Management theory is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as a set of ideas and methods designed to help managers do their job well. For the purposes of this essay I will view management theory by that definition. Over time management theories have developed starting with classical theories, displayed most notably by Fayol (1949). Luthans (1988) felt that Fayol (1949), Mintzberg (1975) and Kotter (1982) all made notable contributions to management theory however their theories lacked comprehensive research stating ‘the next step in discovering the true nature of managerial works called for a larger sample that would allow more meaningful generalizations’ (Luthans, 1988, p.128). Bearing this in mind Luthans (1988) used trained observers to review 44 ‘real’ managers from different occupations and levels of organisations (p.128). Through this research he concluded that there was a distinct difference between successful and effective managers, and that organisational structure would need to change to allow effective managers to be more successful (Luthans, 1988, p.127). In this essay I aim to present exactly what Luthans’ (1988) contributions to the field are, and how it did or did not change views and approaches to management.
Probably Luthans’ (1988) greatest contribution to management theory was to establish the difference between successful and effective managers. Prior to Luthans’ (1988) research people would tend to favour a school of thought, between either the classical approach established by Fayol (1949), or the more recent scientific approach of Mintzberg (1975). Fayol (1949) argued that managers are rational, outcomes are controllable and by adhering to his 14 principles they would be successful. Mintzberg (1975) challenged this theory, by stating that the classical view of what managers do is “folklore” (p.4), arguing that what managers do in practice is rarely how it is planned to be, and outcomes are not controllable. For this reason, Mintzberg (1975) conducted research to simplify the roles of managers to 3, which should be considered evenly to achieve success. Both these schools of thought assumed that effective managers would also be the most successful, therefore both of these views were aimed towards helping the manager to be as effective as possible (Luthans, 1988). I believe that Luthans (1988) was intrigued by the alternative research findings and methods of Kotter (1982), which focused around ‘networking’ to gain success. Upon research outcomes Luthans (1988) decided to conduct further research on 248 managers finding that the activities of managers could be narrowed down into 4 categories. After this he found that successful managers were focussing on ‘almost the opposite’ (p.131) activities to effective managers.
I believe that making this distinction was of massive importance to the development of management theory. This distinction has given much greater context to the theories that came before, explaining to many managers why their best efforts haven’t resulted in success, though they may feel that they’re very effective. Luthans’ (1988) conclusion states that ‘First of all, we need to pay more attention to formal reward systems to ensure that effective managers are promoted. Second, we must learn how effective managers do their day-to-day job’ (p.131). By using the conclusions drawn from this research, businesses could find themselves performing at a much higher level due to having all high-ranking managers being as effective as possible. If these findings were to be taken on board by most major businesses across the globe, it would also increase incentives for managers to be more effective whilst discouraging managers from following the far less effective successful manager model.
On the other hand, the findings of what an effective manager actually does tends to simply reinforce the theories that came before. The findings show that an effective manager will favour communication and human resource management. Both of these aspects of management had already been highlighted, though categorised differently by Fayol (1949), though Fayol (1949) placed a heavier emphasis on traditional management than Luthans’ (1988) research suggests should be done to attain effectiveness. However, the later research of Mintzberg (1975) suggested that the amount of traditional management that can be done is limited by the lack of time the manager has. Bearing this in mind, the use of these schools of thought by a manager prior to Luthans’ (1988) research would seemingly result in an ‘effective manager’, meaning that following Luthans’ (1988) effective manager model may not change the way that the manager would act following a previous model.
Another significant contribution that Luthans (1988) made to the field of management is the amount of research that he conducted. It is clear to me that the intention of Luthans’ (1988) work was to provide a more comprehensive overview of what ‘real managers’ do, the frequency of which these activities occur, and the outcomes of these tasks. Though Mintzberg (1975) and Kotter (1982) took a scientific approach to their theories, Luthans (1988) was not happy with the small sample sizes of research to date giving him the original idea of studying ‘real managers’. Luthans (1988) believed that at that time, due to the lack of research in the field, it was not scientifically clear what managers do in the real world.
I think this was revolutionary for management theory, as up to that point theories of management were largely made from speculation. Luthans (1988) changed that as he was able to show clear correlation through research between the activities managers did and their outcomes, giving much more credibility to his claims as they may be considered proven to many people. The research also forms 4 different categories of activities managers undertake, which also unlike previous ideas are scientifically supported to be involved in practice. Overall, the research undertaken in building this school of thought took scientific approach to management theory to the next level.
Having said this, by having such a heavy focus on research, Luthans’ (1988) theory is less focused on the application to managers. Leading management theorists prior to Luthans (1988) put forward fully formed frameworks that could instruct managers about the qualities they need and/or how to approach tasks most effectively. For example, Fayol’s (1949) 14 principles and Mintzberg’s (1975) core skills. Luthans (1988) does not state exactly what skills of a manager should be exhibited for them to be effective, or the roles they must take on, making this not a very simple idea for managers to use as a guide. It could be argued however that Luthans (1988) should not be critiqued for this, as his intention before the research was never to create a guide for managers, and after the research was conducted, he concluded that he wanted to use it to inform and guide organisations rather than managers.
After having considered what Luthans’ (1988) contribution is to management theory, I am left with 2 questions. What is Luthans’ (1988) greatest contribution to management theory? and how significant is this compared to the contributions of theorists that came before?
I believe that the distinction between successful and effective managers, as well as the rigorous scientific approach, are undoubtedly Luthans’ (1988) greatest contributions to the field of management theory. I believe that making the distinction between successful and effective managers is Luthans’ (1988) greatest contribution. I think this because, though the research was very important, and it changed the way we approach management theory looking at it as more of a science, this was most important for building the foundation for Luthans’ (1988) discovery of the difference between the successful and effective manager. Some may say it was inevitable that at some point in the near future the study of management theory would grow to be more scientific, therefore the value that had been added by Luthans (1988) was his ability to interpret his findings to make the discovery of this distinction. Most importantly making this distinction formed his conclusion and recommendation that organisational structures had to be changed to favour effective managers. For some businesses this could reap ground-breaking rewards in terms of efficiency, and hopefully over time we will begin to see managers being trained in how to be the most effective as this type of manager is increasingly given the most powerful roles.
When Luthans (1988) published these findings, I would argue that his contribution was not as great as Fayol (1949) however more significant than Mintzberg (1975). Fayol’s (1949) obdurate contribution to management theory is nearly impossible to top as he was able to add structure to management approach, essentially giving birth to management theory. Mintzberg’s (1975) contribution was to challenge how applicable classical theory was to the real world, paving the way for theorists like Luthans (1988). I believe that Luthans’ (1988) contribution is greater than Mintzberg’s (1975) because it is more conclusive. Luthans (1988) states ‘Mintzberg based this view of managers on only the five managers he observed and his search of the literature, he did ask, and at least gave the beginning of an answer to, the question of what managers really do’ (p.127). Luthans (1988) in my opinion, then went on to answer that question and build upon it by making his greatest discovery, that there was a distinction to be made between successful and effective managers, bringing a conclusion from the question Mintzberg (1975) asked.
In conclusion, Luthans’ (1988) contribution to management theory should be considered amongst the highest calibre of names in the field. The way he was able to build on the work of Mintzberg (1975) to form conclusions about the way that organisations and reward systems need to be restructured to improve the performance of managers across the industry, rather than to give aid to the managers themselves should not be overlooked. The implications on management theory are obviously also enormous, by changing the way the study of the field is approached to be much more scientific and less speculative, and by also giving greater context to theories that came before.
References:
- Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs. Effective Real Managers. The Academy of management EXECUTIVE. Vol.(2) No 2, pp.127-132.
- Henry Mintzberg’s article (July-August 1975), “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” Harvard Business Review, 53, pp. 4
- Luthans, Fred, Richard M. Hodgetts, and Stuart A. Rosenkrantz (1988), Real managers. Ballinger
- John Kotter (1982), The General Managers, New York: Free Press
- Henri Fayol (1949), General and Industrial Administration
Bibliography:
- Wren, D.A., 1990, August. Was Henri Fayol a Real Manager? In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1990, No. 1, pp. 138-142). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
- Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S.A. and Hennessey, H.W., 1985. What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(3), pp.255-270.
9.1.2019