Management Dynamics Essay
Why are these views Important when considering or analyzing an organization’s external environment? The omnipotent view of management claims that managers are directly responsible for the success or otherwise of their organizations. It Is the decisions that they make or the visions that they hold which are the critical things In terms of an organization’s success.
It leads to conclusions such as: for a poorly performing organization all you need to do is hang the management team replacing lesser performing managers with better ones and things will start to improve. The classic example in support of the omnipotent view Is the late Steve Jobs and Apple. After establishing Apple and building it up to a reasonably sized corporation, Steve Jobs left Apple pursue other interests. Afterwards Apple struggled to still be successful and was almost on the point of bankruptcy in 1997 when Steve Jobs accepted a request to return.
The symbolic view of management claims that external forces determine organization success predominantly rather than on whether or not managers (at all levels) are effective. That is, the issues and factors of the external environment are more important than the organization’s managerial team, which is seen as secondary in nature. The
Need essay sample on "Management Dynamics"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Dowdy agree with this claim? In your answer you should outline the classical view as well as the corporate social responsibility view of how organizations should act within the broader context of society. The view that organizations, in particular for-profit organizations, should “look after their shareholders” is normally termed the classical view. The main ideas of the classical view are that the organization should have an economic focus only; that is, maximize profits, maximize shareholders’ return or both.
Finally, the classical view considers that organizations, in particular for-profit organizations, should not get involved in broader social issues and agendas; these are things best left to society as a whole. On the other hand organizations, In particular for-profit organizations, do not deed to forsake the pursuit of profits by embracing a corporate social agenda. Corporate social responsibility recognizes that organizations must remain viable in order to be sustainable. So the claim outlined above is wrong in the sense that there Is an “either or decision to be made.
Corporate social responsibility sees the pursuit of profits as only one dimension of the organization’s overall operations and management. 1 OFF extreme and untenable view. Yah! Is a company that has embraced a corporate social agenda. Yah! Sees corporate social responsibility as a means to market itself to existing or potential customers and so is considered part of the way Yah! Is able to continue to earn profits; developing stronger relationships with its customers through trust in the organization. However, it should also be recognized that Yah! Goes consider corporate social responsibility as something beyond a value adding strategy. Corporate social responsibility was adopted by this organization because it was “the right thing to do”. That is corporate social responsibility is often considered from a moral point of view rather than a purely economic point of view. WESTERN is another organization that has embraced corporate social responsibility mainly from a moral point of view. What can be said is that embracing corporate social responsibility does not harm firms in the long term as far as their economic performance is concerned.
If this is the case then whether or not a firm does adopt a corporate social responsibility again appears to be more of a moral choice rather than an economic one. Question 3: When making decisions managers should be aware of the level of uncertainty and the level of risk. Discuss these two concepts within the context of the types of problems that managers may face and their approaches to making decisions with respect to these problems. Not all problems that individuals or organizations face are the same. Problems have different levels of complexity, and so some are more difficult to understand than others.
Some problems may be less well defined, or the context of the problem is less stable and more subject to change; in these situations one would expect that the uncertainty associated with that problem would be higher than would the case here these conditions or situations were not present. Finally the outcome or consequences of making the decision can be different. At lower management levels managers may be involved in a large number of decisions which do have outcomes but the impact of making a poor decision is not large.
For these decisions the level of risk to the organization for that decision should be seen as low. However, at higher levels of management, managers may make fewer decisions but the outcomes or consequences of making a poor decision have a bigger impact. So the level of risk associated with making a poor decision increases. Indeed the level of risk related to decisions made by senior executives or members of the firm’s board of directors would be very high as the consequences of making a poor decision at this level may have a direct impact on the firm’s survivability – either in the short term or the long term.
So with respect to the managers’ approach to decision making it may be that at lower management levels those managers adopt a predominantly intuitive or bounded rationality approach; whereas at higher management levels these approaches may to be appropriate and the manager should follow a rational decision making example, time pressures associated with making a decision at lower levels of management mean that these managers do more often adopt an intuitive approach rather than a rational decision making approach.
In terms of risk, some managers may be more risk averse than others (seen as risk takers) and this will also influence their approaches to decision making. With regard to the problem being addressed by the decision makers, these can be classified into one of three categories: namely, structured problems, semi-structured robbers and unstructured problems. One way to distinguish between these categories or classes of problems is to consider the rules used to solve them.
Structured problems use a finite and fixed set of rules: these rules are implemented in the same way across different decision makers and by either the same decision maker or different decision makers at different points in time. Semi-structured problems have a finite set of rules but these rules are not fixed over time and different decision makers may interpret the rules differently. Unstructured problems have either a finite set of rules nor a fixed set of rules.
So structured problems are most easily understood and would most often be associated with low levels of uncertainty; while semi-structured problems may not be as easily understood and so face a higher level of uncertainty, with unstructured problems facing the highest level of uncertainty. You would expect that decisions made by lower level managers are more related to structured problems than semi-structured or unstructured problems and so the level of risk associated with structured problems would also be low.
On the other hand, semi-structured problems would more often be addressed by middle level managers and so the impact of a poor decision would be greater indicating that this class of problems would be associated with a higher level of risk when compared with structured problems. Finally, unstructured problems would more often be addressed by senior executives and so the impact of a poor decision would be greater than semi-structured problems. This would indicate that the risk associated with unstructured problems would be greater than semi-structured problems.