Classical management theory viewed the organization as a goal-seeking collective base on the notion of the organization as a rational instrument or a tool. It was an approach which formed the basis of modern organizational analysis and was underpinned by assumption that if managers develop suitable means then they achieved desired outcome. This is recognizably Newtonian -? Cartesian thinking and in many organizations today it has become intertwined with notion of efficiency.
Efficiency is obtained by careful ND precise planning and an adherence to rationally designed structures and process.
An Organization seeks success and sustainability by aligning all its structures and procedure with environmental circumstances in order to enhance efficiency. How realistic a notion is this, given the complexity of human system and the dynamics nature of the many environments both internal and external, that managers have to contend with – and a bout which they cannot possibly know everything? The managerial environment is a complex and rapidly changing world (Thomas, 2003). Management and Leadership is in a state of constant flux.
It is all about working smarter, improving efficiency and maximizing resources to maintain your competitive edge. Keeping a head of management trends and incorporating new management solutions into day to day business operations is the key to ensuring organizational success. Many organizations attempt to inspire and introduce change by producing mission statements, strategic planning intervention and new (usually linear) organizational structures. All these changes are essentially top-down and support classical notion of authority ND the role of hierarchy (McMillan,2006) and it does not always work.
Then, How do we maintain or even increase control without stifling innovation? Literature tells us that rigid control and scientific management does not nature the needed environment for innovation in organizations in this constantly changing and full of uncertainty business world. New ways are needed to enable maintain or even increase control without stifling innovation. In current business climate, two aspect of performance dominate discussion, what Protracts et al (2002) call ‘performance Imperatives’: the need for legibility and the need for innovation.
In a very uncertain business world, the scope for long term panning is seriously limited. Successful businesses are likely to be those that develop a high degree of strategic and organizational flexibility, while also (Belabored, 1 997) maintaining efficient and stable process. This usually depends on having developed a degree of stability and predictability in the way they transform resources into goods and services. Protract et alarm (2002) identifies innovation as : to generate a variety of successful new products or service (embedding technological innovation and to continuously innovate in all aspect of the business.
West and 990) defines innovation as the intentional Introduction and application within a job, work team or organization and which are desired to benefit the job, the work team or the organization. Innovation is a two-component non-linear process, encompassing both creativity and innovation implementation. At the outset of the process, creativity dominates, to be superseded later by innovation implementation process. Innovation represents a particular étagère of change- it is intentional, designed to benefit, and new to the unit of adoption.
If changes incorporate these three elements according to this definition, it is innovation. (Henry, 2006) Culture is a powerful influence on the success or failure of innovation (Jones et al, 2005). The participative model is the belief that if people are able to take part in planning a change, they will be more willingly to accept and implement the change. (Ketosis and Castanet, 2004). Reflecting on the limited acceptance of participative system in recent ears, Uniform (1997, 2006) concludes that a major barrier has been that of the culture context.
With many organizations retaining a hierarchical form, those in a higher position are frequently reluctant to give up power to the degree implied by participative approaches to change as we live in uncertain and ambiguous world. Cotter and Schlesinger (1979) identified that sources of resistance include self-interest, misunderstanding and luck of trust: people also resist change when they do not understand its implication and perceive that it might cost them much more than they will gain.
Employees assess the situation differently from their managers and may see more cost than benefit for both themselves and the company. This supports the idea that change is disturbing and people are likely to resist if they do not feel they have been able to participate in discussions about the form it should take (Body,2008). Despite the general movement towards less mechanistic structures and the role of managers as facilitators of change, there appears to be some reluctance especially among top managers to dilute or weaken hierarchical
A study of UK business suggest that there are mixed reactions to the wave of management thinking. While the prospect of empowerment can hold attraction for the individual employee, many managers are keen to maintain control over destiny, roles and responsibilities of others. Beneath the trapping of the facilitate-and-empower philosophy the command-and -control system often lives on. However, in a discussion on modern leadership and management, Groton (1995) makes the point that Today’s leaders understand that you have to give up control to get results.