Critically discuss Luthans’ contribution and its implications for management theory. PDF

Preview

Summary

Critically discuss Luthans’ contribution and its implications for management theory....

Description

Critically discuss Luthans’ contribution and its implications for management theory. Fred Luthans addresses the concept of the disparity between successful and effective managers in many of his works. His involvement in the 80s and 90s has criticised but also reinforced many theorists such as Fayol, Mintzberg, and Kotter. In his findings, he implies that the successful manager is self-serving and therefore if an organisation wishes to be more efficient than it must start to recognise the selfless, effective managers. Consequences of his work are that of complete reforms to formal reward and promotional systems, as well as solutions to make effective managers successful. He also unearths the fact that there are very few real managers who are both effective and successful. If this is the case the implications are significant. As set out by Luthans, management is a scientific activity and therefore his process of categorising real managers work into 4 main groups provided a base for his study. He achieved this by observing 44 managers across different organisations in different sectors. Communication (Exchanging information, Paperwork) was considered a very everyday task, e.g. general desk work. Traditional Management (Planning, Decision making, Controlling) this generally entailed the definition of objectives and goals and monitoring performance data. Networking (interacting with outsiders, Socialising/politicking) played a significant role in Luthans studies as this was essentially the definition of a successful manager, much in-line with Kotter’s work. Human Resource Management (Motivating/reinforcing, Disciplining/Punishing, managing conflict, Staffing, Training, and development) this was the most significant of the categories as before this point this hadn’t been genuinely publicised as a formal activity of managers (Luthans, 1988, p.129). These particular categories define what ‘real’ managers do. Luthans then distinguished between successful and effective managers, stating that success for real managers is determined by the speed of their promotion and is calculated by dividing said managers level within the organisation by their tenure there. Luthans found the definition of effective managers more challenging as many theorists had disputed this notion with no majority leaning towards a particular classification. He based the definition on two measures; subordinate satisfaction and quantity and quality standards of performance. (Luthans, 1988, p.130). With all this information Luthans then progressed his study by reviewing another 248 real managers to establish a relative frequency for the 4 managerial activities. The results suggested that ‘networking had a statistically significant relationship with success’. Successful ‘real’ managers spent 48% of their time networking compared to effective managers only spending 11% and average real managers spending 19% (Luthans, 1988). This displays a significant difference and therefore gives support to Luthans conclusions that there is a difference between a successful and effective manager. Due to the discovery of this variance of these two types of managers, there is clearly an improper system in place to reward and promote effective managers. Luthans states that there needs to be an emphasis on trying to construct an alteration, in this particular space, to ensure that effective managers start to become successful managers and that their efficient techniques are compensated appropriately (Luthans, 1988). Luthans also stresses that a lot of this inequality of compensation is down to the corporate culture that incentivise employees to network and socialise rather than motivate and focus on the quality and quantity of their service. Whether this is golf days with prospective clients or client lunches, Luthans is not saying this is completely irrelevant as it

still takes up 11% of effective managers time. He is suggesting that it needs to be done within reason as it is clear that for the benefit of the organisation as a whole the more effective a manager the greater prospects it has. A thought for why this is apparent is that once it starts it is very difficult to break the cycle as those in power continue to network and appreciate subordinates that do as they do. The existing view of managers when Luthans published his work was dominated by 3 main people. Starting with the classical view of Henri Fayol that saw management as 5 different functions being performed by 6 different types of manager (Fayol, 1949). This was then challenged by Henry Mintzberg, who questioned whether or not management was rational and concluded that it was in fact varied and fragmented (Mintzberg, 1973). The three interpersonal roles, three informational roles and four decision making roles all formed part of the first major test of Fayolism. Finally, John Kotter leaned more towards Mintzberg adding the concept of a manager’s agenda and the power of networking. All of these have shown innovative concepts. However, all of them have had relatively small sample sizes when conducting their studies, Mintzberg reviewed 5 CEO’s (Mintzberg, 1973) and Kotter monitored 15 successful general managers (Kotter 1982). Fayol was theorising about management rather than surveying a sample of managers. An observation of this magnitude had never been done before as well as one of such broadness, as Luthans’ 44 and then 248 managers were taken from all levels and from various industries. What Luthans also achieved when he set out his four main managerial activities was the incorporation of all 3 of these theorists. Some of Fayols work is built-in to the tasks included in traditional management strategies. Whilst Mintzberg’s diverse views on management and interpersonal roles (Mintzberg, 1973) are covered by the communication category. And finally, Kotter’s views on the importance of interaction are represented in the networking group of managerial activities. However, with Luthans insertion of the fourth category, human resource management activities, the view of real managers’ is made more comprehensive than previous managerial studies (Luthans, 1988, p.129) The general basis of Luthans’ findings have had significant effects on the way managers should spend their time. The emphasis must shift from networking (politicking) towards the proven methods that are more human orientated. Luthans concepts and findings are able to implement this change through the introduction of a transparent appraisal system whereby socialising and politicking aren’t rewarded more than high standards of performance. Luthans sets out that for a lot of this to happen there needs to be a significant cultural shift. Promotion of a work culture that is based on performance instead of politics. Real managers attention should be aimed at communication and human resources as this has been shown to be more efficient and achieves a higher quality and quantity standard of performance as well as motivating and satisfying subordinates. Now, this notion isn’t a given shift that can happen overnight. What effective managers really do is key to finding out how to achieve this, potentially idealistic, situation where real managers achieve both successes and are efficient. Luthans observation of 78 managers in 1988 aimed to try to comprehend exactly what these effective managers are doing. He designed ‘ a one-dimensional model that consisted of a continuum ranging from a quantity-oriented human resource manager to quality-oriented traditional manager’ (Luthans, 1988). The study intended to recognise the skill set required to achieve this sought-after managerial performance level. The outcome inferred that real managers who run quality-orientated units do noticeably more interaction with external others as well as traditional activities such as monitoring and controlling performance. This

juxtaposes Mintzberg’s findings (top-level managers didn’t spend a lot of time doing traditional functions) which is clearly another implication on managers as with this information systems will need to be reformed. Interestingly, the article uncovered that four of the five activities that had been linked with effective managers are also telling of unsuccessful managers. So, to conclude this article, the quantity orientated human resource manager that takes a more Fayolism approach is generally more effective. Therefore, this left the quality-orientated resource manager, who is more in-line with Mintzberg has traits of a manager Luthans defines as successful (interacts with outsides, socialising etc.) (Luthans, D.H.B.Welsh, L.A.Taylor, 1988). In conclusion, Luthans studies have been so comprehensive and in-depth with significantly bigger sample sizes and evidence that the image created has filled in gaps that many theorists had failed to do in the past. For example, Mintzberg’s findings were groundbreaking but were not supported by enough evidence and the language used wasn’t explicit or scientific enough. Luthans was both methodical about his work and supported it with enough evidence to reduce the chance of anomalies. His definition and distinction of successful and effective real managers provided a significant stand point for real managers to adapt and improve their time allocation. However, there is a suggestion that this disparity between successful and effective mangers is just a mirror image of society which is ridden with class inequalities.

Word count: 1413

REFERENCES Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York. Harper and Row. Luthans, F. (in press). Successful vs effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive (1988) Luthans, F., Welsh, D.H.B., & Taylor, L. (1988, June) A descriptive model of managerial effectiveness. Group & organisation Studies, 148-162 Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Henessey, H. (1985) What do Successful managers really do? Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 255-270 Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management...