Management SSE Flashcards: Terms

Critical Thinkings

Thinking “outside the box,” or “thinking outside your comfort zone,” multi frame analysis can help you achieve this whereas "Free thinking” may insert bias.

Theoretical Pluralism

An approach/way of thinking that allows for the existence of multiple theories of truth at the same time. Ex: a box can represent a house or a wall, its just based on your interpretation and there is no wrong or right answer.

Multi-Frame analysis

Analyzing situations through multiple different frameworks that often contradict. Ex: using both the HR framework and the structural framework.

“Thinking Freely”

Allowing your thoughts to wander rather than thinking within various frameworks. This often inserts bias and keeps a person believing exactly what they already do or assume to be “common sense” based on their limited experiences.

Technical Single-Frame Analysis

Picking one framework/theory and thinking only within that. This is an issue as people are inclined to pick the theory that already aligns with their bias, thus keeping their thoughts limited.

Four Frameworks on Management, Organization, and Leadership

The four key frameworks of “thinking” and organizing that dictate this course.

The Structural Framework (Modern)

Based on economic theory and pure utility maximizing ideology, very logical.

The HR Framework (Modern)

The framework that emphasizes people finding value in their work, collaboration. and the overall work environment that makes people want to work.

The Power Framework (Contemporary)

The framework that emphasizes a zero-sum game where people are hungry and competing to take each other out and be the “ruler”

The Symbolic Framework (Contemporary)

The framework that encompasses culture, religion, and taught values as reasons for why people do things in a group/business setting.

Historical Roots of the Structural Framework

Many new-age capitalist countries became so large that they needed defined structures that could create order and efficiency. Help came from Taylor and Fayol.

Fredrick Taylor - Taylorism’s contribution to the Structural Framework.

Taylorism Stresses: concerned with how to depersonalize employee knowledge, build up structural capital and design formalized processes that could be RELIED on. Formalized processes consist of: descriptions of how tasks should be performed, how much time should be spent, and how monitoring should happen.

Henry Fayol - Contribution to the Structural Framework

Developed 14 principles to ensure efficient management. Provided practical guidance on how to lead organizations.

Max Weber

German sociologist, explained that the rise of the west was due to tradition being replaced with reason. Capitalist + Democratic economy > Communist one.

Weber’s formal-rational bureaucracy is characterized by the following:

an established division of labor among staff, coordination via an authority/responsible hierarchy, generally valid rules that determine different work tasks/rewards, clear difference between professional/personal life, recruitment based on qualifications not nepotism, full employment/established career paths, a full time time job with a sufficient wage. MIRRORS THE MACHINE BUREAUCRACY.

Structural Framework

Firmly structured in corporate management, capital ownership. Based on weber and taylor but kinda adjusted to fit today’s demands and specific situations (organizational theory).

Basic assumptions of the structural framework

Organizations exist because they are efficient tools to achieve established goals, advanced divisions of labor/specialization leads to efficiency, coordination is best achieved through vertical control. People are motivated to work through MATERIAL rewards (pay), and control, inefficiency arises due to incorrectly designed processes and is handled by means of restructuring.

KEY CONCEPTS

EFFICIENCY, DIVISION OF LABOR, AND COORDINATION

Internal Efficiency

Measure of the resources (time, money, labour, etc) needed to achieve something. Ex: it takes 17 hours to make a car.

External Effiency

The resources + market demand it takes to make something. It does not matter how many hours it takes to make a car if nobody wants to buy it.

Flow Efficiency

How long it takes to make in relation to how long it takes for a customer to actually get the item. EX: Coding time vs the time it takes for someone to actually use your app/product.

Ways to improve efficiency

Division of labor (multiple types) and specialization

Division of Labor Based on Function

The most intuitive, used by the romans. Each person has a unique function which maximizes efficiency.

Division of Labor Based on Product

Used for organizations that have different products. Labor is divided to produce the various products. Ex: SAMSUNG phones and dishwashers

Division of Labor Based on Customer and Market

EX: McDonalds has different marketing teams in the UAE and in the USA and also has differing menus

Division of Labor based on Location

NYC and London offices.

Division of Labor based on Time

some industries are very time dependent. Ex: Farming has sowing, plowing, and the actual harvest, police have those who work night shifts this is also common for ER doctors.

Division of Labor based on Process

Purchasing, product development, each PROCESS is assigned a team, can be the same as Division of Labor based on Function.

Division of Labor based on Projects

Creating “projects” and assigning project groups to work on them.

Coordination

From a structural perspective it is always efficient to have specialized activities as much as possible, as well as to coordinate the specialized working tasks with formalized rules & processes and physical structures.

Two strategies for how to coordinate + control

Vertical + Horizontal

Vertical Coordination + Control

About the top deciding what the bottom does (based on meritocracy)

Horizontal Coordination

People on the same level decide what to do without giving a “upper level” person more value in the decision making process. ex:runners who run between departments.

Mintzberg’s structural configurations

Henry Mintzberg’s structural configurations are a core part of the structural framework, and environmental uncertainty, age/size of a company, technological advancement are some of the primary situational factors used to determine which configuration fits best.

The five mintzberg structural configurations

Machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, simple structure, adhocracy, and divisionalized form.

Five basic parts that build the structural configurations of Mintzberg

Strategic apex, technostructure, middle management, support functions, operative core (production).

Strategic apex (top)

highest management group in real life organizations, highest decision making power.

Middle Management

Below the Strategic Apex

Operational Core

Under the middle management (the workshop floor, the restaurant, the sales floor, the cash office).

Technostructure

designed to control the operating core, ex: exactly how you have to make a burger. Covers both the governing/physical structures and the people who design them.

Support Functions

Support rather than control staff. Corporate staff restaurant, free fruit, and health care.

Machine Bureaucracy

Labor divison has been taken as far as possible, defined hierarchy, very formal and vertical coordination. Based on merit, closest to what Weber described. ideal for predictable and large organizations. Good for organizations where production processes are not overly complex (allows for hierarchy to develop), weaknesses: not ideal for small companies, if demand/industry changes it can quickly become antiquated, problems with work motivation, inertia.

Professional Bureaucracy

Used when the environment is stable but the product being produced is complex. Ex: law firms, NASA. More decentralized and vertical coordination is not nearly as strong as people have similar education levels and rely on each other. Education makes tasks predictable and easier to coordinate. These complex professions have less technostructure as a doctor/lawyer controls individually what they do and don’t need to be told. Support functions and systems are VITAL. Strength: provides both efficiency and effectiveness, difficult to manage and control if you want to change it.

Simple Structure

One person tells everyone else what to do. Common of a founder of a start up, early stage companies. Strength: allows for insane efficiency, but not good if the founder has tunnel vision and is not good when the company grows. Flexibility is it’s strength.

Adhocracy

Coordinated by horizontal coordination, people who continuously solve PROBLEMS TOGETHER. Good for short term project groups, no technostructure, hierarchical structures, or authoritarian managers. Good for research + development. Suits smaller organizations/groups where direct communication can occur. Very agile and flexible to changes. very difficult to control

Divisionalized Form

Used for Conglomerates that have different companies and therefore use different types of structural configurations. Ex: Conde Nast, Samsung

Situational Dependencies - what is used to decide which configuration works best?

Size/Age, Central processes + core tech, environment, strategy, information technology, and labor force.

Matrix Organization

Organization where people report to two bosses and are part of two entities within a company, led to the rise of project management but can be bad if people do not cooperate, have differing goals and interests and can cause confusion/frustration.

Situational Dependency - Size/Age

The bigger and older the organization, the more formal and vertical it will be.

Central processes and tech core

The more complex, the less formal/vertically coordinated it will be.

Environment

The higher the uncertainty, the less formal/hierarchical the structure.

Strategy

The more “high end” (high quality + high tech), the less formalization and hierarchy.

Information Tech

Can make power more decentralized or make the structure more hierarchical depending on how it’s used.

Labor Force

The more highly educated + skilled, the less formal and hierarchical.