My Three Dads......... of Management

Having never heard of Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol and Max Weber before this week, I have unknowingly embraced many of their groundbreaking ideas on management and organization. With all due respect to my father, these three men have also influenced me for years as a teacher, coach, manager, and fellow employee to others. 

Perhaps they sit on the shoulders of every employee striving to make their department, their team or their company the best and in turn, improving their own lot in life as an individual. Or more realistically, employees and managers are charged with attaining a goal set by others and “making it work,” despite the lack of resources. But I assert that to some degree, every organization implements forms of either or both types of management borne from these three experts.

In earlier positions as a supervisor and manager seemed to connect with Frederick Taylor’s background, as he struck me as more of a pull-up-from-the-bootstraps fellow. Where Fayol was born into intellectually and socially privileged upbringing and Taylor came from a similar, if slightly lower social strata, Taylor seemed to grind out his supplemental education (correspondence courses through Harvard and Stevens Institute of Technology – an early adopter of distance learning!), giving him a much different perspective regarding management (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).   But the physical, strip-down-and-build-back analysis and implementation  from a worker's perspective is how I saw Taylor's research and reporting.  Similarly, what I saw in my early work experience was worth attempting to attain greater productivity.  Some of the processes that I attempted to improve were related to media relations and event planning – two scopes of work that seemed so different but had components that could be improved for greater productivity by account executives.  Creating processes to instill consistency with client and media contact, utilizing templates when appropriate and empowering staffers are actions steeped in Taylorism.

While he was certainly a more technically focused manager, Taylor did grow to acknowledge the softer skills of an administrator.  As I progressed through agency supervisorial levels, however, I have begun to adopt more of Fayol’s ideals.

In terms of my recent experience, Fayol’s Principles of Management do speak to me most clearly.  Providing overall strategy and planning from an upper management/administrative manager’s perspective is Fayolism. There is much more planning, forecasting, staffing and personnel issues that need to be addressed on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. I do agree with many of his philosophies and principles, especially where limited technical prowess is something that is eschewed by executive managers, though in this day and age, I still feel that sharpening the tool kit and even acquiring more technical tools are a necessity.  (Thus, this MCM program, chockful of Voicethread, Fuzemeeting and even this blog entry.)

Max Weber came to mind when Wren mentions potable water regarding bureaucratic management: We all have some form of it in our culture, and its necessary for our communities to function (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  For those who disparage bureaucracy (however efficient and free from stigma) for the sake of personal freedom, I take issue. 

I was involved in an effort to fluoridate the state of California’s water system, gathering support for this public health measure on a grassroots level while also engaging with local, state and national media on behalf of this private and public/multi-agency effort.  Opponents of this effort initially countered with fear mongering and unsubstantiated claims that eventually proved ineffective.  In addition, the main faction was loosely organized, with little Unity of Command or Scalar Chain (which may have been advantageous to them in some situations). But they changed their messaging, turning to a message of "your freedom of choice" and "don't let the bureaucrats tell you what you should have in your water."  This did seem to provide them a bit of momentum against our campaign.

In most communities in this country, both rural, urban and suburban, we rely on certain organizational systems maintain necessary resources for us, such as electricity, potable water at healthful levels, and and even trash pickup.  While other services and resources available from our utilities and government agencies may fall short of our expectations, I would hazard to guess that most residents and consumers in this country agree that some form of bureaucracy is needed.  Based on research of consumers and consultations with other communication experts,   it was agreed that we address the  residents (both privileged and the underserved) and elected officials (in areas that required their additional approval) in  terms of their needs as recommended by public health experts.  This messaging, along with other tactics, proved successful and assisted us in educating the public about a much-needed resource available to millions of Californians, doubling the number of residents accessing optimally fluoridated water.

For Weber, his ideal of bureaucracy was in part to address deep-seated injustices focused at the working class by military and government leaders along with the aristocracy.  But his aim was to provide a model, a system malleable enough not only government bureaus and agencies, but for the military, universities and of course, businesses  (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). And the model may not even look the same to the citizens of the same community, or run as seamless as Fedex for us, but changes can always be implemented.

Unfortunately, it seems that all three of these scientists were not given deserved recognition for their work until after their deaths (similar to other management theorists, such as American Mary Parker Follett).  But their influences have been felt and implemented into much of our global working fabric. There will undoubtedly be more advancements in management, particularly as our lives adapt to new technologies, but the spirit and intent of these visionary theorists will hopefully continue to sit on our shoulders, whispering in our ears to guide us. Or rather, these three fathers are allowing us to stand on their shoulders, helping us look toward the future with the benefit of their wisdom.

Managing on a More Personal Level

This week’s reading on management theory and principles has engaged my thinking on an entirely different level in regards to actual management practices.  One of the most intriguing subjects that I have reviewed is the introduction of human relations and social system-based interactions into the managerial processes.


Frederick Taylor, acknowledged by many as the “father or scientific management,”  brought the ideas of task measurement, time measurement, and other mechanical measurement into organizations (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  His theories and concepts had little to do with the “human side” of workforce efficiency and employee motivation.  This approach to scientific management was in stark contrast to the theories brought forward by Henri Fayol and Chester Barnard.  Fayol and Barnard were early pioneers in the line of thinking that human relations should have a major role in management practices (Wren & Bedeian, 2009; Williamson, 1995).


Fayol, known as the “father of modern management,” presented 14 principles that he believed to be central attributes of a successful manager (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  His principles include many of the ideas that would one would think to be logically a part of solid managerial practices.  However, his list of principles introduced  elements of management that had not previously been considered vital by researchers and practitioners.  These elements dealt with area of human relations as they relate to interpersonal interaction within the workplace, as well as positive motivational techniques.  The principles that began a greater focus on the human element included unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interests to the general interest, order, equity, stability of tenure, initiative and esprit de corps (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).


Chester Barnard furthered Fayol’s recognition of the human relations elements in managerial thought and practice.  Barnard introduced the concepts relating to the human interaction and response within a social system.  Barnard built his concepts on the idea that organizations are “organic and evolving social systems (Williamson, 1995).  He used the tenants of psychology, sociology and the study of group interactions in assessing the value of managing workers on a deeper, interpersonal level.  Of all of Barnard’s ideas on sound human resources management, the one that stands out to me personally is the concept of bringing together the personal motivations and goals of the individual to that of the company (Williamson, 1995).  He believed that managers should work with subordinates in a fashion as to get them to feel like the success of a company was their very own goal, and not just that of said company.  As Barnard puts it, employees need to become “good stewards of the company.”  Williamson, 1995).  He proposed that one of the most important aspects of meeting this “buy-in,” was communication.  Communication from all levels of a company had to flow as freely as possible across all boundaries, and be inclusive so that employees would feel important, worthwhile and appreciated.  When this school of thought was adopted by managers and employees alike, the social systems within a company would work to both side’s benefit.


We see Fayol’s and Barnards concepts being practiced today and at even higher levels of complexity.  Dealing with the human side of an employee, as opposed to looking at them as a mechanical cog in the wheel of the company machine, has continued to grow in practice and scope.  With many of the innovative programs we see in the workplace today that truly focus on a worker as a person, we can say with a great deal of certainty that Fayol and Barnard’s influence on managerial practices is alive and well.

"Scientific" Sales Management: Practical Applications

Assignment type (3) – Think through your own experience and find a story that relates to the week’s readings.  This blog entry will be a commentary piece on the Wren reading:  Chapter 7, The Advent of Scientific Management, pp. 121-155.

While reading about the history and principles of ‘Scientific Management,” and the father of this “mental revolution,” Frederick Taylor, I couldn’t help but think about the efficiencies that could be gained from applying his principles to the sales organizations I have been a part of.  Namely, there are two realities that give me a unique perspective in regards to the application of scientific management: (1) The management of a sales force (sales) presents a unique set of challenges for management; and (2) I have been a witness to the operations of three companies in the span of 5 years, which has given me a perspective on the failings and successes of three very different approaches to management.

In my estimation, the management of a field sales force presents one of the biggest conundrums in today’s business world.  A field sales team is a group of individuals who are tasked with maintaining existing business and pursuing new business for the firm.  As a work force that primarily operates outside of the confines of a firm’s headquarters, a sales force must be managed remotely.  This reality presents a host of challenges to a management team. 

I will examine two management strategies utilized by the companies I have been with while considering what Fred Taylor would have thought about these strategies.

Human Resources

Fred Taylor discovered that an employee’s ability to perform efficiently within an organization depended a great deal on the agreement between his talents (background, mental disposition, skill set, etc.) and the position the company placed him in.  Taylor’s “first class worker” was one who was assigned to a position that he could thrive in while “non-first-class workers would be those who were physically or mentally unsuited for the work to which they had been assigned.” (Wren, 129)  Stryker Corporation – a medical device company that I was employed by in 2010 – has applied a scientific management approach to their human resources department.  In working closely with the Gallup Organization to recruit and assign people to the various sales representative roles, Stryker refused to solely depend on face-to-face interviewing as the method of hiring new sales representatives.  The make-or-break aspect of the Stryker interview process involves a 45-60 minute interview with a Gallup employee, after which Gallup decides if a candidate is the right fit for a position at Stryker.  In typical scientific management fashion, Stryker and Gallup have partnered to interview and analyze the mental makeup and behavior of Stryker’s top sales men and women from previous years.  After calculating the data and coming up with a profile of this ideal “top salesman,” Gallup performs an interview –entirely impersonal in nature to  eliminate the influence of confounding variables such as interpersonal connection with the interviewer – which consists of a list of questions designed to rate the candidate’s profile against that of its top sales reps.   After my experience with Stryker I take their hiring approach to be one of the biggest reasons for the company wide success in sales.  Selling medical devices successfully in the operating room environment requires a competitive, smart, and intense individual and Stryker finds these people year after year who are willing to put everything on the line for the sake of the company. 

McKesson and the Quest for Improved Incentives

At every organization I have been with, a sales representative is incentivized to sell more of a company’s solution – service and/or product – to a designated client base.  One would think that a simple pay scale – higher sales means a higher salary (much like the Taylor’s differential piecework system) – would be a worthy model for any sales force.  To the contrary, it is obvious in my experience that constructing an effective incentive plan for a sales force is a complex task.  I compare this task with the incentive theories of Taylor, which includes his three part plan.  Taylor realized that there are several factors to consider when incentivizing a worker to work in such a way that aligns with the goals of the company.  Taylor’s multi layered approach would have served my current company (McKesson) well.  I believe there are several flaws in McKesson’s pay scale and this is one of the reasons that our sales organization has suffered through a poor year of performance.  As the year has progressed my company has changed the incentive plan on several occasions to motivate the sales force to pursue a common goal.  For example, I believe one of the inherent problems in the McKesson incentive plan is the base and incentive salary.  Sales reps are paid a high base salary and given inefficient compensation for a sale.  This system makes for a non-aggressive sales force.  Many of the reps can live comfortably without making their quotas while those reps that sell key company solutions are not paid enough for their efforts.  Perhaps a Fred Taylor study on our pay scale and the “human element” of incentive driven performance would allow McKesson to craft a more scientific incentive plan that aligns the motivations of a sales force with the goals of the business unit.

To be continued…

Bureaucracy: The Good and the Bad

"I am terribly sorry that you have already been transferred twice and I realize that they just transferred you to me, but I am going to have to transfer you back because they are the division that is going to have to help you." 

Conversations like this can be more than a little frustrating and it is easy to imagine why many would be led to angrily chalk it up to "bureaucratic red tape." However, in light of the advantages and alternatives described by Max Weber, perhaps we are too hasty in slinging this insult at bureaucratic establishments.

Indeed, the characteristics of bureaucracy described by Weber seem to present a model organization that would be the epitome of efficiency and order. Still, as Weber himself realized, there are limitations to his model, and I have seen them firsthand in my organization. 

The government agency that I work for is a licensing and regulatory agency with six divisions, which include: human relations, qualifications, continuing education, licensing, data processing, and enforcement. These divisions typify in many ways the aspects specialization and hierarchy described by Weber and also evidence the efficiency possible in a bureaucracy.

However, the organizational model of bureaucracy under which my agency is structured does not account for the fact that many of the efforts of each division are interconnected and interdependent on each other. Organizationally, each division operates as an independent unit and there are no established methods for sharing information between them.

Therefore, when issues arise that overlap the boundaries of two divisions or fall altogether outside the divisions' boundaries there are no processes in place to manage them. This is when conversations like the one above occur in my agency. And, while the issues always end up being resolved, it is done in an inefficient manner and with disruption to the agency's operations.

With this in mind, I do still believe that Weber's bureaucracy is an effective model of organization for my agency; at the same time, there is an opportunity for organizational improvements to be made. The question then becomes, given the rigid nature of bureaucracy, what is the best way to go about instituting those changes?

Analyzing My Working Environment

This week’s readings have caused me to think a great deal about the working environment I currently inhabit, and the positive and negative aspects of it.

Being that my current position is the beginning of my career in communications, I understood when I took the job that I would be starting at the bottom of the totem poll in regards to salary and stature.   The Athletic Department in which I work is a classic case of Weber’s ‘ideal bureaucracy’:  Each person is responsible for a maximum of two specific areas, there is a set managerial hierarchy (employees, Assistant Athletic Directors, and ultimately Athletic Director) and all employees are hired through what he describes as ‘formal selection’.  There is a set of rules and guidelines for the entire department to follow, and they are enforced impersonally.

There are numerous positives to this type of working environment, especially as a young employee.  If I have a question or problem I do not feel is urgent, I can bring it to one of my superiors (an Assistant Athletic Director) and they can either provide a course of action or direct me to the head of the department.  This allows me to gain insight as to what the appropriate course of action should be, and can be a great learning experience. 

There is a definitive scalar chain within the department, which allows everyone to know his or her role and determines your level of authority within the workplace.  Also, the division of labor allows the department to really run on its own, without micro-managing from the Athletic Director.  As an employee, it is nice not to have someone constantly looking over your shoulder to make sure you are doing all that is required. 

Here, though, is where the positives of this type of working environment end for a young worker like myself. 

Being the lowest-paid member of a department is never the goal that an employee sets out to achieve.  As young, ambitious workers filled with initiative, the managerial hierarchy becomes a significant obstacle on your path to achieving your personal goals.  While it is helpful to have an experienced superior as a resource, what happens when you begin to outperform that person and display more initiative, and are not rewarded for it?  Because the superior is entrenched in the position, and simply does what is required, they are immovable objects: As long as they stay in the organization, you are essentially blocked from advancing within the department. 

I do not agree with Foyel’s ‘subordination of individual interests to the general interest’ principle, because he classifies ‘ambition’ as a negative quality.  When used correctly, ambition can yield tremendous gains within an organization, and can take a company to new heights.  Ambition that is rewarded also yields employees who genuinely care about the organization, and who do not become disenchanted when their outstanding performance goes unnoticed.

That is why I feel my working environment should heed the advice of Mr. Frederick Taylor and ‘pay the man, not the position’.  A first-class worker, regardless of age, experience or title, should be compensated accordingly, and be able to receive the position of someone above them if they are worthy.  As the department I work in is currently constructed, there is no possible way this can happen.  And as the low man in the group, this can become disheartening, when you see your performance not being rewarded with even a small monetary bonus. 

I do not intend to paint my place of work in an extremely negative light by any means.  I have thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and it has been a tremendous experience for me as someone just starting out in my career.  With that being said, however, every organization can improve.  I feel that if you want to keep your top talent, you must reward them for what they bring to the table, and not ‘pay the position’.  If these things were to change, an already enjoyable place to work would become that much better. 

Organizational Justice: Its impact on people, systems and organizations

VoiceThread: http://voicethread.com/?#q.b2668050.i14114663.

Organizational justice is used to gauge how fair treatment is perceived by employees, how they react to this treatment, and the impact on the organization (Wikipedia, 2012).   In an article by Caza, Barker Caza and Lind (2010), they demonstrate that treating employees fairly is important not only to the well-being of the employee and manager, but also to the success of an organization as a whole. The authors explore three dimensions in organizational justice theory: distributive (decision outcomes and resources focused), procedural (decision-making process focused) and interactive justice (perceived treatment and communications). This theory is important  and relevant to management and communications given that it explores human behavior, interactions, and performance in an organization. In this case, the authors highlight the common mistake managers make by focusing on distributive justice while allowing themselves to diminish the importance of providing procedural information and the human element in the interaction and communication with their employees. The authors explain that perceptions of the process of how decision are made, communicated and shared with employees impacts how the manager is perceived.  Unfortunately, a negative perception could potentially influence his or her effectiveness in implementing sound policies as well as motivating and leading a team.  A role-playing scenario that has been effectively implemented in undergraduate, graduate and executive business classes is fully outlined so other educators in business, psychology, management and communication fields can utilize their work to promote the importance and relevance of organizational justice.  

When distributive justice was defined in this article, Taylor’s “soldiering” experience at Wesfield as well as the failure in the Watertown project came to mind because the behavior displayed by the employees evolved from perceived unfairness in the process and failure in communication respectively.  When the authors focused on procedural justice, the connection between Fayol’s modern management theory and his advocacy for the importance of a richer management instruction and his introduction of the “gang plank” for effective communication supported the need for a transparent decision making process and a way for communication at different levels.  Finally, when the topic of how most managers in complex organizational bureaucracies tend to react emerged in the article, Weber’s work resonated.

Frederick Taylor showed an honest interest in the fair treatment, which is  a core principle in organizational justice theory, of employees despite his focus on scientific management (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009). At Midvale Steel Company, Taylor witnessed how employee perceptions of the intentions of management got in the way of maximizing output. He also saw how management’s decisions reinforced “soldiering” when their piece-rate policies changed to the detriment of the employee when output increased (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.124). He advocated for the importance of proper management in order to optimize outcomes and increase initiative by employees. In fact, one of his successful implementations of pay for performance was at the Simonds Rolling Machine Company where his approach contributed to an increase in employee performance and better working conditions with a better “fit” for workers’ abilities and job tasks (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.134). This improvement in output and effective management is important to organizational justice because it shows that management communicated effectively and motivated employees to increase performance and created a win-win situation.  Finally, Taylor attributed the failure of the Watertown Arsenal to the fact that the “sentiments of the molders had not been examined nor had they been briefed on the purpose of the time study” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.142) showing a connection with how the communication of decisions as well as the interaction with employees was a key foundation in effectively implementing scientific management.  All these examples are tied to three “dimensions of justice outlined by Caza et al. because managers who provide procedural explanation on how and why decisions are made, communicate in meaningful interactions with employees early and often and show concerns for unjust practices tend to be effective managers.

As the father of modern management, Henri Fayol would probably have approved of the attempt of the authors in helping managers “learn” how to be more fair and effective through the role-playing exercise highlighted in the article. Fayol believed that management skills were in many situations more important than technical skills thus the approach of Caza et al. in increasing knowledge about organizational justice as management skill is in line with his interest in having engineering schools provide more “managerial” training.  Also, his development of the “principles of management” set important milestones in the formal training of future managers.  His principle of “equity” which in his mind evolved “from a combination of kindliness an justice”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220) is related to organizational justice because it aimed at establishing a “basis for dealing with employees and instilling devotion and loyalty”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220).  Caza et. al. do not use the word “devotion” but they argue that by treating employees fairly and in a way they perceive as just, managers will not only have an increase in output, but they will be perceived as being fair.

Weber, on the other hand, focused on the enterprises or “bureaucracy” as he prefer to call them. Organizational justice theorists would applaud Weber’s attempt at creating a more just world by highlighting that bureaucracy “was intended to put an end to the exploitation of employees and to ensure equal opportunity and treatment for all” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.230). Nepotism and birth right promotions have no place in Weber’s theory.  In fact, they have no place in organizational justice either because this would be a clear blow to procedural justice. Caza et al. and Weber are both in pursuit of this “ideal” world that would benefit both employees and organizations so therefore his early thinking and work is supportive of organizational justice.

In conclusion, it is important to note that good management provides a just environment for employees and when they perceive fair treatment new policies and systems can be implemented. In attempt to illustrate the model outlined by Caza et al. a role playing scenario is included in the following voice thread along with a brief summary at the end: http://voicethread.com/?#q.b2668050.i14114663.  Organizational justice theory was coined about 25 years ago (Wikipedia, 2012), but as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the concepts can be connected to some of the work of the the earliest management theorists.

References
Organizational Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2012 from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_justice

Caza, A., Barker Caza B. & Lind, A. (2010). The Missed Promotion: An Exercise Demonstrating the
Importance of Organizational Justice. Journal of Management Education,35(4), 537-563. doi: 10.1177/105256291038187

Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 121-155 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.

Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 212-234 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.

Bad Management Theories...or Not.

I put together a VoiceThread to discuss an article entitled "Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices" by Sumantra Ghoshal.

http://voicethread.com/share/2667452/

Interview: A Negative Example

   [I had the opportunity to sit down with the new Director of Operations for a burger restaurant that is newly franchised in Michigan.  He asked that his name and that of his company be changed for the sake of the assignment, so for our purposes, we will refer to him as Tim of Burgertown.]

   When Burgertown arrived in Michigan three years ago, Tim got a job as a cook in one of the 4 locations that had opened early on.  Displaying from the beginning that he was a top employee, and willing to do whatever was asked of him for the company, Tim quickly became a store manager, and then the first district manager for the Michigan franchise.  Within two and a half years, Tim was named the Director of Operations for the Michigan stores, and currently has three district managers under him, and is in the process of opening the fifteenth store in the Metro Detroit area.

   Tim has no managerial education or specific training, and was selected for his promotions based on his technical performance, and time with the company.  He is, unfortunately, and admittedly, exemplifying Fayol's theme that as a leader rises through the ranks, it becomes more important that he have strong managerial abilities than technical ones.  Unfortunately for Tim, his only superior in the company, and the owner (who does not play an active role) also have no managerial education.  They worked together running a different kind of restaurant that the owner's father started and ran successfully for many years.  As a result, the strategies and methods being used by management are, as Taylor would say, rule-of-thumb, and are not being set scientifically, or being tailored to the particular venture.

  In contradiction to Taylor's and Fayol's principles, the practice at Burgertown continues to be that employees are hired in at only the bottom level, and are paid little more than minimum wage.  In spite of Tim's pleas to his superior, promotions have proven to based more on time served with the company, than performance and aptitude for management.  For example, workers he considers better store managers have been repeatedly passed over for promotions to district manager, while those promotions have gone to others who are less qualified, but have been with the company longer.  Also in contradiction to Taylor's ideas, every person with the same amount of time in a given position is paid the same.  Performance does not play a role in setting a worker's wage or salary.  Further, some managers and district managers are asked to drive great distances further than others, and receive the same compensation, despite fuel and vehicle maintenance costs.

   As a result of these practices, Tim feels he has been saddled with sub par district managers, and unmotivated store managers.  The assistant managers of stores will often call Tim directly to ask for solutions to run of the mill problems, or to lodge complaints about co-workers.  Tim will find himself trying to make up for what he considers poor managing by the district managers by giving orders directly to the store managers.  Tim's superior will often call the district managers directly to work out details or discuss daily activities.  It is a constant violation of the unity of command principle, and has caused much confusion among the varying levels of managers.

   Tim, for his part, admits that he is not a good communicator when it comes to his employees.  Perhaps the most egregious violation of Taylor's and Fayol's ideas is that Tim fails in dealing with the "people" aspect of his job.  He says he finds himself having to learn the hard way that not all problems with subordinates can be dealt with tyranny.  In addition, Tim admits he has a hard time not micro managing.  Where Fayol theorized that it is better to let a manager take on maximum responsibility afforded to his rank, even at the expense of some mistakes, Tim feels the need to step in, to correct and to babysit, which in turn, only encourages the lack of a scalar chain of communication.  In addition, it does not allow Tim a lot of time to focus on the bigger issues which should be central to his job.

  In conclusion, Tim is learning management techniques the hard way.  He hopes to resolve many of the issues in the near future.  However, based on our reading, in my opinion, Tim's ideas sound like quick fixes that ignore the underlying problems of lack of respect for one another, and a lack of managerial training throughout the company. 

Chain of Command and Communication

I work for a very young company. As exciting as it is to be on the ground floor of something potentially great, it's not without challenges. Some challenges arise from pure process and technical procedure. However, other challenges relate to the principals of management.

I work with bright but young team of managers. When I say young, I'm not necessarily referring to age but more to experience. They follow the scalar chain method of a strict reporting structure. Communication should only be with one's direct supervisor who will, in turn, relay one's thoughts up to their superiors and so on. This creates a feeling of unease amongst employees and and "us vs them" mentality, as indirect communication may lead to miscommunication and a feeling of separation amongst the ranks.

Although I do understand the justification for the classic administration school of management and a scalar scale in the workplace and the need for a clear chain of command, I do not see how the effect of communication isolation it can have as the most effective way to motivate employees, raise morale or increase productivity. I more agree with Mary Parker Follett's collabortive theory. Whereas, the adaptation of democracy and a holistic approach to an organization to create a healthier more productive workforce.

This is not to say that rules and reporting structures are not valuable, and I do agree with Weber and Fayol's methods and principles in that there should be an impersonal element in management. The focus should be on the organization and its efficiency not on personalities.  However, organizations are made up of individuals with thoughts and ideas, and by nature cannot be completely imprersonal.  In order to maintain a productive organization, an element of democracy should be introduced. Mary Parker Follett's concept of "power with" rather than "power over" demonstrates a collaborative approach to management.

In my current organization, I recognize more of Weber and Fayol's management techniques. Not that these techniques are ineffective. As I stated, structure and hierarchy are necessary. However, more open lines of communication, employee engagement and manager/subordinate collaboration, in my opinion, would lead to a more motivated and productive work environment, thereby, leading to a stronger, more successful company.

Integrating Fayol and Taylor in my daily work life

While reading the required texts this week, a couple of points immediately jumped out at me: Henri Fayol’s scalar chain and Frederick Winslow Taylor’s pay-for-performance theory.

The scalar chain resonated with me because of the way part of my company works. In the Korean culture, chain of command and respect to those either older or more powerful than you is extremely important, as it is in several cultures. Being able to talk to some of the Korean managers at Samsung can be quite challenging if I’m either in a different department or am lower in rank than they are. Instead of talking with them directly, I am often forced to relay messages through their assistants or through other employees who are on their teams. I can also determine if a coworker is speaking in Korean to a subordinate or someone higher than them in two ways: the amount in which they are talking, and the numbers of times they say yes.

I also see this daily in non-verbal forms of communication. When our president – who came to my subsidiary from Samsung headquarters in Korea—walks into the café at lunchtime, almost every Korean in the lunch room stands up and bows to him. This also happens in break rooms when a boss walks through, in the elevators and anywhere else people come in contact. The most interesting part about this is that I have started bowing slightly! Without realizing it, I have started slightly lowering my head when I say hello to our President, CFO and other Korean members of the leadership team.

The scalar chain slows down productivity. It would be more efficient to speak directly with someone than to go through the channels to have a discussion.

The other theory about pay-for-performance sings to me because I am part of the human resources department. Reading about the man, Taylor, who essentially created the concept of a human resources department was quite interesting. All employees at Samsung receive quarterly bonuses based on sales numbers and other key metrics. And we all take them very seriously! We are able to celebrate our successes as a company on a continual basis throughout the year instead of getting one reward at the end of the year. This ties back to Taylor’s principle of temporal contiguity directly and motivates everybody to work hard each quarter.

I don’t think that one style of management is necessarily better across the board than another. The style that works for a company and departments within the company depends largely on company and department cultures, employees’ cultures and, I think, trust within the organization.