Management Theories & Practices - Past, Current & Future
The action mind-set describes the association between managers and subordinates to ensure the achievement of goals (Gosling and Mintzberg, 2003). The mind-set focuses in the role of the manager as the sole responsible of ensuring that employees work tenuously to attain those goals (Gosling and Mintzberg, 2003). However, Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) also state that managers must accomplish those goals without oppression and recommends the use of engaging management as a tool to unite and persuade employees. This paper discusses the relationship of this mind-set to different topics discussed ...view middle of the document...
Taylor (2005) on the other hand places great emphasis in the implementation of teamwork and the identification of the best capable workers. He also encouraged the use of scientific management as a tool to motivate managers and workers to unite their efforts to facilitate the accomplishment of goals for the organization. Taylor (2005) also believes in the division of labor. However, this division of labor combined with scientific management is aimed to divide the work evenly between workers and managers. The action mind-set relates to this view due to the pursuance of team work and the assessment of the employee’s capabilities to maximize their contributions (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003).
Gulik (2005) shares Fayol’s (2005) vision of promoting specialization and division of labor as a way to increase quality and productivity. However, as Taylor (2005) and the action mind-set (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003), Gulik (2005) also recognizes how important it is for management to be aware of the skills and abilities of the employees as the first step towards the specialization of their duties. Gulik (2005) also recognizes the significance of the managers to energize and engage the employees to ensure the achievement of a common goal, which is also one of the premises of the action-mind-set.
Roethlisberger (2005) and the Hawthorne concentrated their efforts on the relations of the human factor in the organization’s productivity. This awareness is what the action mind-set seeks for, to motivates and encourages the employees to create and pursue the most suitable plans to ensure the fulfillment of the goals. Roethlisberger’s (2005) idea is to avoid the idea of seeing employees as extensions of the machinery in the pursuance of an approach seeking a more motivational, influential, and participating management style.
Selznick (2005) establishes that formal organizations are formed as a way to synchronize actions for the pursuance of a goal. However, he also states that due to pursuance of multiple goals and the needs of the individuals it can be difficult for the organization to share and pursue a common goal. This concept doesn’t agree with the action-mindset from Gosling and Mintzberg (2003). However, the mind-set does agree with Selzick’s (2005) synchronization of actions goals within the organization. The action mind-set does point out that to secure the achievement of a universal goal management must mobiliz forces by encouraging and engaging the employees. This is opposite to Selznick’s (2005) views who emphasize the use of coordination and the chain of command as a way to coerce individuals into the pursuance of a single goal.
The mechanistic system is known for having a strict configuration, lack of flexibility, and for relying heavily in bureaucracy (Burns & Stalker, 2005). On the other hand, the organic system is known for its flexibility and its fewer hierarchical levels (Burns & Stalker, 2005). When considering the...