Women's business gains still impressive

April 5 , 1999

By DOROTHY P. MOORE
Special to the Post and Courier

Why are there so many different ideas about management?
Easy. There are no set rules that fit all situations.
You can find advice that a company should focus on a core business. Karen Kline, who received the 1992 Chicago Woman Business Owner of the Year Award, has consciously resisted all temptations to expand the lines in her store beyond city memorabilia because that narrow focus had made her successful.
     You can find advice to grab opportunity when it appears. Saralyn Levine, an Atlanta entrepreneur, opened her business as a narrowly based gourmet dinner delivery service. Customer requests for more menu items caused her to expand into a full scale catering business.
     There is no one sure-fire management style, no quick-fix solution--to add water and stir. The secret is that you get to decide.
     As one Georgia entrepreneur explained in a focus session, "Basically the buck stops here. I have to deal with the problem effectively, or somebody is disgruntled."
     There are, however, several important general theories that offer management guidance, and it is useful to know what they are.
     The first theories came into being when large business organizations arose as a consequence of the 19th century industrial revolution. David Nadler and Michael Tushman, in their 1997 book, Competing by Design, The Power of Organizational Architecture, have suggested that the combination of building new materials (structural steel), new company needs (centralizing workers in production units, controlling numerous business units over vast differences) and collateral technology (factory and office machines, the telegraph and telephone) meant it became possible to both physically build massive factories and modern skyscrapers and create the large firms necessary to manage far-flung operations.
     What we today call traditional management, organizing work in the image of the machine so operations were structured, orderly and impersonal, involved a couple of basic ideas.
     Scientific management focused on the individual worker and the best ways to select, train, and motivate employees.   Organizational management sought efficiency by dividing management by function and level of authority and instructing mangers through comprehensive rules. With power concentrated at the top, the firm was seen as a pyramid-shaped hierarchy.
     But it soon became apparent that the idea of a fixed and permanent organization structure did not fit what was going on. Organizations changed internally as they responded to an unpredictable environment. Soon they were being described as complex evolving systems. Contrasting ways of managing employees were set out by Douglas McGregor in his Theory X and Theory Y propositions. Theory X describes managers who assume that most people are not ambitious, don't want responsibility, dislike work and try to avoid it. Theory X managers give detailed and complete instructions and keep control. Theory Y describes managers who assume that employees are internally motivated and capable of self-direction and self-control in working toward organizational goals.
     Quantitative theories of management appeared when computers allowed us to process huge amounts of information. Using mathematical models of the decision-making process, management science compares alternative courses of action as precisely as possible. Systems analysis views complex organizations as a collection of related subsystems.
     Consider a restaurant. The diverse items going into the system (capital, land, equipment, materials, customers, and information) are called inputs.   What comes out of the system (product, service, and information) are called outputs. The system itself is called the transformational process. Open sub-systems (waiters serving customers) interact with the external environment. Relatively closed subsystems (the kitchen staff) infrequently interacts with the external environment. Decisions made independently at the sub-system level (the cook decides to buy the cheapest ingredients available rather than the best, the front end manager schedules too few waiters to serve customers) can impact the organization negatively. The systems perspective thus assumes that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Because any change in a subsystem can affect other parts of the organization, the organization must be managed as a coordinated entity.
     Contingency theory offers a way to pull everything together. The theory assumes that the effectiveness of a particular management style varies according to the situation. Any of the above management perspectives can be used alone or in combination depending on the situation.
     Today's leadership theories call for using different techniques to fit different conditions. In a construction firm, for example, once the project had been settled on and the goals agreed to, the entrepreneur might manage architects using Theory Y because they are creative professionals and disinclined to do their best work if handled differently. She might employ scientific management principles to decide the best way to perform component tasks (whether to pour concrete walls at the site or use preset slabs). Elements of the classical management style with strict rules and bureaucratic regulations might guide workers on a job site (start time, hardhats must be worn, etc.)   Janet Marie Smith described in an interview with Working Woman how, as the team's project supervisor for the construction of Baltimore's Oriole Park at Camden Yards, she moved between facilitating and hierarchical management styles as circumstances dictated.
     What works best? There is no one simple answer, but considerable research points in the direction where answers may lie. Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, authors of In Search of Excellence, found that America's best run companies responded to conditions quickly, had a relatively simple structure with few hierarchical levels, and stayed close to their customers.
     In a special article for Working Woman in 1991, David Holzman pointed out that the various employee empowerment programs sweeping the country had, at the bottom, a few common ingredients for success: Management had to gain the trust of employees by behaving with honesty, openness and integrity, employees had to be able to make decisions without fear for their jobs, and everyone, from management to the newest worker, should feel responsible for the company's welfare. The value of this advice as an effective management strategy has not changed.
     The most difficult part of the process? For employees to have power, management has to give it up.


		The following article was published in the Charleston Post & Courier's* Business Major, a featured monthly column in the Business Review Section on April 5, 1999.* Decision-making Skills Key for Managers April 5 , 1999 By DOROTHY P. MOORE Special to the Post and Courier Why are there so many different ideas about management? Easy. There are no set rules that fit all situations. You can find advice that a company should focus on a core business. Karen Kline, who received the 1992 Chicago Woman Business Owner of the Year Award, has consciously resisted all temptations to expand the lines in her store beyond city memorabilia because that narrow focus had made her successful. You can find advice to grab opportunity when it appears. Saralyn Levine, an Atlanta entrepreneur, opened her business as a narrowly based gourmet dinner delivery service. Customer requests for more menu items caused her to expand into a full scale catering business. There is no one sure-fire management style, no quick-fix solution--to add water and stir. The secret is that you get to decide. As one Georgia entrepreneur explained in a focus session, "Basically the buck stops here. I have to deal with the problem effectively, or somebody is disgruntled." There are, however, several important general theories that offer management guidance, and it is useful to know what they are. The first theories came into being when large business organizations arose as a consequence of the 19th century industrial revolution. David Nadler and Michael Tushman, in their 1997 book, Competing by Design, The Power of Organizational Architecture, have suggested that the combination of building new materials (structural steel), new company needs (centralizing workers in production units, controlling numerous business units over vast differences) and collateral technology (factory and office machines, the telegraph and telephone) meant it became possible to both physically build massive factories and modern skyscrapers and create the large firms necessary to manage far-flung operations. What we today call traditional management, organizing work in the image of the machine so operations were structured, orderly and impersonal, involved a couple of basic ideas. Scientific management focused on the individual worker and the best ways to select, train, and motivate employees. Organizational management sought efficiency by dividing management by function and level of authority and instructing mangers through comprehensive rules. With power concentrated at the top, the firm was seen as a pyramid-shaped hierarchy. But it soon became apparent that the idea of a fixed and permanent organization structure did not fit what was going on. Organizations changed internally as they responded to an unpredictable environment. Soon they were being described as complex evolving systems. Contrasting ways of managing employees were set out by Douglas McGregor in his Theory X and Theory Y propositions. Theory X describes managers who assume that most people are not ambitious, don't want responsibility, dislike work and try to avoid it. Theory X managers give detailed and complete instructions and keep control. Theory Y describes managers who assume that employees are internally motivated and capable of self-direction and self-control in working toward organizational goals. Quantitative theories of management appeared when computers allowed us to process huge amounts of information. Using mathematical models of the decision-making process, management science compares alternative courses of action as precisely as possible. Systems analysis views complex organizations as a collection of related subsystems. Consider a restaurant. The diverse items going into the system (capital, land, equipment, materials, customers, and information) are called inputs. What comes out of the system (product, service, and information) are called outputs. The system itself is called the transformational process. Open sub-systems (waiters serving customers) interact with the external environment. Relatively closed subsystems (the kitchen staff) infrequently interacts with the external environment. Decisions made independently at the sub-system level (the cook decides to buy the cheapest ingredients available rather than the best, the front end manager schedules too few waiters to serve customers) can impact the organization negatively. The systems perspective thus assumes that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Because any change in a subsystem can affect other parts of the organization, the organization must be managed as a coordinated entity. Contingency theory offers a way to pull everything together. The theory assumes that the effectiveness of a particular management style varies according to the situation. Any of the above management perspectives can be used alone or in combination depending on the situation. Today's leadership theories call for using different techniques to fit different conditions. In a construction firm, for example, once the project had been settled on and the goals agreed to, the entrepreneur might manage architects using Theory Y because they are creative professionals and disinclined to do their best work if handled differently. She might employ scientific management principles to decide the best way to perform component tasks (whether to pour concrete walls at the site or use preset slabs). Elements of the classical management style with strict rules and bureaucratic regulations might guide workers on a job site (start time, hardhats must be worn, etc.) Janet Marie Smith described in an interview with Working Woman how, as the team's project supervisor for the construction of Baltimore's Oriole Park at Camden Yards, she moved between facilitating and hierarchical management styles as circumstances dictated. What works best? There is no one simple answer, but considerable research points in the direction where answers may lie. Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, authors of In Search of Excellence, found that America's best run companies responded to conditions quickly, had a relatively simple structure with few hierarchical levels, and stayed close to their customers. In a special article for Working Woman in 1991, David Holzman pointed out that the various employee empowerment programs sweeping the country had, at the bottom, a few common ingredients for success: Management had to gain the trust of employees by behaving with honesty, openness and integrity, employees had to be able to make decisions without fear for their jobs, and everyone, from management to the newest worker, should feel responsible for the company's welfare. The value of this advice as an effective management strategy has not changed. The most difficult part of the process? For employees to have power, management has to give it up. For Questions/Comments about this site, contact dot.moore@comcast.net. Site designed by Jackye Cocoros.