Theories of Organisational Behaviour Have No Relevance for the Modern Manager

 Theories of organisational behaviour have no relevance for the modern manager

The classical theorists were the early exponents of theories about management and organizational behaviour and they flourished in the latter part of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century. The classical theories were a product of their times and things are very different now. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that these theories are entirely irrelevant, which need to suit each set of circumstances. There are many aspects of Taylor and Fayol’s thinking which are very relevant today. Human relations developed in the 1930s and were just as interested in increasing productivity as Frederick Taylor and other classical theorists. Effectively, this was referring to the industrial relations problems which evolved from Taylor’s work. This is the approach used by the more modern writers but with a recognition that the writers we have looked at so far were all very influential and all made very relevant, perceptive and constructive contributions to management and organizational behaviour. Systems theory is the organization within the overall system; management is seen as a critical sub-system which is responsible for the co-ordination of the other sub-systems and for ensuring that internal and external relationships are managed effectively. This is a comprehensive approach to the study of organizations and it views the organizations as a system or an inter-related set of activities which converts inputs to outputs. The systems approach to organizations was really quite a natural development since it acknowledged the size, complexity and dynamic nature of organizations in a way which wasn’t necessary previously. Contingency approach emphasised the importance of situational influences on the management and questioned the existence of a single, best way to manage or organise. It is entirely relevant to the design and structuring of organizations in every area of business.

The external environment was having a major impact on business management. In these cases, the impact is, perhaps, even more noticeable. Huge rises in oil and, consequently, petrol prices in the 1970s, and dramatic shifts from a domestic to a global market place as strong organizations from Japan, Korea, Europe and other areas have identified competition for business across the world.

Size, technology and environment are three basic contingencies, influences or circumstance which business managers have to deal with and which help to explain why organizations are organized differently from one another. Thus, contingency approach is very significant to modern management. A variety of techniques and approaches need to be in the tool kit of the contingency manager, which can up to perfect effect. It is worthwhile knowing something about the theories.

 There are many different styles of leader behavior. Explain why so much emphasis is placed on the democratic approach using examples to illustrate your answe

Effective leadership helps our nation through times of peril. It makes a business organization successful. It enables a not-for-profit organization to fulfill its mission. The absence of leadership is equally dramatic in its effects. Without leadership, organizations move too slowly, stagnate, and lose their way. Much of the literature about organizations stresses decision-making by leaders and implies that if decision-making is timely, complete, and correct, then things will go well. Each of us recognizes the importance of leadership when we make a decision. The benefits from a good leadership Investors recognize the importance of business leadership when they say that a good leader can make a success of a weak business plan, and then improve the performance of the organisation. The leadership is also important to production efficiency. A good leadership can improve the production efficiency. Three broad styles of leadership， Authoritarian style

2.1.1 The advantages of authoritarian style

Firstly, it can provide strong motivation and reward for the leader. Secondly, it can make quick decision. Thirdly, decision making, planning or organizing need no initiative. Lastly, strict control and establishment of chain of command is possible.

2.1.2 The disadvantages of authoritarian style

People dislike it especially if it is extreme and the motivational style is negative. Mangers are poor motivators and employees hardly show creativity and judgment.

2.2 Democratic style

2.2.1 The advantages of democratic style

Office politics that can threaten the growth and development of a working environment can be reduced with the help of a democratic style of leadership.

Communication gap is reduced. A positive work environment is created. Employee turnover is reduced.

2.2.2 The disadvantages of democratic style

Some managers adopt democratic leadership to please their subordinates but fail to follow the technique in its entirety.

2.3 Laissez-faire style

2.3.1 The advantages of laissez-faire style

Allows the visionary worker the opportunity to do what they want to do free from interference. Frustration may force others into leadership roles. Workers are not constantly watched by the leader. It also promotes trust in workers.

2.3.2 The disadvantages of laissez-faire style

Workers may lack the motivation to complete a job. Less productivity as workers may not possess the necessary skills to complete a job. Team members may get off track and may not prioritize correctly.

According to the experiment in University of lowa, one outcome of this experiment was that the boys much preferred the democratic leader. Another outcome was that while confusion reigned in the laissez-faire group.Therefore, the conclusion of the lowa University studies was that democratic leadership is preferable because it helps motivate the group.