Buy ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
Organizational Management Approach Analysis
There are varieties of approaches to management. These approaches guide leaders as they conduct managerial activities at work. This report will analyze the systems approach of leadership that is often applied by modern organizations. The paper will also assess how the systems approach to leadership is different and similar to classical management theories such as bureaucracy approach and scientific approach that dominated the 20th century.
Systems Approach to Management
The fundamental premise of the systems approach to management is that an organization is a system comprised of various subsystems that depend on each other (Jackson, 2007). This approach looks at an organization as a whole, and its goal is to explain and describe how an organization works. Also, the systems approach encourages managers to pursue multiple ways to accomplish various organizational goals (Jackson, 2007). In an organization, according to the systems approach, there are inputs which comprise of information as well as resources that are needed to supply the organizational system (Jackson, 2007). Additionally, there are ‘throughputs’ or processes which entails all the activities within the organizational system that contribute towards the achievement of organizational goals. Finally, the systems approach notes that organizations have outputs which include the products and services that are delivered by the organization as a whole (Jackson, 2007).
Another basic idea of the systems theory is open systems; organizations are open to their environment. In this case, an organization contains permeable boundaries which allow vital resources and information to flow both in and out. Also, the idea of open systems means that organizations often have an exchange with the environment which is essential in maintaining a significant competitive edge (Jackson, 2007). In the same way, the concept of open systems holds the belief that the environments in which organizations operate are unpredictable (Jackson, 2007). Due to the unpredictability of open systems, the systems approach supports the idea that there should be leaders that serve as ‘boundary spanners’ who often conduct environmental scanning by conducting activities such as assessing customer satisfaction, employee motivation, and so on (Jackson, 2007).
Holism is the concept of systems theory which holds that a system has to be seen as a whole, not a cluster of pieces (Jackson, 2007). For example, an organization should be viewed as a system, not as a collection of departments such as marketing, finance, production, sales, Research and Development (R&D) and so on. In other words, a system is greater than the combination of its parts. Nonetheless, the parts in the system depend on each other, and a mutual feedback processes foster their interaction. For example, the marketing department depends on the finance department for feedbacks as regards to the appropriate discounts to be offered on a product, while the finance may provide recommendations to the productions department about the appropriate size of the product to offset the losses that may be incurred incase of high discounts (Jackson, 2007).
Systems also have goals that are negotiated and contingent. In this case, defining goals that guide organizations depends on what the firm is facing at that moment and where it is going. This means managers need to be adaptable when defining organizational goals, and not to stick to particular objectives in the course of operations (Jackson, 2007). For example, managers a few years ago defined organizational goals aimed at taking advantage of globalization and social media, but now organizational leaders are coming up with objectives that can help them navigate markets typified by protectionist leaders as well as disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning (Lindgren, 2012).
Moreover, the systems approach to management believes that there is no one best way to organize activities within a system. Also termed as equifinality, the systems approach notes that all ways of organizing are not effective equally (Jackson, 2007). However, there are some ways of organizing that are better than others, but it is difficult to know them ahead of time as a manager pursues organizational goals (Jackson, 2007).
Feedback is also important in the systems approach; there is negative and positive feedback. Regarding negative feedback, this entails information that has an objective of correcting processes within a system to establish an effective course in the pursuit of organizational goals (Jackson, 2007). Then positive feedback is all about changes implemented in the system in desired ways to improve the current processes within a system (Jackson, 2007).
Bureaucracy Approach
The systems approach to management differs from the bureaucracy approach in many ways. The bureaucracy approach to management is one of the classical management theories and is the brainchild of Max Weber (Schiller, 2008). While systems theory views organizations as a system comprised of interdependent parts, the bureaucracy approach notes that organizations should be like the legal system or the government. Weber, the founding of bureaucracy approach to leadership, was interested in a ‘legal-rational’ approach to management and was not interested in following the traditional, family-based leadership whereby there was a charismatic type of leader guiding all the followers (Schiller, 2008).
Additionally, the systems approach demands all leaders within an organization to manage the firm as a whole system, but bureaucracy approach wants a leader to be tied to the official position he/she occupies (Schiller, 2008). For example, a finance manager needs to be attached to the finance docket instead of worrying about other functions such as marketing, sales, and so on, according to the bureaucracy approach. A similarity between systems approach and bureaucracy approach emerges in the objectives; both approaches want clear objectives as well as rules that should govern performance (Schiller, 2008; Jackson, 2007).
Scientific Management
Another classical management theory is scientific management pioneered by Frederick Taylor. There are similarities and differences between scientific management and the systems approach to management. The fundamental premise of scientific management is that managers need to apply science when managing their organizations (Taylor, 2016). Taylor came up with this theory after finding self-styled and customized work as a contributor to efficiency and productivity issues (Taylor, 2016). For this reason, he embarked on a series of motion and time studies to assess the amount of time required to complete a particular task in order to come up with ‘one right way’ to do every single managerial task. Just like systems approach, scientific management considers time as a whole system made up of steps and motions (Taylor, 2016).
Therefore, Taylor would go to an organization, identify all the inefficiencies and figure out the right way to do every single job. His results were impressive; for example, when he went into a bricklaying workstation, he found out workers bending too much to pick up bricks and involved too many motions. So he came up with a system where bricks were laid at hand level to avoid too much bending and motions and made other significant changes to time and motion movements, resulting productivity by 300% (Taylor, 2016).
Additionally, the systems approach supports the idea that an organization is a system. In the same way, scientific management considers labor as a system made of simple, small, and separate steps with each step was performed by a different person (Taylor, 2016). For example, the marketing department should only be focused on marketing functions, and the aspect of sales should be handled by the sales department separately in order to reduce efforts exerted on organizational tasks.
The difference between systems approach to management and scientific management concerns the hierarchy; while systems theory considers all employees as a system, scientific management supports hierarchy whereby there is a clear chain of command that separated managers from employees (Taylor, 2016). The role of managers, according to scientific management, is to design work processes and enforce how work was performed while employees are expected to follow directions (Taylor, 2016).
Furthermore, scientific management insists on the need for selecting and training high-performing workers and ensure they work in responsibilities that match their expertise. This is because scientific management holds the idea that the most productive employees should be paid more and those employees that are not able to meet higher standards proposed by the management should be fired (Taylor, 2016).
Are you facing the challenge of a looming assignment deadline? We have got a straightforward solution just for you! Just fill out our order form, detailing your specific instructions. Be confident knowing that our team is composed of expert writers who excel in their respective fields of study. They make use of extensive databases, high-quality online libraries, and the latest periodicals and journals to ensure the delivery of papers that are of the highest quality, customized to meet your needs. Rest assured that thorough research is conducted for every essay, and our unparalleled expertise spans a variety of topics. Additionally, our diverse team of writers covers a wide array of disciplines. You can trust that all our papers are crafted from the ground up, ensuring originality and uniqueness.
Write my essay: We write papers from scratch and within your preferred deadline.
