Understanding Contemporary Management
Prescriptive approaches to management are underpinned by assumptions of objective rationality and unitary interests in organisations.
Critically evaluate this contention making reference to alternative perspectives of management.
This paper analyses
The biggest Problem encountered was the question in how to link the broadly sociological and more behavioural material to management sturdy in organisations with an assumption of objective rationality. This will include thoughts given to unitary interest and critical thoughts. Fulop & Linstead (1999:2) mentions the growth of ethics which once was an optional feature of most management programmes and the increase of acknowledgement in foundation element of critical thinking. Hosmer (1996:2) used keywords “right” and “proper” and “just” to highlight unitarist characteristics of management. Linstead, Grafton Small, & Jeffcutt (1996) argued social anthropology offers concepts and methods which contribute directly to understanding of management as a cultural activity.
‘If you ask a manager what he does, he will most likely tell you that he plans, organises, co-ordinates, controls. Then watch what he does. Cited in Mintzberg (1973) the terms used in the narration will be analysed carefully, with comments to the actions which follows using the reference of Daimler-Benz Chrysler Group. From this example understanding should be made simpler and aim to make thoughts, views and actions more transparent.
Reasons For Argument Traditional values or ‘mainstream approach’ which is encompassed within the company are some characteristics. An example to reflect upon would be Daimler-Benz Chrysler Corporation. When Daimler-Benz & Chrysler held its single identity they where almost identical, yet one was operating from America and one from Europe. Daimler-Benz and Chrysler had two different organisational structures both firms used hybrid structures. This combines two or more types of departmentalisation. Multinational firms use hybrid structures to balance power and effectiveness across functional, product, and geographic groups. This is true in the case of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler prior to the merger. Chrysler prided itself on innovation and flair, this has its roots in Chrysler’s organisational structure. Chrysler’s structure was part entrepreneurial, matrix and hierarchical.
“Emphasis was placed on entrepreneurial activity areas such as R&D and leaner production methods. On the other hand, Daimler-Benz was more hierarchical orientated with most activities spent on improving quality; little time was allocated to product development” Cited in Stone & Perry (1996) Daimler-Benz’s organisational structure was very hierarchical; this hampered the flow of information, progression and promotion of staff and decision-making. The Daimler-Benz organisational structure resembled the old boy’s network. Luckily enough, the newly formed Daimler Chrysler Company has a newer improved organisational structure, which I find to be very effective; it is still top heavy but has been scaled down dramatically. Again it’s a hybrid; Daimler Chrysler have taken the best aspects of both previous organisational structures and gelled them together effectively. The new structure adopts a geographic structure with power being shared across national boundaries. “A geographic organisational structure is well-suited to firms pursuing different strategies in different geographic locations” Thompson & Strickland…