This essay establishes and explores the concepts of ‘reflexive managers within contemporary organizations’. The point to be made is that reflexive managers may be essential for contemporary organizations. As there is a huge volume of well established theories in the field of reflexivity this essay endeavours to focus on few theories in depth relating to reflexivity. This will be discussed throughout the essay with the use of relevant examples.
Prior to the exploration of ‘reflexive managers within contemporary organizations’, one must first understand the term ‘reflexivity’. Firstly, the prefix “re” implies going back, against and reversed. The Latin term flectere, means to bend back which implies looking back on our actions. Pollner (1991) defined reflexivity as an insecurity regarding the basic assumptions, discourse and practices used in describing reality” (p. 370) In other terms, he means to examine critically, the assumptions underlying our actions, the conflict of this behaviour, and from a wider outlook, what passes as a fine management practice by “bending back” and re-examining ourselves and our reality. The concept of reflexivity has been pondered on by a range of disciplines including sciences, sociology, and psychology from theorists such as Clifford 1986; Gergen, 1994 and Latour, 1988. Reflexivity has many different concepts and definitions by many different theorists; this suggests it has no universal notion, therefore it can be difficult exploring the concepts of reflexivity. Reflexivity has an epistemological and meta-theoretical view on our practise and knowledge.
Schon (1983) began with work on the reflective practitioner. ‘Reflective’ differs from the term reflexivity; reflectivity is looking back on your ...
... middle of paper ...
...n (Ortmann, Sydow, & Windeler, 2000). This is where a reflexive manager would fit in well; having the ability to help construct the organization where they would think outside of the box. “Such practice is important to management, because it helps us understand how we constitute our realities and identities in interactive ways and how we can develop more collaborative and responsive ways of managing organizations” (Clunliffe, 2004). It also includes opening up the phenomena by exploring reflexively through more than one set of meanings which are taken for granted. In the organization we use language to make meanings of social situations. However, language is merely a construction of reality rather than mirroring the objective truths. Therefore, to make sense and use of the pheneomenon we must be critically reflexive in order to explore alternate management styles.
In the beginning of the young man’s search, all the managers he met fit into one of two categories: stern managers or humanistic managers. People in each category were proud of their own style of managing, even if it fell short in certain categories. Usually, the hard-nosed managers had no trouble pleasing his superiors, but had more trouble with his subordinates. A common pattern with the humanistic managers was that their employees
As we know that a company’s culture, particularly during its early years, is greatly a reflection of the personality, background, and values of its founder or founders, as well as their vision for the future of the organization. When entrepreneurs establish their own businesses, the way they want to do business determines the Organization’s rules, the structure, and performance evaluation in the company and the people they hire to work with them. This is very much evident in the case o...
This report sets the terms followed by managers .The report will be split into 3 different 0parts first stating what the concept and model of the ‘Managerial Escalator’ is by referring back to Rees & Porter’s aim and concept of the model, also stating their view on the ‘Managerial Escalator’, the second part of the report would aim to justify and analyze whether or not the two managers results match with the managerial responsibilities and launch the amount to which their progression into management, and daily management routines, fit into the Managerial Escalator.
Critically discuss the extent to which Fayol's classical analysis of the management function has largely been made redundant by the more recent empirical studies of what managers actually do, such as that favoured by Mintzberg.
In this assignment, both control in the workplace and work satisfaction dimensions will be analysed at length. Relating them both to the case study of the Sports Direct Company and other relevant organisational theories; such as scientific management. Sports Direct was founded in 1982 by Michael Ashley in Maidenhead. In 18 years, ‘Mike’ Ashley expanded internationally opening stores in Belgium, and just seven years later listed his company on the London stock exchange. It was that listing that really kick-started Sports Directs’ exponential growth. 2 years later in 2009, Sports Direct established market leadership after their sales exceeded £1.0bn (Sports Direct, no date given). This information presents Mike Ashley as an entrepreneurial genius,
According to Driscoll (2000), there are three processes when reflecting on one’s practice. They are: ‘What?’, ‘so what?’ and ‘Now what?’ Using Driscoll’s reflective cycle will enable me to link theory to practice.
The Competing Values Framework is originated by Quinn and Rohrbaugh. It emphasizes the organizational problems and choices faced by managers. The framework is divided into various managerial roles corresponding situations, as well as specific organizational environments. For instance, the facilitator and mentor roles rely on cohesion and morale to bring about human resource development within the organization. While the innovator and broker roles rely on flexibility and readiness in order to receive the growth and resource needed to perform an effective organization. The director and producer roles are more applicable for planning and goal setting skills and will result in productivity and efficiency. The monitor and coordinator roles are intended to managing information and communicating. The framework can also be divided into two main roles. The first four mentioned above are the transformational roles, and the last four are the transactional roles (Belasen, 1996). The transformational roles are more aimed toward making changes and developments, while the transactional roles have strong emphasizes on managerial authorities. The key to becoming a master manager is to be a successful manager who is able to perform each role in order to cope with all difficulties being faced as a manager (Quinn, 1988). A successful manager is also someone who is perceived by others as performing all of the eight roles more frequent than a normal manager and recognizes each of its importance thoroughly (Denison, 1995). A study by Bono (2004) also shows that giving importance to any specific working environment, such as rational goal model, may lower the effectiveness of other areas. Denison and Spreitzer (1991) stated that when a manager does not gi...
Managers know the importance of having positive relationships with their employees. It boosts the company’s goals while the lack of any relationship with the workers may lead to losses in the business. Most managers rarely know that they are looked up to by many employees and, as such, should be careful with the actions they take. Lee b. Bolman & Terrence E. Deal, the authors of the book The Reframing Organizations, point out that the kind of measures taken in the business influences the employees acts and thoughts. In particular, this book gives insight to managers on how to relate to their subordinates. The discussion is carried out on the three parts of the book that highlight the missteps taken by managers as they try to improve their businesses.
This chapter provides a roadmap for the second part of the dissertation. Chapters five through eight are the stories of the participants, the organizational energies, and me engaging in experiences of action and reflection to explore issues in the participants’ daily organizational lives. Chapter nine is the synthesis of all the stories and an exploration of the cross-experience themes, while chapter ten ends the dissertation with implications and conclusions. This interlude offers insight into why the individual participant chapters are written in letter form, an explanation of the tarot cards, as well as instructions on how to read the transcript excerpts within the letters. This interlude is a moment to shift gears from the theoretical frameworks into the more intimate dynamic experience that was the research. It is a time to gather the tools that are needed to help witness and engage; much like the experience of a play or a symphony.
In any organization, effective management is difficult to achieve and maintain. Analyzing organizations from multiple perspectives allows people to better understand the system and potential issues involved and to identify solutions. Bolman and Deal utilize a four-frame approach focusing on the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame.1
She conveys that business administration should avoid troublesome internalization by using an integrative technique. Unfortunately, Follett does not elaborate further on the context of what might this integration method appear to be. She changes the direction of her focus back onto the preparation of giving orders. Now, giving orders is a significant component to management but Follett should have provided additional information revolving the integration of management and the giving of orders. Fairholm suggests, “they misunderstand the evolving nature of authority derived from changing social structures, and because they have missed opportunities to tie in research procedures and focuses from intellectual interests such as psychology, sociology, history, and political science, not just scientific management, Weberian bureaucracy, and the like.” (Fairholm. 2004). Follett provides psychological perspectives, however maybe she misunderstands other perspectives, why further development is needed for her to examine. Follett later admits there is additional psychological, learning about the development of habits and the preventative measures of giving orders greatly surpasses than what she can explain in this article. It would be interesting if, she has examined and considered other theories and philosophies surrounding giving orders and
Organisational theorists, depending on their school of thought, hold differing conceptions of organisational culture. Most theorists attempt to use a variety of metaphors, or images, to bound, frame, and differentiate that category of experience referred to as an “organisation” (Smircich, 1983). The most common comparisons made of organisations
Over the past hundred years management has continuously been evolving. There have been a wide range of approaches in how to deal with management or better yet how to improve management functions in our ever changing environment. From as early as 1100 B.C managers have been struggling with the same issues and problems that manager’s face today. Modern managers use many of the practices, principles, and techniques developed from earlier concepts and experiences.
Managers have a degree of choice in how they deal with their employees. (Purcell, 1987) Some may see them as a commodity while others may see them as an important and valuable resource needing to be developed. (Purcell, 1987) Managerial prerogative is defined by Bray, Waring and Cooper (2011: pg 332) as “those areas of decision-making within an organization over which managers claim to have an unfettered right to decide as they see fit.” It is important to define managerial prerogative so that we can establish whether the legislation has increased or diminished it. Defining managerial prerogative is also important as we look at the different managerial styles and strategies and observe if they play any role in increasing or minimizing managerial prerogative. Managers will always have some degree of control over their employees because most of the day to day tasks in the workplace such as rules and procedures of the workplace, tasks, and which employee performs which tasks are decisions made by the manager without consultation with employees and unions. (Bray, Waring and Cooper, 2011) The laws and regulations surrounding managerial prerogative have only seemed to rule in favour of employers being the sole decision makers in an organisation and decrease the amount of bargaining power unions and employees have towards pay and conditions. (Bray and Waring, 2006)
Whether or not a company is attains acclaimed success lies not in the fact that it spends huge amounts of money on Research and Development, rather, and as stated by Bauer and Erdogan (2010), success is determined principally by the people within hat specific organization; they are the assets whose output resonates wit he company’s success. However, while this is an established fact, it is also important to state that both the organization and the people who constitute it mutual impact arriving at collective success. Therefore, as Bauer & Erdogan (2010) continue to assert, it is necessary to understand how people relate at work both at the individual and group levels, and how the organization is impacted by this interrelationship. This is what Bauer & Erdogan (2010), define as organizational behavior. It informs on what is wrong, and what is correct; essentially assisting one as an employee become ore engaged in work. Leadership or governance is one of the constituent components of organizational behavior. More often than not, it is usually associated with power, ethos, and cultural inclinations of the organization. This paper seeks to examine in-depth, management problems associated with leadership and governance at Hewlett-Packard and how it impacts on the company’s organizational culture and behavior.