A review of current managerial techniques and adaptations reveals that little is known in regards to management variance within small to large organizations (Moates & Kulonda, 2000). In order to critically evaluate if ‘Managerial jobs are the same in both large and small organizations’, a comparison of Fayol’s fourteen principles of management (Cole, 1984, p. 13-14) is carried out between the supervisors and middle management of small and large organizations, classified as having under 50 employees, or over, respectively. As will be shown, managerial jobs differ with the size of an organization and whilst acting in a similar capacity, the roles are contrasting when complying with the ...view middle of the document...
Authority within a large multi-level management structure, will be challenged on a much more regular basis, and to a greater extent than that with a flattened management structure. Whilst, smaller companies may have highly diversified daily tasks for managers and supervisors, one knows his or her place, and respects his/her place in the overall picture. However, when faced with a cumbersome configuration with up to 30 levels of management and bureaucracy, ‘power struggles’ often occur, causing a fall in productivity, clarity and motivation, not only on a personal level for the manager, but also his/her subordinates (Parker & Ritson, 2005).
Management plays a crucial part, in the correction and discipline of employees within smaller organizations. Often is it is left to managers discretion to take action against an individual for violating a contract, or the relevant laws. Whereas within a large company, such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, there are set policies and reporting guidelines, as well as risk procedures, which aim to eliminate said discretion and provide transparency, therefore eliminating any need for judgment. A mid-level manager with the Commonwealth Bank, may for example spend a great deal of his or her time developing policies for compliance with the overall company requirements, whereas a mid-level manager in a company with fewer than 50 employees may not have even developed guidelines, and as a result is inclined to deal with matters as they arise, which contributes to further inconsistency.
Unity, in terms of strategic direction, is best achieved by the highest levels of management. Given, is that the Chief Executive Officer is solely the first in command, as is the case in any organization, regardless of size or capital. Nevertheless, managers in large organizations must also ensure unity of command, prior to ensuring unity of direction. A primary example of providing this operating environment is to:
Replace the seagulls with one or two eagles at most…the CEO of a large oil firm said to us: ‘We decided that we could not afford two personnel managers at $35,000. We could only afford one at $70,000! (Limerick, 1993, p.45)
The above concept shows that one superior individual is better then two average people combined in some circumstances, and also eliminates the difference in opinion, should one surface. The manager of the small organization is unlikely to have to make such a decision, as the opportunity to offer such remuneration often does not exist, and there is a constant need to boost numbers, despite the consequences of hiring perhaps more unqualified workers.
The general interest of an organization must prevail over individual interests, and participation must be full, regardless of personal beliefs. The manager has the difficult task of coordinating the contributions of each individual to complete the task at hand and fulfill organizational goals (Miller & Vaughan, 2001). Many employment...