the owners are not in management. Given the situation above, there is a higher chance that the interests of the two sons not employed in the family business may be different than the interests of the two sons who are employed in the business. Their potential for differences does not mean that the interests cannot be aligned, it just means that there is a greater need for the four owners to have a system in place that differences can be identified and balanced. These three scenarios can be mitigated by following the guidelines of TMP, or "The Maria Principle" [edit]Succession There appear to be two main factors affecting the development of family business and succession process: the size of the family, in relative terms the volume of business, and suitability to lead the organization, in terms of managerial ability, technical and commitment (Arieu, 2010). Arieu proposed a model in order to classify family firms into four scenarios: political, openness, foreign management and natural succession (See Succession planning). One of the largest trends in family business is the amount of women who are taking over their family firms. In the past, succession was reserved for the first born son, then it moved on to any male heir. Now, women account for approx. 11-12% of all family firm leaders, an increase of close to 40% since 1996. Daughters are now considered to be one of the most underutilized resources in family businesses. To encourage the next generation of women to be valuable members of the business, potential female successors should be nurtured by assimilation into the family firm, mentoring, sharing of important tacit knowledge and having positive role models within the business (Alderson, 2011). [edit]Success Successfully balancing the differing interests of family members and/or the interests of one or more family members on the one hand and the interests of the business on the other hand require the people involved to have the competencies, character and commitment to do this work.

Family-owned companies present special challenges to those who run them. The reason? They can be quirky, developing unique cultures and procedures as they grow and mature. That's fine, as long as they continue to be managed by people who are steeped in the traditions, or at least able to adapt to them.[2] Often family members can benefit from involving more than one professional advisor, each having the particular skill set needed by the family. Some of the skill sets that might be needed include communication, conflict resolution, family systems, finance, legal, accounting, insurance, investing, leadership development, management development, and strategic planning.[3] Ownership in a family business will also show maturity of the business. If all the shares rest with one individual, a family business is still in its infant stage, even if the revenue is strong.[4] [edit]Family

Businesses Examples

Samsung Trump Organization Wal-Mart Ford Dillard's

Unit 10
Theory z
Theory Z is a name applied to three distinctly different psychological theories. One was developed by Abraham H. Maslow in his paper Theory Z and the other is Dr. William Ouchi's so-called "Japanese Management" style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s. The third was developed by W. J. Reddin in Managerial Effectiveness (19 Situation guides) man: Reason motivates him. Interdependence is man's primary mode of discourse. Interaction is man's social unit of importance.

"Objective" best and succinctly describes man's concept of man.

McGregor's Theory Y in contrast to Theory X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, and Theory Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs. For Ouchi, Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job. According toOuchi, Theory Z management tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction. Ironically, "Japanese Management" and Theory Z itself were based on Dr. W. Edwards Deming's famous "14 points". Deming, an American scholar whose management and motivation theories were rejected in the United States, went on to help lay the foundation of Japanese organizational development during their expansion in the world economy in the 1980s. Deming's theories are summarized in his two books, Out of the Crisis and The New Economics, in which he spells out his "System of Profound Knowledge". He was a frequent advisor to Japanese business and government leaders, and eventually became a revered counselor. Deming was awarded the Second Order of the Sacred Treasures by the former Emperor Hirohito, and American businesses ultimately tried unsuccessfully to use his "Japanese" approach to improve their competitive position.

Pre Theory Z
Abraham Maslow, a psychologist and the first theorist to develop a theory of motivation based upon human needs produced a theory that had three assumptions. First, human needs are never completely satisfied. Second, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction. Third, these needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970). 1. Physiological need 2. Safety needs 3. Belongingness and love needs 4. The esteem needs self-confidence 5. The need for self-actualization the need to reach your full potential Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory helps the manager to understand what motivates an employee. By understanding what needs must be met in order for an employee to achieve the highest-level of motivation, managers are then able to get the most out of production. Theory X, Y and Z all play a role in how a company should manage successfully. Theory X and Theory Y were both written by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who is believed to be a key element in the area of management theory. In McGregors book The Human Side of Enterprise

(1960), McGregor describes Theory X and Theory Y based upon Maslows hierarchy of needs, where McGregor grouped the hierarchy into a lower order (Theory X) needs and a higher order (Theory Y) needs. McGregor suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees, but better results could be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than Theory X (Heil, Bennis, & Stephens, 2000).

Implications of these types of theories for leaders in modern organizations

As theorist through the past many years worked towards thE Human Relations Movement, many other fields of expertise joined in to create a stronger force of knowledge and growth. From Psychology that helps to explain changes in human behavior, to Sociology, where we actually study people in their relationships with other human beings. Social Psychology was created when the two concepts were blended so that we can focus on actual influences of people on one another to Anthropology and Political Science. All of these pieces are a part of the growth and success of human development in not only the success of work force development but in human relationships in general. With Theories X, Y, and Z implications for the modern organization include new challenges and opportunities. As we learn from these theories and work to implement the ideas in them we must be aware of the modern issues of working with people from different cultures and overseeing movements of jobs to countries with low-cost labor. Also, we must embrace diversity as the U.S. demographics change and understand that our new managers must recognize and respond to the different culture changes that will surely ensue with their growing diverse working population. These theories have proven with many fortune 500 companies and others that when applied, do improve quality and productivity and also help to strengthen company labor issues. In addition to the changing work demographic, new problems and issues have risen since the X, Y and Z theories were formed. Some issues include fewer skilled laborers, early retirements, and older workers. Other opportunities that have been implied while companies use Theory Y and Z include, an improvement of people skills, empowering their employees, stimulating change, helping employees balance work with life conflicts, and improving ethical behavior. Modern implications for companies using these theories have shown improvements in turnover rates, productivity, effectiveness, efficiency, organizational behavior, and job satisfaction. [edit]Conclusion

Many assumptions are made in the work place, based on observations of the workers, and their relationship with management. The types of tasks being performed, as well as the types of employees which make up a particular organization can set the stage for the types of leadership roles which will be assumed by managers (McGregor, 1960). Douglas McGregors Theory X and Y, and William Ouchis Theory Z have all proven to be useful in the management field. Many companies have successfully integrated similar economic and human principles in a management style from Theorys Y and Z. Theorys Y and Z have both shown to be quite successful framework for American companies. Theory X is not obsolete. Actually, Theory X is still very prominent in the business world. Most managers however do not see themselves as using this type of management style until given the opportunity to see how their employees actually feel about the management style that is being used. Then will an effort be made to look further into a different, possibly more successful style of managing.

Characteristics of the Theory Z

* * * * * * *

Long-term employment and job security Collective responsibility Implicit, informal control with explicit, formalized measures Collective decision-making Slow evaluation and promotion Moderately specialized careers Concern for a total person, including their family

Theory Z Theory Z is a form of management in which workers are involved in the work process on the factory floor. Schedules, division of labor, work assignments, and other aspects of the labor process are given over to workers to do as they see best. Investment policies, wages, fringe benefits and kind of product are not given over to workers to decide; only how best to do that decided by top management. Theory Z was developed by William Ouchi, in his book 1981 'Theory Z: How American management can Meet the Japanese Challenge'. William Ouchi is professor of management at UCLA, Los Angeles. Theory Z is often referred to as the 'Japanese' management style. It's interesting that Ouchi chose to name his model 'Theory Z', which tends to give the impression that it's a Mcgregor idea. Theory Z essentially advocates a combination of all that's best about Mcgregor's XY theory

and modern Japanese management, which places a large amount of freedom and trust with workers, and assumes that workers have a strong loyalty and interest in team-working and the organisation. Theory Z also places more reliance on the attitude and responsibilities of the workers, whereas Mcgregor's XY theory is mainly focused on management and motivation from the manager's and organisation's perspective.

A comparison of U.S. and Japanese management styles and unit effectiveness

This paper reports of a comparative study of American and Japanese management stylesin a conceptual framework consisting of sixmanagerial dimensions: supervisory style, decision making, communication pattern, control mechanism, interdepartmental relationships, and paternalistic orientation. * The findings indicate that U.S. and Japanese management styles differ significantly both in overall management styles and in each of the six dimensions. They also show that managerial perception of departmental (unit) effectiveness in each country differs significantly. Additionally, the paper discusses the implications of research findings for management theory and practice. Key Results * This study of American and Japanese management styles has identified the salient features of both systems. To understand and learn from different management systems, its model offers an effective tool for comparative studies; but for further research advances the present model has to be expanded or alternative models have to be developed. Comparative management has received a lot of attention over the last two decades as global business has increased tremendously. Critics have claimed that different management styles account for the level of international competitiveness of firms (Cosier and Dalton 1986, Harber and Samson 1989, Peters and Waterman 1982). Because of the success of Japanese companies in world markets, researchers have paid a special attention to the Japanese management style (Hatvany and Pucik 1981, Koya and McMillan 1981). As a result, many scholars compared the Japanese management system with the American and European systems (Buckley and Mirza 1985, Ouchi 1981, Pascale and Athos 1981, Lincoln 1989). In his popular book, Theory Z, Ouchi (1981) contrasts the principal characteristics of American and Japanese management. He identifies seven major characteristics of Japanese organizations: lifetime employment, slow evaluation and promotion of employees, nonspecialized career paths, implicit control mechanism, collective decision making, collective responsibility, and wholistic concern (building a complete relationship between employer and employee, including concerning with employee's non-work, personal and family,

matters). He asserts that these characteristics are not true of a typical American organization. In his later book, The M-Form Society, Ouchi (1984) elaborates on harmonious relationships in Japan among financial institutions, industrial organizations, labor, and government to develop industrial strategy. He argues that integrated planning at the societal level is responsible for Japanese success. Although Ouchi's Theory Z has become very popular, his research methodology has been criticized because of his small sample size and limited interviews and observations. On the other hand, Pascale and Athos (1981) used the "seven S" model developed by the McKinsey Co., including the following seven components: superordinate goals, strategy, structure, systems (administrative), staff (the concern for having the right kind of people), skills (training and developing the people), and style (the manner in which management handles subordinates, peers, and superiors). They argue that Japanese companies are more effective because of their integration of these seven components and their concern for staff, skills, and, most importantly, style. They call these factors "soft S's" which have to do with human element. Pascale and Athos stress the importance of managing people as key resources and the importance of superordinate goals, sense of spirit, or company philosophy. They draw conclusions from a limited number of case studies and their approach is less theoretical and more didactic (Schein 1981). From a human resources perspective, Hatvany and Pucik (1981) offer a model of Japanese management in which they define three interrelated strategies: (a) to develop an internal labor market securing a labor force of desired quality and to induce the employees to remain in the firm; (b) to articulate company philosophy based on concern for employee needs and cooperation and teamwork; and (c) to engage in intensive socialization. The authors assert that these general strategies are translated into specific management techniques including job rotation and slow promotion; evaluation of attributes and behavior; emphasis on work groups; open communication; consultative decision making; and concern for employee. Although they do not contrast American and Japanese managerial characteristics explicitly, they organizational theories developed in the West in their analysis of Japanese attributes. The authors also argue that the Japanese techniques can be adapted by firms in other countries. From an organizational learning perspective (the process of handling information), Sullivan and Nonaka (1986) compare American and Japanese senior managers. They claim that Japanese managers handle more information and learn more about their organizations. "This greater commitment to an organizational learning perspective may be an important source of differences in the strategy-formulating behavior of Japanese and American executives" (1986, p. 128).

Both Hatvany and Pucik and Sullivan and Nonaka have taken a specific perspective to justify their models, which is a part of the management process, but does not embrace the total functioning of a managerial system. The explanations given above imply that although the comparative management studies on the U.S. and Japan are abundant, a great deal of confusion or disagreement still exits on the nature and methodology of these studies. Some scholars even have questioned the superiority of Japanese system over American management (Sullivan 1983, Sethi et al. 1984). One major confusion stems from the lack of clearly defined domains or properties of a management system to use as a basis of comparison. A close review of various comparative studies suggests that in order to have a sound comparison of management patterns of different countries, fundamental dimensions of management systems should be identified first and contrasted later. To compare management systems across nations, a conceptual framework is needed. Model for Management Style and Unit Effectiveness The conceptual model of management style and unit effectiveness shown in Figure 1 consists of six principal dimensions by which a comparison of management systems can be made. These six dimensions are as follows: (1) supervision style: managerial behavior related to the subordinate's expectations that his effort would result in desired rewards, (2) decisionmaking: the process in which decisions are made within the unit and the extent to which employees contribute to or participate to managerial decisions, (3) communication: information flow within organizations and departments, and barriers to information flow, (4) control: mechanism used to check operations conducted and results achieved by the employees meeting the standards, (5) interdepartmental relationships: interactions and deals with other units, and (6) paternalistic orientation: supervisory concern for employees' nonwork related matters. We elaborate on each of these dimensions and relate them to organization and management theory.