Comparison In Terms Of Theory Of Scientific Management Essay Examples

In-between Two Managerial Approaches

Executive Summary
The offered paper explores two managers from the hospitality business of a medium-size hotel belonging to a famous brand. The two managers’ approaches are explained through their performance and relationship with the employees. Manager A is an example of a successful manager who combines a duty manager role with being the Head of Bar and Banqueting departments, while Manager B’s role is measured by duty manager responsibilities.
The set of their managerial skills is analysed in terms of Taylor’s scientific management model. The findings demonstrated that Manager A’s human oriented approach and team-building skills were far from Taylor’ ideal manager, while Manager B irrespective of the lack of leadership skills would suit better to that model. In terms of managerial approaches and communication styles, Manager A demonstrates excellent communication and negotiating skills that ally with his participative managerial style. On the other hand, Manager B demonstrates an abrasive communication style and directive management.
The two managers are also compared by their conflict-resolution techniques and decision-making practices. The main recommendations for this case include suggestions regarding the suitability of these managerial styles according to the forms of business organisation, elimination of the position of the duty manager or the conduct of monitoring of Manager B’ s transformation of his managerial style. The rationale for these suggestions is also given at the end of the paper.
In-between Two Managerial Approaches
For the preparation of this assignment, two managers from a small three-star hotel belonging to a network of relatively known brand of hotels were chosen. In this regard, for the sake of anonymity, their names were changed to pseudonyms. One of the two managers will be named Manager A is an example of a successful manager, while the second manager named Manager B, who is not that successful in his managerial performance and demonstrated certain flaws in his work. The following discussion demonstrates outlines the comparison and contrast of these two managers and their role in company’s functionality.

The choice of these two managers was conditioned by their same position in the hotel and the fact that irrespective of the same status, the efficiency of their performance, and how the staff treats them are different. The most functional way to compare managerial skills of these two managers would be against the skills set characteristic of the main managerial theory of the twenty’s century, meaning FrederickTaylor’s theory of scientific management. In this regard, Taylor argued that the function of a manager is to keep his employees in control and make sure that their performance is productive and according to the posed targets (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005). Consequently, employees were not treated according to their individual characteristics, but according to a single standard. It can be argued that his approach to management was mathematical, rational and based on control and punishment rather than encouragement. In this context, a successful manager would have to have strong analytical skills, to be good at planning, treat personnel impersonally, meaning he should consider employees in terms of their functionality for the business rather than personal specifics or that they are actually people with their lives. Thus, ideal Taylor’ manager should dehumanise people and treat them through numbers or functions they can achieve (Simons, 2011).
In the case of Manager A, his set of managerial skills would not fit into Taylor’s managerial requirements. Although he is well-organised, rational and mathematically accurate in his planning and calculations, unlike the ideal Taylor’ manager, he does not dehumanise his employees (Kilkauer, 2014). In this regard, he considers that people are essential in the hospitality business, and that human factor needs to be taken into account. Consequently, in his managerial performance, his primary skills except excellent communication include good organisation, team building, leadership, the ability to deal with change and domain knowledge. Manager A is great at planning his projects in detail, always having additional solutions in case things change. Due to his 10 years’ experience in this industry, he is good at predicting. Regarding team building, through the respect he gained through his human approach and fairness of his decisions. In terms of leadership, Manager A always takes responsibility for what his team does, and he shows excellent performance on his own example. In terms of changes and domain knowledge, Manager A knows his team well and he knows whom to use for which purpose in terms of changes, who will need what additional training, and who can take extra responsibilities. That is why his team is more flexible and effective in transitional times. Consequently, with this set of skills, in terms of Taylor’ model Manager A would be considered a bad and dysfunctional manager (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005).
On the other hand, Manager B would be an ideal manager in Taylor’s view. His approach to staff is absolutely mechanical. He gives orders and expects people to follow them. His main skills are strictness, complete control over staff’s performance, abrasive communication style, rigidity in planning, taking credit for team performance, while punishing team for his mistakes, arrogance and the application of fear tactics. In this regard, Manager B is ideal Taylor’s manager because he treats his staff as minors and means to an end, which is usually his own benefit and promotion perspectives (DeNisi & Griffin, 2013). On the other hand, the fact that he takes responsibility for team’s performance only when it is suitable for him demonstrates that lack of leadership skills and responsibility for his team. Thus, it can be viewed as weakness even in terms of Taylor’ managerial model because the lack of one’s responsibility demonstrates managerial weakness and consequent inability to gain respect and compliance from subordinates (Kilkauer, 2014). In this regard, even the use of punishment would demonstrate being less efficient in achieving compliance if the manager himself is perceived as being a coward and lacking leadership skills (Simons, 2011). On the other hand, in terms of Taylor’ managerial skills, would correspond to Taylor’s requirements rather than Manager A.

Comparison in terms of hierarchy

Regarding the places of the two managers in the existing hierarchy of the hotel, majority of time both Manager A and Manager B conducted duty manager shifts, meaning that they both were responsible for the effective functioning of all departments of the hotel during their shifts. On the other hand, except for being a duty manager Manager A also combined two other posts; he was the Head of Bar and Banqueting departments. Consequently, his position as the head of two departments was higher than Manager B’s, so technically he was one managerial higher than Manager B. On top of Manager A, there was only Administrative Manager and then General Manager, who was in charge of overall hotel’s functioning and reporting to the Head Office. Thus, it can be argued that Manager A human approach was also conditioned by his necessity to manager different teams and combine their performance, while Manager B was thinking just in terms of his duties within arising problems rather than a global perspective of monitoring and planning (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005).

Comparison in terms roles of the modern upper management supervisor

According to the difference of their positions of managerial hierarchy, the two managers have different roles and functions between each other and in respect to the modern upper management supervisor. Manager B’s main responsibility as a duty manager is to make sure that all departments of the hotel performs according to the established standards and without errors (Simons, 2011). In this regard, he needs to make sure that things go according to imposed plan and in the case of problems; he has to resolve them within the existing timeframe of his working shift or do required steps for the responsible heads of the departments to deal with an existing issue or a necessity of departmental changes. Consequently, his role in the hotel is dealing with immediate problems, and his planning requirements are shirt-termed and are within a single perspective of immediate problem resolution or customer satisfaction (Mathis & Jackson, 2008). Therefore, his role in the hotel is closer to the upper-level supervisor rather than senior managerial level. In this regard, just as supervisors, he concentrates on immediate performance of the staff he is responsible for (Simons, 2011). Although he responsible for all staff from all departments, just as supervisor, he makes sure that they are functional during the service and within his working shift, just as supervisor Manager B does not need to think in long-term perspective or globally about potential changes or improvement of performance; just as supervisor, he does not need to deal with staff training and administrative part of the managerial process (Simons, 2011). On the other hand, Manager A, as the head of department has to deal with training programmes, development of changing schemes, improvement of his staff skills set, working hours calculation, holidays forms approval and consequent staff availability (Kilkauer, 2014). In other words, his performance includes long-term planning, administrative activities and global perspective of staff functionality. Therefore, due to the global and systematic perspective of his role, on the managerial ladder he is closer to the senior management rather than supervisor or duty manager like Manager B.

Comparison in terms of communication methods

As it was already mentioned, one of the crucial differences between the two managers is their communication method. According to Manager A’s human approach, his managerial communication style is rather friendly than authoritative. In this regard, instead of giving people orders, he chooses a more neutral manner of expressing his assignments. In this regard, he is always polite, using such words as “Could you, please”, “Please, do me a favour”. Although every member of his team knows that it is their duty to follow what he says, his manner of communication makes people do it voluntarily and efficiently. Thus, Manager A uses friendly manner of communication in order to stimulate not only the actual fulfilment of the task but also employee’s satisfaction from its performance that is aimed at stimulation of a healthy working environment (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005). On the other hand, Manager B uses very authoritative and military-style manner of talking to people. He seldom greets people when he sees them only tells them what to do and seldom pays attention to explaining them what exactly he wants. He does not allow people to contribute to the discussion of the problem and suggest potential solutions, like Manager A does. He is convinced that employees below his rank are not smart enough and thus they should be addressed only in an abrasive way, which is an element of dictator approach to managing people (Simons, 2011).

Comparison in terms of managerial styles

The two managers have different managerial styles. In this regard, Manager B’s approach corresponds to directive managerial style. In this regard, the main feature of this style is the requirement of the immediate obedience and following manager’s order in exact manner (Mathis & Jackson, 2008). In this regard, as a duty manager Manager B is interested in only in immediate results and demands people follow his order even f them have long-term negative implications. His approach also includes another element of this managerial style, meaning that he uses threats to impose discipline on the employees (Simons, 2011). For instance, on various occasions when people who work in different departments tried to explain to his the implications of this order to people starting the next shift in their departments, he was threatening them with not giving them any hours or writing a complaint for their misconduct. Although directive managerial style has its place and can be functional under the conditions of a crisis or an emergency, every-day hotel functioning is far from that environment and what Manager B has actually achieved by applying this managerial style is that employees absolutely hate him and they take twice the time in order fulfil his orders in contrast to Manager A’s requests (Kilkauer, 2014).
In contrast to Manager B’s managerial approach, Manager A uses participative managerial style. In this regard, just the central point of this style, Manager A encourages his employees to take part in decision-making and suggest potential solutions to existing problems (Shapira, 2002). This concept is embodied not only when he is asking his staff what they would do differently or more efficiently but also through the practice of conducting weekly staff meeting and discussing existing issues. The main rationale for these practices and the essence of this managerial style is that practitioners who worked for a long time in the field usually know more about the improvement of performance rather than managers (Kilkauer, 2014). In this regard, being close to employees gives Manager A an opportunity to see the process from their perspective. In its turn, it contributes to his systematic awareness of what is actually going on in his departments and the hotel, in general. Another aspect of this style is that it is based on building a strong and cohesive team in a relatively stable working environment (Simons, 2011). The working environment of this hotel is, in fact, relatively stable. Over the last decade, the main changes referred mainly to staff training and revisions of standards. Thus, in such an environment, keeping people with experience, skills and knowledge is essential especially in the city that it not that big and does not have a great variety of qualified personnel (Shapira, 2002). Manager A knows that the core of his success is the functionality of his team and that if it is treated right it will help him more than once.

Comparison in terms of decision-making practices

Comparison in terms of conflict resolution
In this regard, Manager A’s managerial approach gives him a variety of options for resolving conflicts. He is fair in his decisions and always applies a solution suitable for a situation. In this regard, he can punish the person that deserves it, but he is seldom inclined to use administrative action in inter-personal conflicts. In this regard, he prefers to use conversations and discussions rather than administrative actions. However, he uses administrative means when for grave misconducts regarding one’s duties and job responsibilities. He is respected for his fair attitude to people and strictness when the law or norms are violated. In other words, Manager A considers negotiations being the best strategy for conflict-resolution (Kilkauer, 2014). On the other hand, Manager B usually takes the side of his preferred employee rather than tries to be just and fair to all of the participants. He follows the strategy of escalation and authoritative involvement in conflict-resolution (Mathis & Jackson, 2008). He is convinced that he is the only right person to judge who is right or wrong. This approach to conflict-resolutions is particularly counter-productive and negative in its outcomes, since this type of management creates more conflicts than it resolves (Shapira, 2002). Consequently, it is often Manager A who has to deal with conflict-resolution rather than Manager B, and senior management prefers to ask Manager A to act as a mediator in the case such necessity arises.

Recommendation regarding forms of business

In terms of recommended forms of business organisation for the two managers, the most suitable form would be a partnership or sole proprietorship. The main rationale for this advice is because human-approach has a greater potential in smaller businesses rather than in a corporate environment. In this regard, Manager A’s approach would have greater results in a more creative environment of a private hotel, which could emphasise and invest in its character and people working for it, rather than a corporate environment (Simons, 2011). In this regard, if Manager B was to stay in this institution after the change of its form of organisation, he would have to change his managerial approach and make it more flexible and employees-friendly. In terms of personnel’s morale and behaviour, the dominance of Manager A’s approach to management would result in employees’ desire to contribute more to their daily work and also to become active participants in the development of their company and also of the improvement of its status and profitability. On the other hand, if a corporate environment would remain the same and preference would be given to Manager B’s managerial style most likely many workers would become disinterested in the efficiency of their performance and just would do the required minimum of their responsibilities and would lose motivation completely (Armstrong & Stephens, 2005). Thus, Manager A’s approach demonstrates to be functional and productive under any form of business organisation. In terms of managerial structure, it would be recommended to eliminate the position of a duty manager and just make sure that heads of departments or supervisors are always on duty. The implementation of this structural change would improve departmental efficiency and performance. In the case of emergencies, any head of department or manager on duty could fill in required forms and secure fulfilment of the required procedures (DeNisi & Griffin, 2013). Another crucial benefit of this change would be that staff would no longer feel constant authoritarian pressure and would be motivated to for a better performance by encouragement rather than fear and punishment. If the position of a duty manager was to remain, higher level management is advised to monitor Manager B’s performance and his decision-making motivations. If nothing in his behaviour changes and continues to demonstrate poor results, it is advised to find a new candidate for this position.

Reasons for managerial change

Regarding the reasons for change management and control process they include the following. First of all, the presence of two managerial approaches becomes counter-productive. While Manager A tries to build a strong team, Manager B attempts to distinguish individuals and encourages nepotism. Consequently, the performance of the organisation deteriorates because of one person’s wrong attitude. Secondly, if Manager B is to remain the General Manager will have to discuss the change of Manager B’s managerial style and monitor his performance in order to secure compliance. Without monitoring, if nothing changes then the General Manager will lose his credibility and respect among employees. Finally, managerial changes are a crucial in demonstrating what company is not standing at the same place that it changes and evolves. Also, positive change of management demonstrates company’s commitment to its employees. When Manager A’s approach dominates in management, then it means for the employees that they are valued and appreciated since they are treated with respect and human concern. Thus, from all mentioned above, it can be concluded that Manager A’s managerial success is conditioned by his human approach and respect to his employees. It is more functional and productive nowadays than it would have been in twenty’s century in terms of Taylor’s model.

References

Armstrong, M. & Stephens, T. (2005). A Handbook of Management and Leadership: A Guide
DeNisi, Angelo, and Griffin, Ricky. (2013). HR. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Kilkauer, Thomas. (2014). Seven Moralities of Human Resource Management. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mathis, R. & Jackson, J. (2008). Human Resource Management: Essential Perspectives.
Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Shapira, Z. (2002). Organizational Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Simons, R. (2011). Human Resource Management: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.
Oakville, ON: Apple Academic Press.