It might seem strange to apply old ideas to a field that’s constantly developing. But if anything, management is something that takes many different forms, methods, and approaches. And since each employee, even those on the same team, is different, managers have to appeal to their varying natures. After all, what works for one person may not work for someone else.
As a result, many modern workplaces combine several different management theories to get the best from their employees, providing real, actionable ways to achieve organisational goals, boost productivity and motivate teams.
Understanding different theories and knowing how to implement them can help to improve your management style, while simultaneously realising that elements of certain theories don’t always equal effective leadership. Here, we’ll detail some of the more popular management theories, touching on their origins and pros and cons in the process.
Quick Navigation
- What are management theories?
- Different management theories explained
- Benefits of management theories
What are management theories?
Even the hardest working humans aren’t built like machines. We all have certain characteristics and attributes that make us inefficient in certain areas. Management theories, in all their different guises and disciplines, use frameworks and guidelines that can help employees get around these shortcomings, so they can work in the most efficient and effective ways.
Management theories can be of great value to the workplace, improving the way processes function and complementing your leadership skills. We’d recommend adopting a range of management theories for maximum benefit.
Different management theories explained
Managers use a range of management theories to get the best out of their teams. We’ll look at some of the more popular ones below…
Scientific theory
The scientific theory was developed by Frederick W. Taylor, an American inventor and mechanical engineer. His idea was that by following four principles, work would be more efficient. These principles were:
- Each task should be studied to determine the most efficient way of doing the task, disrupting traditional work processes
- Workers should be matched to jobs aligned with their abilities and motivation
- Workers should be monitored closely to ensure they only follow best working practices
- Managers should spend time training employees and planning for future needs
Human relations theory
Australian-born psychologist Elton Mayo came up with the human relations theory. It relies on improving productivity among dissatisfied employees by altering certain conditions like lighting, temperature. He noted that focusing on workers resulted in increased output across the board.
Systems theory
The systems theory was invented by Austrian biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, who believed that parts working in synergy were the key to a successful business. By focusing on each member of a business, rather than just the people at the top, they were more likely to succeed.
Administrative theory
French mining engineer Henri Fayol, often described as the father of modern management, came up with the administrative theory of management. The theory aims to lay out the 6 responsibilities of management, with a top-down approach: Forecasting, Planning, Organising, Commanding, Coordinating, Controlling
From these 6 responsibilities, he devised 14 principles of administration.
– Division of work: Employees should have complementary skill sets to work in specialised areas
– Authority: Management needs authority to give employees orders. This authority must be agreed upon
– Discipline: Employees listen to commands and have the discipline to get work done
– Unity of command: Employees answer to their managers. Going over a manager’s head would be an example of breaking this principle
– Unity of direction: Teams should be striving for common goals
– Subordination of individual interests: The team comes before the individual
– Remuneration: There are monetary and non-monetary versions of remuneration, which are both needed to motivate employees
– Centralisation: There should be a balance between decision-making power vis-a-vis company directors and mid-level managers, for instance
– Scalar chain: Each company should have clear hierarchical structures
– Order: A workplace should be clean, tidy, and well organised
– Equity: Employees should be treated well
– Stability of tenure of personnel: Businesses should try to limit turnover and keep employees around as they accumulate knowledge and improve
– Initiative: Employees should share ideas and be rewarded for their thinking
– Esprit de corps: Managers should work to keep employees engaged and interested
Bureaucratic theory
Max Weber developed the bureaucratic theory as a way to improve efficiency in the workplace. He theorised that by structuring a team hierarchically, with clear rules and roles that the team would be most efficient. These rules were summarised into five principles:
– Task specialisation: Each employee should fulfil a specific role within a company
– Hierarchy: Each company should have a clear hierarchy within the organisation
– Formal selection: When selecting leaders, businesses should consider a person’s qualifications when appointing them to certain roles
– Rules and requirements: Everyone should know what’s expected of them. Weber wanted businesses to have uniform standards; rules are essential to this goal
– Impersonal: The resulting rules and regulations make a business structure impersonal – therefore, promotions should be based on performance rather than emotional or personal ties.
X&Y Theory
The X&Y theory, developed by American management professor Douglas McGregor, works on the assumption that there are two different types of workers. Theory X workers were deemed to lack drive and ambition, requiring excessive direction from their managers. In comparison, Theory Y workers enjoy work, are naturally motivated, and look towards fulfilment in their roles. He theorised that these personality types lead to two different management styles, one with a micromanagement style and the other with a participative management style.
Contingency management theory
The contingency management theory was pioneered by Fred Fiedler. His theory is based on the idea that effective leadership is directly linked to the traits a leader displays in particular situations. In essence, a manager’s effectiveness is determined by their ability to adapt, with no one management style being better than another.
Modern management theory
Modern management theory is a synthesis of systems, contingency and quantitative theory. We’ve defined the first two above, but quantitative theory is a simple number-based theory that involves calculating the risks, benefits, and drawbacks of an action before moving ahead with that action.
Modern management theory, therefore, combines mathematical analysis with an understanding of human emotions and motivations to create optimum productivity that satisfies employees.
Classical management theory
Classical management theory views organisations as a machine, and the employees as the parts that help that machine function. As such, it prioritises a hierarchy, employees working in single areas, and the use of incentives to increase productivity and drive profits.
Under the classical model, workplaces are divided into three levels of authority: business leaders or top-level management, middle management, and supervisors. As for employees, their physical and economic requirements are prioritised over job satisfaction and social needs.
Benefits of management theories
By properly incorporating management styles into your management style, you can enjoy several benefits like better decision-making, improved organisational performance, and increased productivity across the team.
Knowing which style is needed and when is the key to proper implementation of the different management styles.
Click here for the latest news and features from SEFE or visit our homepage to find out about our latest career opportunities.
The views, opinions and positions expressed within this article are those of our third-party content providers alone and do not represent those of SEFE. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. SEFE accepts no liability for any errors, omissions or representations.
