The functions of management
According to many studies, the functions of management are:
- Planning
- Organising
- Motivating
- Controlling
- Co-ordinating
Planning and control
The two functions of planning and controlling have received particular attention from writers on management.
Planning and control activities can be seen throughout an organisation, from strategic to operational levels. Planning includes forecasting, agreeing objectives and methods, and setting targets. Control includes monitoring performance and taking action, where necessary, to correct deviations from the plan.
Planning and control activities are usually easy to recognise in one-off projects, which have a definite end point, and usually a set schedule. Examples include managing a change of location, the introduction of new computer systems and the launch of new products.
For ongoing activities, planning will produce not only objectives, but also policies and procedures that lay down guidelines for how particular decisions should be taken.
There are four stages to control:
- Setting a target or standard (this is an overlap between planning and control).
- Monitoring performance against the target or standard.
- Noting and feeding back any discrepancies, or variances, between the target and actual performance.
- Taking corrective action - so that any shortfalls are taken into account, and so that performance in the future will closely match the target.
A simple mechanical example of a control system is a thermostat that measures and adjusts water temperature in a heating system.
In management control systems, rather than taking corrective action to make sure that activities meet the standards, it's sometimes the standards themselves that have to be adjusted. It may be that circumstances have changed since the original plan was drawn up and the standards set at that time are no longer appropriate.
Management roles
If you ask managers what they do, they will most likely tell you that they plan, organise, co-ordinate and control. Then watch what they do. Don't be surprised if you can't relate what you see to those four words.
Managers constantly move from one activity to another, suffer frequent interruptions, and are rarely able to behave in the structured, systematic way that is implied by the cycle of management functions.
A suggestion would be that instead of the management functions, it is more helpful to identify certain roles that managers are required to play. Through studies, we have identified ten separate roles which are grouped into three categories.
These roles can be used to analyse how managers are spending their time and effort.
Two managers each completed a time log for two weeks, using the above roles. Here are the results, in terms of the percentages of time each manager spent in each role.
We can see that the two managers spend their time differently. Manager B spends 50% of his/her time between the Entrepreneur, Disturbance Handler and Negotiator roles. Manager A only spends 20% of his/her time between these roles. The positions are reversed if we look at the Figurehead, Leader and Liaison roles.
From these percentages, it seems that Manager A spends more time looking outside his.her department, acting as figurehead and spokesperson and liasing with other groups, whereas Manager B spends most of his/her time focusing on changes, apparently mainly within his/her own department.
Who is using their time more effectively?
We can't answer this question without a better understanding of their jobs, or the result they are achieving. There is no universally 'right' percentage of time for each role - it all depends on the demands of the job.
The different profiles that we see may be a result of:
- The demands of their different jobs
- Their personal preferences
- A mixture of different demands and different personal preferences
Agendas and networks
A close study of a small number of general managers produced the following scenario:
Effective executives did not approach their jobs by planning, organising, motivating and controlling in a very formal sense. Instead, they relied on more continuous, more informal and subtler methods to cope with their large and complex job demands. The most important products of their approach were agendas and their networks, not formal plans and organisational charts.
These are different agendas from formal plans in that they:
- Covered a wider time frame
- Were more strategic and less numerical
- Dealt more with people issues
- Were less logical, linear, rational
The networks were different from organisational structures in that they were more informal, and covered people both inside and outside the company. It was discovered that there were common patterns in the behaviour of a number of the general managers:
- Their time was seldom planned in advance in any detail
- They spent most of their time in conversation with other people
- Many of the conversations were brief and disjointed
- The conversations often included jokes and non-work related issues
- The general managers typically asked numerous questions
- They very rarely appeared to make big decisions
- They rarely gave orders, but often tried to influence others.
In summary from the research:
Neither this daily behaviour nor the general approach seems very professional. Instead, they seem like inefficient 'seat-of-the-pants' management: but a closer examination suggests otherwise.
Much of the effectiveness of the general managers depended on their ability to influence people over whom they had little direct control, and so they socialised widely and used a range of informal methods of influence and persuasion in addition to the formal tools of authority, selection and reward.
Managing by walking about (MBWA)
- Treat team members as responsible adults, with tough minded respect
- Create a positive culture, to provide a sense of shared direction
- Empower people and encourage them to innovate and take risks.
MBWA can help managers maintain good channels of communication with their staff. There is a danger, particularly in larger companies, that managers become cut off from the reality of operations and from the views of the staff members. MBWA can provide the basis for two-way communication, too, as managers keep other members of the organisation informed about plans and policies. They should also be visible role models, showing how the company's values are applied in practice.
One disadvantage is that MBWA can be time-consuming, and its beneficial effects may only be experienced in the longer term. It may also run counter to the traditions in a particular organisation - and therefore take even more time for a manager who wants to operate in this way to break the ice.
Managing and doing
Many managers spend part of their working week doing the same or similar job as others in their department. In professional organisations, senior lawyers, accountants, doctors, teachers and planners are likely to spend some of their time managing and some of their time carrying out their professional duties.
The amount of time spent managing and the amount of time spent doing is usually determined by a manager's position in the organisation. Generally, the more senior the manager, the greater the involvement in management activities.
The main advantages of managers doing the same work as the rest of their team are:
- The manager has a good understanding of what the work entails
- The manager earns credibility and acceptance by the team as a result of being seen to take a fair share of the work
Of course, to achieve this last point, managers must be seen to be reasonably competent in what they do.
The main disadvantage of this arrangement is that it is very demanding on the manager's time. It is too easy to become so involved in the job that the management role becomes neglected. If this happens, staff may come to believe that their manager can't manage - thus the manager will lose rather then gain credibility.
Management and leadership
At one time leadership was regarded as part of a manager's job. Until recently the role of manager would almost always include some direct supervisory responsibility for other people - this was part of the definition of the management role. Leadership was about how managers directed and motivated these 'subordinates'.
For many years it has been argued that management and leadership are different.
- Leadership is about achieving change through influencing the way people think about what is desirable and possible. It is about setting new directions, innovating and initiating.
- Management is about implementation, and maintaining operations. It is rational and systematic.
- Managers are people who do things right.
- Leaders are people who do the right things.