What is management theory?

its a body of knowledge that is developed through a method of science consisting of principles
and concepts that advices the management on the things that should be done in an organization

Early Management Theories

Early Theories of Organizations emerged mainly for military and Catholic Church.
The metaphor of the machine was dominant, where organizations are viewed as
machines. Therefore, the organizational application was, since workers behave
predictably (as machines do rarely deviate from the norm), management knows
what to expect, and workers operating outside expectations are replaced.

Classical Management Theories

There are three well-established theories of classical management: Taylor?s Theory
of Scientific Management, Fayol?s Administrative Theory, Weber?s Theory of
Bureaucracy. Although these schools, or theories, developed historical sequence,
later ideas have not replaced earlier ones. Instead, each new school has tended to
complement or coexist with previous ones.

Taylor?s Theory of Scientific Management, U.S.A≅

Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) ?The Father of Scientific Management?.

Scientific Management theory arose from the need to increase productivity in the
U.S.A. especially, where skilled labor was in short supply at the beginning of the
twentieth century. The only way to expand productivity was to raise the efficiency
of workers.

Taylor devised four principles for scientific management theory, which were:
1. The development of a true science of management,
2. The scientific selection and training of workers,
3. Proper remuneration for fast and high-quality work
4. Equal division of ...

In their stress on formal relationships in the organization, classical approaches tend to ignore
informal relations as characterized by social interchange among workers, the emergence of group
leaders apart from those specified by the formal organization, and so forth. Thus their focus is
understandably narrow.
Failure to consider the informal organization
It was not common for workers to think in terms of what "career" they were going to pursue.
Their basic assumption is that workers are primarily motivated by money and that they work
only for more money. First, the work force was not highly educated or trained to perform many
of the jobs that existed at the time. Indeed, for many writers, technology was the driving force
behind organizational and social change. For instance, the classical approaches seem to view the
life of a worker as beginning and ending at the plant door. These assumptions fail to recognize
that employees may have wants and needs unrelated to the workplace or may view their jobs
only as a necessary evil. For instance, Taylor's and Fayol's work came primarily from their
experiences with large manufacturing firms that were experiencing stable environments. Perhaps
much more could be achieved if the rules were not so explicit.
Untested assumptions
Many of the assumptions made by classical writers were based not on scientific tests but on
value judgments that expressed what they believed to be proper life-styles, moral codes, and
attitudes toward success.
Human machinery
Classical theories leave the impression that the organization is a machine and that workers are
simply parts to be fitted into the machine to make it run efficiently.
Reliance on experience
Many of the writers in the classical school of management developed their ideas on the basis of
their experiences as managers or consultants with only certain types of organizations. Finally,
very little had been done previously in terms of generating a coherent and useful body of
management theory. Rather, for many, the opportunity to obtain a secure job and a level of
wages to provide for their families was all they demanded from the work setting. Classical
theories and the principles derived from them continue to be popular today with some
modifications. For instance, a heavy emphasis on rules and regulations may cause people to obey
rules blindly without remembering their original intent. Thus, many of the principles are
concerned first with making the organization efficient, with the assumption that workers will
conform to the work setting if the financial incentives are agreeable.
Unintended consequences
Classical approaches aim at achieving high productivity, at making behaviors predictable, and at
achieving fairness among workers and between managers and workers; yet they fail to recognize
that several unintended consequences can occur in practice. Several major ones are discussed
here. It may be unwise to generalize from those situations to others-especially to young, high-
technology firms of today that are confronted daily with changes in their competitors' products.
They also assume that productivity is the best measure of how well a firm is performing. Thus,
their focus was on finding ways to increase efficiency. Since many of these criticisms of the
classical school are harsh, several points need to be made in defense of writers during this period.
Oftentimes, since rules establish a minimum level of performance expected of employees, a
minimum level is all they achieve.
Static conditions
Organizations are influenced by external conditions that often fluctuate over time, yet classical
management, theory presents an image of an organization that is not shaped by external
influences. It was assumed that all humankind could do was to adapt to the rapidly changing
conditions. Second, much of the writing took place when technology was undergoing a rapid
transformation, particularly in the area of manufacturing. When such things are not considered, it
is likely that many important factors affecting satisfaction and performance, such as letting
employees participate in decision making and task planning, will never be explored or tried.
Many of the classical theorists were writing from scratch, obliged for the most part to rely on
their own experience and observations.
Martin Hahn PhD has received his education and degrees in Europe in organizational/industrial
sociology. He grew up in South-East Asia and moved to Europe to get his tertiary education and
gain experience in the fields of scientific research, radio journalism, and management consulting.
If you would like to know more about Martin Hahn PhD and purchase his e-book, please visit:
http://www.martinimhahn.com.

Brief Overview of Contemporary Theories in

Management
© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC.
Contemporary theories of management tend to account for and help interpret the rapidly
changing nature of today’s organizational environments. As before in management history, these
theories are prevalent in other sciences as well. (Also see Additional Sources of Management
Theories, and listed below.)
Contingency Theory
Basically, contingency theory asserts that when managers make a decision, they must take into
account all aspects of the current situation and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at
hand. Basically, it’s the approach that “it depends.” For example, the continuing effort to identify
the best leadership or management style might now conclude that the best style depends on the
situation. If one is leading troops in the Persian Gulf, an autocratic style is probably best (of
course, many might argue here, too). If one is leading a hospital or university, a more
participative and facilitative leadership style is probably best.
Systems Theory
Systems theory has had a significant effect on management science and understanding
organizations. First, let’s look at “what is a system?” A system is a collection of part unified to
accomplish an overall goal. If one part of the system is removed, the nature of the system is
changed as well. For example, a pile of sand is not a system. If one removes a sand particle,
you’ve still got a pile of sand. However, a functioning car is a system. Remove the carburetor
and you’ve no longer got a working car. A system can be looked at as having inputs, processes,
outputs and outcomes. Systems share feedback among each of these four aspects of the systems.
Let’s look at an organization. Inputs would include resources such as raw materials, money,
technologies and people. These inputs go through a process where they’re planned, organized,
motivated and controlled, ultimately to meet the organization’s goals. Outputs would be products
or services to a market. Outcomes would be, e.g., enhanced quality of life or productivity for
customers/clients, productivity. Feedback would be information from human resources carrying
out the process, customers/clients using the products, etc. Feedback also comes from the larger
environment of the organization, e.g., influences from government, society, economics, and
technologies. This overall system framework applies to any system, including subsystems
(departments, programs, etc.) in the overall organization.
Systems theory may seem quite basic. Yet, decades of management training and practices in the
workplace have not followed this theory. Only recently, with tremendous changes facing
organizations and how they operate, have educators and managers come to face this new way of
looking at things. This interpretation has brought about a significant change (or paradigm shift)
in the way management studies and approaches organizations.
The effect of systems theory in management is that writers, educators, consultants, etc. are
helping managers to look at the organization from a broader perspective. Systems theory has
brought a new perspective for managers to interpret patterns and events in the workplace. They
recognize the various parts of the organization, and, in particular, the interrelations of the parts,
e.g., the coordination of central administration with its programs, engineering with
manufacturing, supervisors with workers, etc. This is a major development. In the past, managers
typically took one part and focused on that. Then they moved all attention to another part. The
problem was that an organization could, e.g., have a wonderful central administration and
wonderful set of teachers, but the departments didn’t synchronize at all.
Chaos Theory
As chaotic and random as world events seem today, they seem as chaotic in organizations, too.
Yet for decades, managers have acted on the basis that organizational events can always be
controlled. A new theory (or some say “science”), chaos theory, recognizes that events indeed
are rarely controlled. Many chaos theorists (as do systems theorists) refer to biological systems
when explaining their theory. They suggest that systems naturally go to more complexity, and as
they do so, these systems become more volatile (or susceptible to cataclysmic events) and must
expend more energy to maintain that complexity. As they expend more energy, they seek more
structure to maintain stability. This trend continues until the system splits, combines with another
complex system or falls apart entirely. Sound familiar? This trend is what many see as the trend
in life, in organizations and the world in general.

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created and developed by Douglas
McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1960s that have been used in human
resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and
organizational development. They describe two very different attitudes toward workforce
motivation. McGregor felt that companies followed either one or the other approach. He also
thought that the key to connecting self-actualization with work is determined by the managerial
trust of subordinates.

[edit] Theory X
In this theory, which has been proven counter-effective in most modern practice, management
assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently
dislike work. As a result of this, management believes that workers need to be closely supervised
and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with
narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show
little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they
can. According to Michael J. Papa (Ph.D., Temple University; M.A., Central Michigan
University; B.A., St. John’s University), if the organizational goals are to be met, theory X
managers rely heavily on threat and coercion to gain their employee's compliance. Beliefs of this
theory lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. The Theory X
manager tends to believe that everything must end in blaming someone. He or she thinks all
prospective employees are only out for themselves. Usually these managers feel the sole purpose
of the employee's interest in the job is money. They will blame the person first in most situations,
without questioning whether it may be the system, policy, or lack of training that deserves the
blame. A Theory X manager believes that his or her employees do not really want to work, that
they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the manager's job to structure the work and
energize the employee. One major flaw of this management style is it is much more likely to
cause Diseconomies of Scale in large businesses.
[edit] Theory Y
In this theory, management assumes employees may be ambitious and self-motivated and
exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties.
According to Papa, to them work is as natural as play[1]. They possess the ability for creative
problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper
conditions, theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept
responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which
they are committed. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people
will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong
motivation. Many people interpret Theory Y as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close
reading of The Human Side of Enterprise reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to
be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that
Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X managers to develop the climate of trust with
employees that is required for human resource development. It's here through human resource
development that is a crucial aspect of any organization. This would include managers
communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between superior-
subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop
and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making so that
subordinates have say in decisions that influence them. This theory is a positive view to the
employees, meaning that the employer is under a lot less pressure than someone who is
influenced by a theory X management style.
[edit] Theory X and Theory Y combined
For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not different ends of the same continuum. Rather they are
two different continua in themselves. Thus, if managers need to apply Theory Y principles, that
does not preclude them from being a part of Theory X & Y.
[edit] McGregor and Maslow's hierarchy
McGregor's work was based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. He grouped Maslow's hierarchy
into "lower order" (Theory X) needs and "higher order" (Theory Y) needs. He suggested that
management could use either set of needs to motivate employees. As management theorists
became familiar with Maslow's work, they soon realized the possibility of connecting higher
level needs to worker motivation. If organizational goals and individual needs could be
integrated so that people would acquire self-esteem and, ultimately, self-actualization through
work, then motivation would be self-sustaining. Today, his Theory Y principle influences the
design of personnel policies, affects the way companies conduct performance reviews, and
shapes the idea of pay for performance. According to the Douglas McGregor: Theory X and
Theory Y article, "He is the reason we use the term 'human resources' instead of personnel
department" says Brzezinski. "The idea that people are assets was unheard of before
McGregor."[2]
[edit] Criticisms
Today the theories are seldom used explicitly, largely because the insights they provided have
influenced and been incorporated by further generations of management theorists and
practitioners. More commonly, workplaces are described as "hard" versus "soft." Taken too
literally any such dichotomy including Theory X and Y seem to represent unrealistic extremes.
Most employees (and managers) fall somewhere in between these poles. Naturally, McGregor
was well aware of the heuristic as opposed to literal way in which such distinctions are useful.
Theory X and Theory Y are still important terms in the field of management and motivation.
Recent studies have questioned the rigidity of the model, but McGregor's X-Y Theory remains a
guiding principle of positive approaches to management, to organizational development, and to
improving organizational culture.

Patterns of knowing: proposing a theory for

nursing leadership
Nursing Economics, May-June, 2009 by Janet P. Jackson,
Paul T. Clements, Jennifer B. Averill, Kathie Zimbro
THE HEALTH SERVICES INDUSTRY is a rapidly changing environment; subsequently,
innovative leadership characteristics and roles are required for the nursing profession. Porter-
O'Grady and Malloch (2006) noted that the impact on nursing management and leadership is just
beginning to be defined in this contemporary and unsettled health care arena. Furthermore,
changes resulting from enhanced technology, proliferating information available on the Internet,
increasingly informed health care consumers, ongoing constraints of managed care, a worsening
nursing shortage, and the ever evolving health care delivery systems are converging to create
unprecedented challenges for nursing leadership (Aiken, 2007; American College of Healthcare
Executives [ACHE], 2005; Arming Health Care Consumers, 2006; Dendaas, 2004).
Additionally, "The number and magnitude of challenges facing healthcare organizations are
unprecedented. Growing financial pressures, rising public and payor expectations and the
increasing number of consolidations have placed hospitals, health networks, managed care plans
and other healthcare organizations under greater stress" (ACHE, 2005).
The Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2004) published its report "Keeping Patients Safe:
Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses," noting a decline in chief nurse executives,
directors of nursing, and nurse managers, and subsequently recommended the adoption of
transformational leadership and evidence-based management (EBM) to increase patient safety
and reduce errors in the work environment. Echoing the call for change, Sofarelli and Brown
(1998), Clegg (2000), Valentine (2002), and DeGroot (2005) advocated transformational
leadership theory for nursing leaders.
Burns' (1978) seminal theory of transformational leadership defined a process in which
leadership is transcendent, uplifting, moral, and often charismatic. It offers broad direction,
strong commitment, and raises both leaders and followers to principled levels of judgment.
Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2005), established pioneers in the field of corporate
organizational management described transformational leadership theory as one that includes a
visionary leader who motivates followers to work for internal rewards of achievement and self-
actualization, rather than external rewards of transaction and security. This is a comprehensive,
general leadership theory that is applied in many disciplines; however, the authors ask whether
transformational leadership is appropriate for nursing leaders in health care settings.
Nursing is a unique profession because of its synthesis of practice, multidimensional
assessment/intervention, interpersonal communication, case management, and resource-linking
on behalf of patients. Nursing practice revolves around tenets of caring within an overarching
altruistic framework. In fact, nursing is a multi-faceted science and art with a rich history steeped
in the roots established by Florence Nightingale that embodies caring for vulnerable populations
at the highest level (Clements & Averill, 2006; Gill, 2004). Nursing typically attracts people who
are already motivated by internal rewards of self-actualization and achievement; therefore, the
goals of transformational leadership may not be effective for selected members of the nursing
profession. Nursing has borrowed a leadership theory from a non-nursing discipline that may not
embrace and motivate nurses. In a time of chaotic and unpredictable health care, it is vital for
nursing to employ a nursing leadership theory that is specifically applicable to nurses and will
holistically, and comprehensively, address and support both the science and art of this honored
profession. Underlying this science and art is the knowledge base from which nurses develop
their practice, including their leadership principles.
Overview
Historical underpinnings. Carper (1978) identified the now familiar four Fundamental Patterns of
Knowing in Nursing in her acclaimed manuscript. The patterns included empirics, esthetics
(aesthetics), personal knowledge, and ethics, and she proposed that they represented the complex
phenomenon of knowing that nurses use when caring for their patients. In an effort to include the
contexts of care, White (1995) added sociopolitical knowing as the fifth pattern of knowledge.
Recognizing the need to maintain openness to new knowledge and ideas, Munhall (1993)
postulated the sixth pattern of knowing which she titled unknowing, and Heath (1998) further
expanded the pattern of unknowing to represent a dimension of all patterns. More recently,
Chinn and Kramer (2008) added emancipatory knowing to engage the issues of equity, justice,
and transformation in all arenas of practice, including nursing leadership. When used in
synchrony, the seven patterns of knowing have a goodness of fit for nursing leadership theory,
particularly because they were created by nurses and for nurses. Specifically, in the
contemporary era of health care:
...the infrastructure charged with managing human disease, illness, and well-being is challenged
beyond its limits ... As members of the health care community, professional nurses seek a
balance between fiscal imperatives and social responsibility, and the foundational knowledge
base for the discipline ... The patterns of knowing which, when applied in an integrated manner,
provide a holistic way of deeply understanding the client, nursing practice, and the nurse as an
individual. Additionally, the patterns represent a professional commitment to value diverse
approaches to the questions and problems that arise within the nursing discipline (Clements &
Averill, 2006, p. 268).

change management
organizational and personal change management, process, plans, change
management and business development tips
Here are some rules for effective management of change. Managing organizational change will
be more successful if you apply these simple principles. Achieving personal change will be more
successful too if you use the same approach where relevant. Change management entails
thoughtful planning and sensitive implementation, and above all, consultation with, and
involvement of, the people affected by the changes. If you force change on people normally
problems arise. Change must be realistic, achievable and measurable. These aspects are
especially relevant to managing personal change. Before starting organizational change, ask
yourself: What do we want to achieve with this change, why, and how will we know that the
change has been achieved? Who is affected by this change, and how will they react to it? How
much of this change can we achieve ourselves, and what parts of the change do we need help
with? These aspects also relate strongly to the management of personal as well as organizational
change.
See also the modern principles which underpin successful change.
Refer also to Psychological Contract theory, which helps explain the complex relationship
between an organization and its employees.
Do not 'sell' change to people as a way of accelerating 'agreement' and implementation. 'Selling'
change to people is not a sustainable strategy for success, unless your aim is to be bitten on the
bum at some time in the future when you least expect it. When people listen to a management
high-up 'selling' them a change, decent diligent folk will generally smile and appear to accede,
but quietly to themselves, they're thinking, "No bloody chance mate, if you think I'm standing for
that load of old bollocks you've another think coming…" (And that's just the amenable types -
the other more recalcitrant types will be well on the way to making their own particular transition
from gamekeepers to poachers.)
Instead, change needs to be understood and managed in a way that people can cope effectively
with it. Change can be unsettling, so the manager logically needs to be a settling influence.
Check that people affected by the change agree with, or at least understand, the need for change,
and have a chance to decide how the change will be managed, and to be involved in the planning
and implementation of the change. Use face-to-face communications to handle sensitive aspects
of organisational change management (see Mehrabian's research on conveying meaning and
understanding). Encourage your managers to communicate face-to-face with their people too if
they are helping you manage an organizational change. Email and written notices are extremely
weak at conveying and developing understanding.
If you think that you need to make a change quickly, probe the reasons - is the urgency real? Will
the effects of agreeing a more sensible time-frame really be more disastrous than presiding over
a disastrous change? Quick change prevents proper consultation and involvement, which leads to
difficulties that take time to resolve.
For complex changes, refer to the process of project management, and ensure that you augment
this with consultative communications to agree and gain support for the reasons for the change.
Involving and informing people also creates opportunities for others to participate in planning
and implementing the changes, which lightens your burden, spreads the organizational load, and
creates a sense of ownership and familiarity among the people affected.
See also the excellent free decision-making template, designed by Sharon Drew Morgen, with
facilitative questions for personal and organizational innovation and change.
To understand more about people's personalities, and how different people react differently to
change, see the personality styles section.
For organizational change that entails new actions, objectives and processes for a group or team
of people, use workshops to achieve understanding, involvement, plans, measurable aims,
actions and commitment. Encourage your management team to use workshops with their people
too if they are helping you to manage the change.
You should even apply these principles to very tough change like making people redundant,
closures and integrating merged or acquired organizations. Bad news needs even more careful
management than routine change. Hiding behind memos and middle managers will make matters
worse. Consulting with people, and helping them to understand does not weaken your position -
it strengthens it. Leaders who fail to consult and involve their people in managing bad news are
perceived as weak and lacking in integrity. Treat people with humanity and respect and they will
reciprocate.
Be mindful that the chief insecurity of most staff is change itself. See the process of personal
change theory to see how people react to change. Senior managers and directors responsible for
managing organizational change do not, as a rule, fear change - they generally thrive on it. So
remember that your people do not relish change, they find it deeply disturbing and threatening.
Your people's fear of change is as great as your own fear of failure.
responsibility for managing change
The employee does not have a responsibility to manage change - the employee's responsibility is
no other than to do their best, which is different for every person and depends on a wide variety
of factors (health, maturity, stability, experience, personality, motivation, etc). Responsibility for
managing change is with management and executives of the organisation - they must manage the
change in a way that employees can cope with it. The manager has a responsibility to facilitate
and enable change, and all that is implied within that statement, especially to understand the
situation from an objective standpoint (to 'step back', and be non-judgemental), and then to help
people understand reasons, aims, and ways of responding positively according to employees'
own situations and capabilities. Increasingly the manager's role is to interpret, communicate and
enable - not to instruct and impose, which nobody really responds to well.
change must involve the people - change must not be
imposed upon the people
Be wary of expressions like 'mindset change', and 'changing people's mindsets' or 'changing
attitudes', because this language often indicates a tendency towards imposed or enforced change
(theory x), and it implies strongly that the organization believes that its people currently have the
'wrong' mindset, which is never, ever, the case. If people are not approaching their tasks or the
organization effectively, then the organization has the wrong mindset, not the people. Change
such as new structures, policies, targets, acquisitions, disposals, re-locations, etc., all create new
systems and environments, which need to be explained to people as early as possible, so that
people's involvement in validating and refining the changes themselves can be obtained.
Whenever an organization imposes new things on people there will be difficulties. Participation,
involvement and open, early, full communication are the important factors.
Workshops are very useful processes to develop collective understanding, approaches, policies,
methods, systems, ideas, etc. See the section on workshops on the website.
Staff surveys are a helpful way to repair damage and mistrust among staff - provided you allow
allow people to complete them anonymously, and provided you publish and act on the findings.
Management training, empathy and facilitative capability are priority areas - managers are
crucial to the change process - they must enable and facilitate, not merely convey and implement
policy from above, which does not work.
You cannot impose change - people and teams need to be empowered to find their own solutions
and responses, with facilitation and support from managers, and tolerance and compassion from
the leaders and executives. Management and leadership style and behaviour are more important
than clever process and policy. Employees need to be able to trust the organization.
The leader must agree and work with these ideas, or change is likely to be very painful, and the
best people will be lost in the process.
change management principles
1. At all times involve and agree support from people within system (system =
environment, processes, culture, relationships, behaviours, etc., whether
personal or organisational).
2. Understand where you/the organisation is at the moment.
3. Understand where you want to be, when, why, and what the measures will be
for having got there.
4. Plan development towards above No.3 in appropriate achievable measurable
stages.
5. Communicate, involve, enable and facilitate involvement from people, as
early and openly and as fully as is possible.

John P Kotter's 'eight steps to successful change'

American John P Kotter (b 1947) is a Harvard Business School professor and leading thinker and
author on organizational change management. Kotter's highly regarded books 'Leading Change'
(1995) and the follow-up 'The Heart Of Change' (2002) describe a helpful model for
understanding and managing change. Each stage acknowledges a key principle identified by
Kotter relating to people's response and approach to change, in which people see, feel and then
change.
Kotter's eight step change model can be summarised as:
1. Increase urgency - inspire people to move, make objectives real and
relevant.
2. Build the guiding team - get the right people in place with the right
emotional commitment, and the right mix of skills and levels.
3. Get the vision right - get the team to establish a simple vision and
strategy, focus on emotional and creative aspects necessary to drive service
and efficiency.
4. Communicate for buy-in - Involve as many people as possible,
communicate the essentials, simply, and to appeal and respond to people's
needs. De-clutter communications - make technology work for you rather
than against.
 5. Empower action - Remove obstacles, enable constructive feedback and lots
of support from leaders - reward and recognise progress and achievements.
6. Create short-term wins - Set aims that are easy to achieve - in bite-size
chunks. Manageable numbers of initiatives. Finish current stages before
starting new ones.
7. Don't let up - Foster and encourage determination and persistence -
ongoing change - encourage ongoing progress reporting - highlight achieved
and future milestones.
8. Make change stick - Reinforce the value of successful change via
recruitment, promotion, new change leaders. Weave change into culture.
Kotter's eight step model is explained more fully on his website www.kotterinternational.com.
Related to Kotter's ideas, and particularly helpful in understanding the pressures of change on
people, and people's reactions to change, see a detailed interpretation of the personal change
process in John Fisher's model of the process of personal change.

ideas on illustrating change management issues

When people are confronted with the need or opportunity to change, especially when it's
'enforced', as they see it, by the organization, they can become emotional. So can the managers
who try to manage the change. Diffusing the emotional feelings, taking a step back, encouraging
objectivity, are important to enabling sensible and constructive dialogue. To this end, managers
and trainers can find it helpful to use analogies to assist themselves and other staff to look at
change in a more detached way.
On this site there are several illustrations which can be used for this purpose, depending on the
type of change faced, and the aspect that is to be addressed. Here are a few examples, useful for
team meetings, presentations, one-to-one counselling or self-reminder, particularly to help
empathise with others facing change:
On the Stories section look at 'Murphy's Plough' (negative thinking = obstacle to change) and
'We've always done it that way' (not questioning need for change). Both good aids for
understanding and explaining why people - all of us - find it difficult to change assumptions,
conditioned thinking, habit, routine, etc.
Look also at the Monkey Story, as to how policies, practices, attitudes and even cultures can
become established, and how the tendency is to accept rather than question.
Just as the state of 'unconscious incompetence', needs to be developed into 'conscious
competence' to provide a basis for training, so a person's subjective emotion needs to be
developed into objectivity before beginning to help them handle change. None of us is immune
from subjectivity, ignorance or denial. The lessons and reminders found in stories and analogies
can help to show a new clear perspective.
Aesop's Fables section has other short and beautifully simple analogies useful for illustrating
aspects of causing or dealing with change, for example (all on the Aesop's Fables section):
The Crow and the Pitcher (change being provoked by pressure or necessity)
The North Wind and the Sun (gentle persuasion rather than force)
The Lion and The Ass (enforced change - might is right)
The Crab and his Mother (lead by example and evidence - or you'll not change people)
The Miller, his Son and the Ass (no single change is likely to please everyone - everyone wants
something different)
The Oak and the Reeds (the need for tolerance - changer or 'changees')
The Rich Man and the Tanner, (time softens change - given time people get used to things)
The Ass and the Mule (agree to reasonable change now or you can risk far worse enforced
change in the future)

job reorganization, task analysis, job transfer due to IT

development or outsourcing etc
First see the modern principles which underpin successful change. It's not always easy or perhaps
even possible to consider matters at such depth, but try to if you can, or try to persuade others
above in their ivory towers to think about the fundamental integrity of the situation, instead of
short-term profit, or satisfying greedy shareholders.
There are various approaches to task analysis and job reorganization, whether prompted by
outsourcing or IT development. Generally change process of this sort is pragmatic, and it's
difficult to identify transferable processes, templates, etc. Examples of projects don't generally
find their way into the public domain, although the likelihood is increasing of government
project pdf's becoming available on the web as this sort of information is increasingly required to
be available to the public. IT vendor case studies and trade journals of the IT and outsourcing
sectors can also provide indicators of best practice or transferable processes. There are some
useful software tools now available, which are helpful, especially if the change involves a high
level of complexity and a large scale.
As a broad guide when managing this sort of change, these aspects are important for the process:
• Really understand and clarify mutual expectations about the level of detail
and cost that the project requires. Sometimes it's possible to see it what you
need on a table napkin. The organisational context, and other strategic
drivers, personalities and politics are often more significant influences than
the task analysis.
• If you are a consultant or project manager, agree expectations on a
pragmatic basis. Agree the templates and systems to be used and the the
level of report data required for the decisions to be made.
• Assume that the situation can be improved - it generally can be, so while it's
essential to capture all activities based on current jobs, many of these can be
absorbed, superseded, updated, etc., when you begin to look at the ideal
situation ('blank sheet of paper') possibilities, so;
• A new overview analysis enables fresh unencumbered look at the whole,
which suggests new and better ways of doing things. A flip chart and a few
creative minds are the main pre-requisites. It makes a great workshop
session and is good for creating ownership and buy-in for major change. It's a
good process also to cascade down to departments to bring out ideas for
improved processes and new ways of doing things.
 • In terms of capturing all current processes and inputs, the individual job
analysis templates need to enable jobs to be broken down into sub-tasks, and
elements within sub-tasks.
• This is a tricky one, and not practicable in certain X-Theory cultures,
nevertheless, be aware of the high probability of upsetting people whose jobs
are threatened by change and try to develop a way of anticipating and
reducing damaging fall-out. Treat people at risk with the respect they
deserve and avoid keeping them in the dark - involve threatened people
wherever possible so they can see what's happening and why. If possible
encourage the executive team to take the same humane approach, and try to
establish counselling and support resources if none exist already.
• Analyses are more helpful if they identify critical vs essential task elements -
this will help you to help the decision-makers to be more pragmatic (not least
because by applying pressure to some of the 'essential' elements will reveal
them to be habitual dispensable or traditional replaceable elements).
• Flow diagrams identify subtask linkage (inter and intra), variation and
chronology.
• Behaviour needs identifying aside from processes.
• Standards, performance tolerance, % reliability, etc., should be indicated in
task analysis as applicable to the sub-task or activity concerned.

other points about people and change

Strong resistance to change is often rooted in deeply conditioned or historically reinforced
feelings. Patience and tolerance are required to help people in these situations to see things
differently. Bit by bit. There are examples of this sort of gradual staged change everywhere in the
living world.
The Psychological Contract is a significant aspect of change, and offers helpful models and
diagrams in understanding and managing change - potentially at a very fundamental level.
Also, certain types of people - the reliable/dependable/steady/habitual/process-oriented types -
often find change very unsettling.
People who welcome change are not generally the best at being able to work reliably,
dependably and follow processes. The reliability/dependability capabilities are directly opposite
character traits to mobility/adaptability capabilities.
Certain industries and disciplines have a high concentration of staff who need a strong
reliability/dependability personality profile, for example, health services and nursing,
administration, public sector and government departments, utilities and services; these sectors
will tend to have many staff with character profiles who find change difficult.
See the personality styles page to help understanding about different types of people.
Age is another factor. Erik Erikson's fascinating Psychosocial Theory is helpful for
understanding that people's priorities and motivations are different depending on their stage of
life.
The more you understand people's needs, the better you will be able to manage change.
Be mindful of people's strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone welcomes change. Take the time
to understand the people you are dealing with, and how and why they feel like they do, before
you take action.

business development driven change

Business development potentially includes everything involved with the quality of the business
or the organization. Business development planning first requires establishing the business
development aims, and then formulating a business development strategy, which would comprise
some or all of the following methods of development.
• sales development
• new product development
• new market development
• business organization, shape, structure and processes development (eg,
outsourcing, e-business, etc)
• tools, equipment, plant, logistics and supply-chain development
• people, management and communications (capabilities and training)
development
• strategic partnerships and distribution routes development
• international development
• acquisitions and disposals
Generally business development is partly scientific, and partly subjective, based on the feelings
and wishes of the business owners or CEO. There are so many ways to develop a business which
achieve growth and improvement, and rarely is just one of these a single best solution. Business
development is what some people call a 'black art', ie., difficult to analyse, and difficult to apply
a replicable process.

fast changing environments

Planning, implementing and managing change in a fast-changing environment is increasingly the
situation in which most organizations now work.
Dynamic environments such as these require dynamic processes, people, systems and culture,
especially for managing change successfully, notably effectively optimising organizational
response to market opportunities and threats.
Key elements for success:
• Plan long-term broadly - a sound strategic vision, not a specific detailed plan
(the latter is impossible to predict reliably). Detailed five years plans are out
of date two weeks after they are written. Focus on detail for establishing and
measuring delivery of immediate actions, not medium-to-long-term plans.
• Establish forums and communicating methods to enable immediate review
and decision-making. Participation of interested people is essential. This
enables their input to be gained, their approval and commitment to be
 secured, and automatically takes care of communicating the actions and
expectations.
• Empower people to make decisions at a local operating level - delegate
responsibility and power as much as possible (or at least encourage people to
make recommendations which can be quickly approved).
• Remove (as far as is possible) from strategic change and approval processes
and teams (or circumvent) any ultra-cautious, ultra-autocratic or
compulsively-interfering executives. Autocracy and interference are the
biggest obstacles to establishing a successful and sustainable dynamic
culture and capability.
• Encourage, enable and develop capable people to be active in other areas of
the organization via 'virtual teams' and 'matrix management'.
• Scrutinise and optimise ICT (information and communications technology)
systems to enable effective information management and key activity team-
working.
• Use workshops as a vehicle to review priorities, agree broad medium-to-long-
term vision and aims, and to agree short term action plans and
implementation method and accountabilities.
• Adjust recruitment, training and development to accelerate the development
of people who contribute positively to a culture of empowered dynamism.

'troubleshooting' tips for investigating apparent poor

performance
If you are ever give the job of 'troubleshooting' or investigating (apparent) poor performance,
perhaps in another location or business belonging to your own organisation, or perhaps as a
consultancy project, here are some simple tips:
Actually 'troubleshooting' isn't a great word - it scares people. Use 'facilitator' or 'helper' instead.
It sets a more helpful and cooperative tone.
On which point, you could well find that the main issue will be people's resistance and
defensiveness to someone coming in to their organisation do what you are doing. When you
overcome that challenge, then you can start comparing what's happening with what the
organisation sets out to do (mission, values, goals, priorities, targets, key performance indicators,
processes, measures); how the people feel about things (staff turnover, retention, morale,
attitudes); and how customers and suppliers feel about things too (actually go out and visit
customers, and ex-customers particularly).
You must observe protocols very diligently - introduce yourself properly to people and explain
who you are and what you are doing. Don't assume that your task gives you the right to be
secretive, or to have access to anyone or anything without permission. Ask for help. Ask for
introductions. Ask for permission. Be polite and courteous. Respect people more than you would
do normally, because they will be sensitive, understandably so.
Look at the Sharon Drew Morgen facilitation method, which helps with the style and approach
you should use. You must aim to help, enable and facilitate discovery and clarity, not work in
splendid isolation, as an outsider, who's come to 'sort things out'.
And then be led by the people there as to what can be improved. You should adopt the role of a
researcher and enabler rather than a problem solver.
Plan lots of questions that will help people to tell you how they feel about things - customers and
staff and suppliers - and what they think can be done to improve things.
Avoid asking 'why' unless they're really trusting you and working with you. Used early, 'why'
puts people on the defence and you'll not find out anything.
Look at the customer relationship materials as well - customers will tell you what's best to focus
on, and will give you an early opportunity to facilitate some improvement responses. Also look
at the employee motivation survey material.
It's likely that you'll have to write a report and recommendations afterwards, in which case try
wherever possible to involve the people in what you say about them. Let there be no surprises.
Be constructive. Accentuate the positive. Be straight and open with people.
Enjoy the experience. Be respectful and helpful to people and they'll be respectful and helpful to
you.

see also
• The Psychological Contract
• John Fisher's personal change theory
• Conscious Competence - a personal change model in learning and
development
• Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief - primarily for dealing with death
and bereavement, but helpful for understanding change reaction to other
types of major shock and loss
• Modern principles which underpin successful change in organisations
• Sharon Drew Morgen's Facilitation model - for change, coaching, decision-
making and selling

search businessballs website

Top of Form
01083702646444 FORID:11 UTF-8

Search

Bottom of Form
e.g. swot analysis, change management, cv template, team building...

browse categories
 1. Money Management Skills
2. » Types of Health Care Management Theories

Top 5 To Try
• Operations Management Theory in Health Care
• Importance of Nursing Theory in Nursing Practice
• Multidimensional Anxiety Theory
• Operations Research Theory
• The Z Theory in Management
Ads by Google
Clinical Research Course
Want a Career in Clinical Research? CRA Education & Training Program
www.CRA-Training.com

B. Braun Melsungen AG
Products and services for hospital, private practice and at home.
www.bbraun.com

Share Medical Cases Free

Search, Post & Share your research You do the research, we'll post it!
www.researchvaultonline.com

Axiomatics
XACML based Entitlement Management for SOA solutions
www.axiomatics.com

Health Services Research

Thomson Reuters. Actionable insight to address real-world challenges.
healthcare.thomsonreuters.com/resea

Types of Health Care Management Theories

By Jared Lewis, eHow Contributor
updated: June 29, 2010

1.
pretty lady doctor image by horacio villamonte from Fotolia.com
Health care management professionals address the implementation of policy.
Health care management is a growing field. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts that the the job market for health care managers will grow
by 16 percent through 2018. Health care managers have the important task
of administering entire health care systems, such as hospitals. Differing
opinions exist as to how these health care systems should be run. The
effectiveness of a hospital or other health care facility is dependent upon the
type of health care management theory it subscribes to and how well that
theory is implemented.

Attribution Theory
2. Attribution theory, as applied to health care management, is a way of
assessing the successes and failures of a health care system or program. In
Patrick Palmieri and Lori Peterson's "To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health
Care System" (2009), attribution theory is described as one possible health
care management theory that can be used to create a safer environment for
patients. Although not fully developed as a health care management theory,
the authors suggest that attribution theory can be used as a conceptual
framework to foster a positive and safe work environment for both health
care workers and patients. Attribution theory assumes health care
management can be improved by understanding that error in health care can
sometimes occur. When it does it can lead to feelings of cynicism and
"organizational inertia" in the health care system. By understanding where
these feelings arise, health care managers can learn to foster a positive work
environment that will improve employee response to errors in health care. By
learning to recognize these mistakes as simply "human" errors, health care
workers can learn to focus on continuing to provide a positive environment
for patient recovery rather than focusing on what they have not done
successfully,

Evidence-Based Management
3. A second health care management theory is the evidence-based
management theory. A 2001 report by K. Walshe and T.G. Rundall at the
University of Birmingham suggests that health care managers have been
slow to accept and apply the same theories to which they often hold health
care workers, an evidence-based approach that requires doctors, nurses and
 other health care professionals to make decisions based on the best available
evidence. Some researchers like Walshe and Rundall suggest that there is a
need to impose these same standards on the decision-making process of
health care managers. Doing so will bring a level of uniformity to the
decisions of health care officials. Practical considerations such as time
constraints and deadlines often make the transition from evidence-based
theory to practice somewhat difficult.

Utilization Management
4. Utilization management is a third health care management theory, one that
has received wider application in the health care industry than the more
theoretical attribution and evidence-based theories. Utilization management
is a proactive approach to managing health care through preset guidelines.
The American College of Medical Quality identifies several tasks in utilization
management that are essential to effective management of a health care
organization. First it is essential to determine the organization's priorities.
This is followed by research and a determination of who will benefit from the
major decisions that are made. From this information, health care managers
then determine what goals to set and how to go about implementing further
research. Once data is collected and evaluated, policies, guidelines and
procedures can be developed and implemented.