TECHNOCRATS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-

MBA, BHOPAL SESSION

TIT-MBA
2024-25
TIT-MBA BHOPAL MANAGEMENT CONCEPT AND PRACTICES
BRANCH MBA SEMESTER I

NAME OF THE FACULTY: PROF. DIVYA BHARDWAJ

UNIT- 2
SYLLABUS CONTAIN- Evolution fo management thought, Tylor,
Fayol, Elton Mayo, Liket & Webber ( Theories of Management) :
Recent trends and future challenges of Management.
AN INTRODUCTION TO EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT

Peter Ferdinand Drucker, one of the leading management gurus, said it best—“Management is
doing things right; leadership is doing the right things”.

In any organization, teamwork and leadership act as catalysts for business success. The way
someone manages their team or the entire workforce has a direct impact on the organization’s
growth and profitability. The evolution of management can be studied in the way different
theories emerged at different points in time.
Over time, different management theories emerged, evolved and continue to be practiced in
several business environments. Read on to explore various types of management theories and
how they contributed to the evolution of management principles.

Understanding the evolution of management thought is important as it helps determine what

management principles and practices work best for your team and your organization. It can help
you manage your team and workplace more effectively. So, what is the meaning of evolution of
management thought? To understand this, we need to go back in time.

The Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century brought monumental changes in the
workplace. As factories were the primary source of employment, management theorists studied
the operations and workforce present on the factory floors. There were times when the demand
was high but the lack of productivity and efficiency held workplaces back. The Industrial
Revolution gave birth to multiple management theories and concepts that developed over time
and are still relevant today.
 TRACING EVOLUTION OF THE MANAGEMENT THROUGH THEORIES

Management theories help you study an organization, its corporate designs, structures and
behavior of individuals or groups. By studying the impact of internal and external business
environments, these theories provide a lens to address critical questions about how a business
works or operates. Management theories can be grouped under three categories—classical theory,
neoclassical theory and modern management theory. Let’s take a look at the individual theories in
detail:

1. CLASSICAL THEORY OF MANAGEMENT

The theories that emerged under the classical evolution of management thought are:
• Scientific Management
Fredrick Winslow Taylor, an engineer, proposed and developed the Scientific Management
Theory. He is also known as the Father of Scientific Management and his school of thought came
to be known as Taylorism. He introduced a scientific approach to productivity, which meant that
an increase in efficiency can lead to higher productivity and profits. He believed that research-
backed and standardized procedures were necessary for effective management.

• Administrative Management
Henry Fayol, a French mining engineer, laid down five functions and 14 principles of
management under the theory of Fayolism. This gave way to the school of administrative
management. He believed that these functions and principles can guide managers to fulfill their
responsibilities effectively and they should have the liberty to determine how to use them.

2. NEOCLASSICAL THEORY OF MANAGEMENT

The theories that emerged under the neoclassical evolution of management practices are:
• Human Relations Management
Developed by Elton Mayo, an Australian psychologist, the Human Relations Theory of
Management was proposed after a series of experiments, also known as Hawthorne Studies or
Hawthorne Experiments. This theory emerged as a response to the criticism faced by the
classical management theories, where social factors such as human behavior and attitudes
weren’t considered important.
• Behavioral Management
Behavioral approaches to management set the pace for how modern workplaces
build an employee-friendly culture. Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, proposed the
hierarchy of need, where employee need and expectations were prioritized. The theory suggests
that human relations and behavior are essential in driving efficiency in teams and managing the
workforce successfully.
3. MODERN THEORY OF MANAGEMENT
The theories that emerged with the modern evolution of management needs are:
• Systems Approach
The Systems Theory of organization has its roots in biology and systems science. This
concept broke away from classical management theory that viewed organizations as
machines and moved toward a more holistic view that sees them as networks of people,
procedures and activities. Systems Theory allows for an understanding of the connections
between various parts of the organization and how they interact with one another.

• Contingency Approach

The Contingency Management Theory suggests that there isn’t any perfect way to organize a
business or corporation. The optimal solution lies in the situation that an organization
operates in. A business is contingent (depends) upon internal or external environments.

It’s evident that in the long history of the evolution of management, the focus has shifted from
the structure and authority to the people behind the scenes. Many of these principles hold
relevance in modern workplaces even if society continues to evolve. Practicing the principles of
various management theories will not only bring success to your organization but also improve
your relationship with your team.

Frederick Taylor’s Principles of

Scientific Management Theory
What are Frederick Taylor’s four principles of Scientific Management?
Frederick Taylor’s four principles of Scientific Management are:

1. Develop a science for each element of work

2. Scientifically Select, Train, Teach, and Develop the worker
3. Cooperate with the Worker
4. Divide the Work and Responsibility
 It’s impossible to study management theory without understanding the “Father of
Scientific Management,” Frederick Taylor.
While often misunderstood in his time, Taylor’s work plays a key role in
modern understanding of worker-management relations.
In this post, we’re going to cover:
1. Who Frederick Taylor is;
2. The philosophy behind the management theory of Frederick Taylor; and
3. The four principles of Scientific Management Theory:
1. Develop a science for each element of work
2. Scientifically Select, Train, Teach, and Develop the worker
3. Cooperate with the Worker
4. Divide the Work and Responsibility
Who is Frederick Taylor?
Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a
teenager, Taylor spent time studying and traveling in Europe and enrolled in Phillips
Exeter Academy in New Hampshire in 1872. After graduating, he was accepted into
Harvard Law School but was unable to attend due to poor eyesight. Then, instead of
going to university at that point, Taylor filled various manufacturing-related roles,
eventually earned a mechanical engineering degree from Stevens Institute of
Technology in 1883, and became Chief Engineer at Midvale Steel Works in
Philadelphia.
Taylor's philosophies are sometimes described as Taylorism, and emphasize
harmonious relations between workers and management.
After resigning in 1890, he became General Manager of Manufacturing Investment
Company, but left the company in 1893 to develop the profession of engineering
management consulting. From 1906 to 1907, Taylor was the President of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers and later became a professor at the Tuck
School of Business at Dartmouth College. Taylor is best known for his 1911 book,
“Principles of Scientific Management.”
In this book, he presented numerous principles of management that were based
on the scientific method and could improve the efficiency and productivity of
industrial workplaces.
The Philosophy Behind Scientific Management
In “the Principles of Scientific Management,” Taylor starts with the following
statement: “The principal object of management should be to secure the
maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for
each [employee].”
In saying this, he meant that the organization and employees should work together,
strive to get the most out of one another, and be compensated for their efforts as it’s
in everyone’s best interests.
For workers in particular, taking this approach would mean that they could benefit
from higher wages, shorter working hours, and better work and home conditions.
Taylor's emphasis on pro-worker efficiency was ahead of it's time, but still impacts
Western corporations today.
Taylor believed that the worker should be focused on labor, due to insufficient
capacity and/or education, while managers should be focused on and held
accountable for optimizing performance. Regarding their interaction, Taylor
said that workers should be taught daily and “receive the most friendly help
from those who are over [them], instead of being…driven or coerced [by bosses
or left to their] own unaided devices.”
In fact, Taylor believed that training and development was “the most important
object of both the workmen and the management” in order to produce maximum
efficiency and that a “close, intimate, personal cooperation between the
management and the [worker] is of the essence of modern scientific or task
management.” So, while Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management has often been
painted as cold and impersonal, it isn’t really the case; Taylor’s philosophy had
good intentions for everyone and problems come from poor application.
Specifically, Taylor stated that poor application came from:
1. Employees incorrectly believing that greater productivity would result in
lost jobs;
2. “Defective systems of management” that work against employees and
productivity;
3. An inability to leave behind traditional and habitually inefficient
procedures; and
4. Driving workers “against their wishes, and without much increase in pay,
to work much harder, instead of gradually teaching and leading them
toward new methods.”3
The Principles of Scientific Management Theory
In the early 1900s, the most common approach to management involved offering
incentive-based pay in order to promote initiative (labeled “initiative and incentive”).
This was described as workers giving “their best initiative and in return [receiving]
some special incentive from their employers.” Instead, Taylor argued that getting
initiative out of workers is rare and a better approach would be to apply the scientific
method in order to increase efficiency and performance.
Through his studies that used the scientific method, Taylor established Four
Principles of Management, including to:
In summary, Frederick Taylor’s four principles of Scientific Management are:
1. Develop a science for each element of work
2. Scientifically Select, Train, Teach, and Develop the worker
3. Cooperate with the Worker
4. Divide the Work and Responsibility
In his own words, these are:
1. “Develop a science for each element of…work”;
2. “Scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the [worker]”;
3. “Cooperate with the [worker] so as to [ensure] all of the work [is] being
done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been
developed”; and
4. Equally divide “the work and the responsibility between the management
and the [workers],” where “the management take over all work for which
they are better fitted than the [workers].”
Each of these principles will be described in the sections that follow.4
Principle One: Develop a Science for each element of work
To begin, it is important to note that Taylor was not attempting to determine and
force upon workers “the maximum work that a man could do on a short spurt or
for a few days.”
Rather, in “developing a science,” he wanted to know “the best day’s work that
a [person] could properly do, year in and year out, and still thrive.”
Thus, Taylor had a focus on long-term productivity, considering both the
organization’s and the workers’ perspectives.
With this focus in mind, when Taylor spoke of “developing a science” for each
element of work, he essentially meant that management should:
 1. Gather objective data on work;
2. Perform experiments; and
3. Standardize policies and procedures based on the results of the
experiments.

In order to gather objective data on work, Taylor would select “first-class

laborers” to perform a given task, pay them extra wages, and carefully examine
and test them to ensure that they were working “to the best of their ability at all
times.” That way, optimal productivity could accurately be determined.
Next, these workers would be observed while performing various procedures
and timed, using a stop-watch, in order to determine how much time was taken
for each motion.

Then, after experimenting with different tools and/or procedures, which often
included varying rest intervals, the tools and/or procedure that would produce
the optimal productivity could be determined.

And finally, with optimal tools and/or procedures determined, such tools and/or
procedures could be documented and used as standard for a given task.
Principle Two: Scientifically Select, Train, Teach, and Develop the worker

Given the “science” of the task, Taylor then said that individuals “especially
suited” for the work should be selected. In his example of a pig-iron handler,
he found that approximately only one in eight current workers were capable
of meeting the newly established standards. That being said, he also
determined that there were plenty of other internal and external candidates
that would be capable of fulfilling the role. Thus, combined, it was clear to
him that selection and correct assignment were critical to the theory of
Scientific Management.
Regarding training and development, if a worker was performing below
standard, Taylor believed that a “competent teacher should be sent to show [the
worker] exactly how [their] work can be best done, to guide, help, and
encourage [them]…[and give them] the time and the help required to make
[them] proficient at [their] present job.”
However, if after studying the worker it was found that they would be unable to
perform according to standards, the worker should then be “shifted to another
class of work for which [they are] either mentally or physically better suited.”
Therefore, training and development were also important and inextricably
connected to selection and assignment.
Otherwise, it is important to note that Taylor recommended gradual
implementation of a new science to a job. This is because it requires a “change
in the mental attitude of the [worker]” and “it is impossible to hurry it beyond a
certain speed.”
In particular, he believed that “only one [worker] at a time should be dealt
with…until this single [worker] has been thoroughly convinced that a great gain
has come to [them] from the new method.” Then, after “one-fourth to one-third
of the [workers]…have been changed from the old to the new, very rapid
progress can be made, because at about this time there is…a complete
revolution in the public opinion…[about] the new plan.”
Principle Three: Cooperate with the Worker

When speaking about the Bethlehem Steel Company, Taylor said that work
should be distributed among four parties and in the following fashion:

1. “One set of [employees]…engaged in the development of the science of

laboring”;
2. “Another set of [employees], mostly skilled laborers themselves, who
[are] teachers, and who [help] and [guide] the [workers] in their work”;
3. “Another set of tool-room [employees] who [provide]…the proper
implements and [keep] them in perfect order”; and
4. “Another set of clerks who [plan] the work well in advance, [move] the
[workers] with the least loss of time from one place to another, and
properly [record] each [worker’s] earnings, etc.”

By distributing work in this fashion, each worker:

1. “Performs the function for which [they are] best suited…

2. Preserves [their] own individuality and is supreme in [their] particular
function, and…
 3. At the same time loses none of [their] originality and proper personal
initiative, and yet
4. Is controlled by and must work harmoniously with many other
[workers].”

This is what Taylor “referred to as cooperation between the management and

the [workers].”
Principle Four: Divide the Work and Responsibility
According to Taylor, the “initiative and incentive” approach required workers to
“bear almost the entire responsibility for the general plan,” “each detail of…
work,” and “the actual physical labor.”
In contrast, he argued that Scientific Management was more effective because
“even if the [worker] was well suited to the development and use of scientific
data, it would be physically impossible for [them] to work at [their] machine
and at a desk at the same time.”
Moreover, “in most cases one type of man is needed to plan ahead and an
entirely different type to execute the work.”
Thus, Taylor argued that the best approach would be “an almost equal division
of the responsibility and the work between the management the [worker].”
When discussing his bricklaying study, Taylor said that management’s
responsibility was to ensure cooperation between all of the aforementioned
parties. This included ensuring that workers were provided the correct tools,
operating under the right conditions and according to the correct procedures,
and informed of their pace and progress.

Simultaneously, Taylor said that management should also be “side by side with
the [workers], helping, encouraging, and smoothing a way for them.” Therefore,
management was responsible for enforcement of methods, adoption, and
cooperation, while workers received extra pay for performance.
Finally, when rewarding workers, Taylor stated that it “must come soon after
the work has been done.” This was because he found that workers would lose
motivation if rewards came too far in the future. From his bicycle ball study, he
determined that communication of performance and rewards should come daily
and encouragement through personal attention “as often as once an hour.”
Thus, in addition to being the father of Scientific Management, Taylor was also
ahead of his contemporaries in his understanding of reward-related motivation.

As you’ve discovered, Taylor’s contributions were largely misunderstood and

ahead of their time.
While he may not have been tactful in his writings, as was discussed, his
intentions were good. Not only did he seek “maximum prosperity” for the
organization and the worker, but also the consumer and entire “civilized world.”
He desired: “Science, not rule of thumb. Harmony, not discord. Cooperation,
not individualism. Maximum output, in place of restricted output. [And] the
development of each [person] to [their] greatest efficiency and prosperity.”
And through his methods, he helped us move towards these goals, achieving
improvements in working conditions, productivity, and profitability beyond
expectations.

In fact, in some cases, he even achieved productivity improvements of up to

nine times the norm!
Thus, it is clear that knowledge of Frederick Taylor and his Theory of Scientific
Management is essential to all managers and students of management.

Management Theory of Elton Mayo

The management theory of Elton Mayo can help you build
more productive teams.

Elton Mayo's contribution to management theory helped pave the way for
modern human relations management methods.
Based on his well-known Hawthorne experiments, Mayo's management theories
grew from his observations of employee productivity levels under varying
environmental conditions. His experiments drew a number of conclusions about
the real source of employee motivation, laying the groundwork for later
approaches to team building and group dynamics. Mayo management theory
states that employees are motivated far more by relational factors such as
attention and camaraderie than by monetary rewards or environmental factors
such as lighting, humidity, etc.
Elton Mayo developed a matrix which he used to illustrate the likelihood that a
given team would be successful. His matrix demonstrates the role that varying
combinations of group norms and group cohesiveness play in team
effectiveness.
The following are the four combinations of Mayo theory and the effect
of
each on
1. Groups with low norms and low cohesiveness are ineffective; they have no
impact, since none of the members are motivated to excel, according to Mayo's
theory.
2. Groups with low norms and high cohesiveness have a negative impact, since

fellow members encourage negative gangs).

3. Groups with high norms and low cohesiveness have some degree of positive

impact through individual

accomplishments. 4. Groups with high norms and high cohesiveness have the
greatest positive impact, Mayo's theory predicts, since group members encourage
one another to excel.

Understand the concepts of Mayo's theory and how they can

benefit you
Numerous websites provide valuable information about Mayo theory. In addition
to diagrams, summaries and explanations of Mayo management principles, you'll
find various videos and instructional materials that can help
you develop the background knowledge and practical expertise to put Mayo's
theories to work for your company.

Take advantage of consulting services that can help give you

greater insight into Mayo theory
Consultants with knowledge and experience in the management theory of Elton
Mayo can guide you in maximizing the benefit of his principles in your own
company's unique environment.

Take advantage of resources designed to help you make the

most of Mayo's management theories
Widely available online tools and resources can help you more easily implement
Elton Mayo management principles. Videos and various other Elton Mayo theory-
based products, information and services let you choose the resources most
valuable to your business.
Consider the many benefits of putting the Elton Mayo management theory to
work for your business. If you decide to use it, why not go all out and practice it
in all the areas it can effectively address: your own leadership of the company,
your managers' development and your employees' engagement.
What are Max Weber’s six principles of bureaucracy?
Max Weber’s six principles of bureaucracy are Specialization, Formalized
rules, Hierarchical structure, Well-trained employees, Managerial
dedication, and Impartiality of management.
In our time, terms like “bureaucracy” and “authority” have mostly negative
connotations.
This was not the case at the start of the 20th century. In fact, when
sociologist Max Weber developed his management theories detailing the
“characteristics of bureaucracy,” they were considered groundbreaking and
novel among academics and business managers alike.1
In spite of modern distaste for the term, most businesses are still modeled
on bureaucratic principles, and most large corporations display at least
some characteristics of bureaucracy, as defined by Weber. In this article,
we’re going to discuss the Management Theory of Max Weber, including
the following:

1. Who is Max Weber?

2. Max Weber’s characteristics of bureaucracy
3. Max Weber’s Ideal Types of Political Leadership
4. The relevance of Max Weber’s management theories to workplaces
today

Who is Max Weber?

Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (1864-1920) was born in Erfurt, Prussia. After
completing high school, Weber began studying law at the University of
Heidelberg at age 18. Weber then completed one year of military service
before continuing his studies and practicing as a lawyer. He eventually
earned his doctoral degree in law at the University of Berlin in 1889 and
began working as an economics professor.2
Weber spent time teaching at the University of Berlin, University of Freiburg, and University of Heidelberg
before retiring in 1903. Thereafter, Weber became an independent scholar, completing numerous written
works and filling various short-term teaching positions.
Weber’s most prominent works came after his retirement, including “The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” in 1904 and “Economy and
Society” posthumously in 1922. The management-related theories that he
is well-known for came in the latter of the two publications and included
his Theory of Bureaucracy and the Ideal Types of Political Leadership. For
these and his other contributions, Weber is regarded as one of the
founding fathers of the field of Sociology. It’s worth mentioning that while
other prominent figures in the

development of management theory such Fayol and Elton

Mayo are primarily known within business and commerce, Weber’s
contributions were unusually wide-ranging. He’s commonly cited along
as Henri
with Karl Marx as a key figure in the founding of sociology as a discipline.3
What are Weber’s management theories?
While Weber may be best known for his numerous contributions to the
field of Sociology, he is also known for two key contributions to
Management theory:

1. The Theory of Bureaucracy

2. The Ideal Types of Political Leadership.
We’ll take an in-depth look at each of these contributions to Management
in the following sections.

The Theory of Bureaucracy

One of Weber’s greatest contributions to management theory was his Theory

of Bureaucracy. This theory states that there are six principles of
bureaucracy, including:
 1. Specialization
2. Formalized rules
3. Hierarchical structure
4. Well-trained employees
5. Managerial dedication
6. Impartiality of management
The six principles of bureaucracy
First, Weber stated that a bureaucracy has specialization.4 This includes:

• Distributing and assigning specific duties to specific roles;

• Giving management the authority to give commands and providing
guidelines on the methods they should use; and
• Assigning people to these roles based on merit.

When Weber spoke of formalized rules, he was speaking of what could

now be described as policies and procedures. While his focus was
primarily on the broad, exhaustive, and relatively stable rules that govern
managers, the principle can also be applied to lower-level positions. The
rules that are standardized and documented should detail the organizational
structure, who is responsible for certain tasks, and how tasks are supposed
to be performed. In large part, this is done so rules can be learned.5

Weber also stated that an organization should have a hierarchical

structure, with one clear leader at the top. This structure should detail all
of the managerial levels and which subordinate positions report to a given
superior. Creating such a structure is beneficial top-down because it details
who is responsible for supervising whom and bottom-up because it
delineates who one should speak with if they’re looking to appeal any
given decision.
Weber's principles of bureaucracy may be scorned by tech companies and startups, but most mid-large
corporations ultimately model them as a response to increased complexity with large distributed
workforces.
Moreover, an organization should have well-trained employees. Weber
states that managers should have thorough expert training, especially in the
case of specialized positions, and that subordinate employees should also
receive training.
Furthermore, Weber stated that a bureaucracy requires managerial
dedication. Weber wrote that managers should be dedicating their “full
working capacity” regardless of how long they will hold their position and
always put official business ahead of other distractions.
Finally, Weber stated that there should be impartiality of management.
This includes managers following the established rules and keeping
business property, interests, and activities separate from personal property,
interests, and activities. In particular, “individual privileges and bestowals
of favor” should be avoided.
Altogether, these six principles of bureaucracy make up the “ideal
bureaucracy.” Note that the word “ideal” was not used to mean “optimal”
or “best”; rather, “ideal” was meant to mean “most common” or
“archetypal.” Thus, these are principles by which most bureaucracies
operate.

Nonetheless, Weber thought that the bureaucratic organization had a

“technical superiority over any other form of organization” during his time
due to its “precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files,
continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction, and
of material and personal costs.”6

The Ideal Types of Political Leadership

Another notable contribution from Weber was his classification system of

authority, which included:
 1. Traditional authority
2. Charismatic authority
3. Rational-legal authority
1. Traditional Authority
Weber states that traditional
historical customs.7 Traditional authority requires a belief in the importance
of traditions as well as respect for those who exercise authority within those
traditions. If belief in a given tradition is high, people who are important to
the tradition would have a high degree of status and others would follow
their leadership out of respect for and loyalty to them and the tradition. Thus,
submission to traditional authority happens if commands:8

1. Are valid within the tradition; or, if not specific to the tradition,
2. Are otherwise ethical (i.e. fair, useful, or of benefit to the majority).
Someone with traditional authority can maintain respect, compliance, and
their position as long as people believe in the tradition and their commands
fall within the aforementioned parameters.

Typically, leaders with traditional authority are determined based on:

1. Age (gerontocracy; i.e. led by elders); and/or

2. Defined inheritance (patriarchalism; e.g. a certain prince to replace a
king); or
3. Power (patrimonialism).

When compared to an “ideal bureaucracy,” an organization dominated by

traditional authority would have the following characteristics:

1. Positions are filled based on favoritism rather than technical

expertise;
2. Rules are “handed down from the past” or otherwise dictated by the
ruler;
3. An irrational hierarchy, with some specialization;
4. Recruitment, selection, and promotion based on favoritism;
5. A lack of technical training; and
 6. Fixed salaries.
2. Charismatic Authority
Weber states that charismatic authority comes from personal qualities.
Charismatic authority requires a belief that a leader has exceptional
capabilities and/or characteristics, whether or not they are objectively
verifiable (e.g. a religious prophet versus a groundbreaking scientist). In the
case of a leader with verifiably exceptional capabilities and/or
characteristics, submission to charismatic authority happens out of a
believed duty to:

Companies like Apple, Facebook, and WeWork are known for charismatic leaders — and the associated
lack of rigid protocols, for better or worse.

1. Recognize the leader’s personal qualities; and

2. Act in accordance with their discoveries or expertise.
In order for someone with charismatic authority to maintain respect,
compliance, and their position, they must continue to produce, most
importantly to the benefit of their followers or “community.”
When compared to an “ideal bureaucracy,” an organization dominated by
charismatic authority would have the following characteristics:

1. Positions are filled based on personal qualities, which may or may

not include technical expertise (depending on whether or not the
leader’s capabilities and/or characteristics are objectively verifiable);
2. Rules are “discovered” and made concrete by the leader as they
present themselves, but routine is otherwise avoided;
3. No hierarchy, but some specialization;
4. Recruitment and selection based on the leader’s perception of a
person’s capabilities and/or characteristics;
5. A lack of technical training; and
6. Minimal compensation, coming from outside donation to “the cause”
(given that participation is seen as a “calling”).

It is important to note that, according to Weber, charismatic authority is

revolutionary and often displaces traditional authority. This happens
through the following three-step process:

1. Produce a subjective/internal reorientation

2. Change attitudes
3. Produce a material reorientation
However, given the authority’s fluidity, charismatic authority is also likely
to be displaced, eventually developing into a new traditional and/or
rational-legal authority.
3. Rational-Legal Authority
Weber states that rational-legal authority comes from established rules.
Rational-legal authority requires a belief in enacted rules and that the
leader who is issuing commands is doing so within their assigned scope of
formal responsibility. More specifically, submission to rational-legal
authority happens when:

1. Established rules are consistent and capable of being applied to

relevant cases;
2. The people involved broadly agree to obey the established rules;
3. The people involved obey the established rules when and where they
apply;
4. The people involved are specifically obeying the rules rather than the
people who enforce the rules; and
5. Those who are in command are subject to the same rules.

Rational-legal authority applies to continuous rule-bound business conduct

within a particular sphere or jurisdiction. Each sphere or jurisdiction
requires:
1. Distributed functions;
2. A person granted authority over each function;
3. Specific conditions to prompt enforcement within the function; and
4. Clearly defined methods of enforcement.
Rational-legal authority also requires:

1. Hierarchical organization, with the right to appeal to a higher

authority;
2. Specialized training in order to be in a position of authority;
3. People with authority not to be owners of the organization and that
personal and business property are kept separate;
4. Positions to be filled rather than permanently owned; and
5. Rules to be documented completely.

When compared to an “ideal bureaucracy,” an organization dominated by

rational-legal authority would have the following characteristics:

1. Positions are appointed and based on free contractual relationships;

 2. Rules are formal, detailed, consistent, documented, and broadly
agreed upon;
3. A clearly defined hierarchy;
4. Recruitment and selection based on technical qualifications and
promotion based on seniority, achievement, or both;
5. A high degree of technical training; and
6. Fixed salaries.

Analysis of Weber’s Theories and Application to Today

Nowadays, words like “bureaucracy” and “authority” have a negative
connotation. When considering these words, and Weber’s work more
broadly, one has to remember the time in which they came. In fact, as
management concepts, these had a positive perspective and were relatively
new, codifying how to optimally structure organizations (bureaucracy) and
the main types of authority (political leadership).9 In reality, while we might
dislike the word “bureaucracy” at this point in time, most businesses are still
rightfully modeled in this fashion due to the concept’s structure, broad
applicability, and effectiveness.
Max Weber impact on tech sector
When you dive deep into the details of the Ideal Types of Political
Leadership, you find another example where Weber was ahead of his time.
Potentially inadvertently, he describes the “organic structure” detailed in
Contingency Theory when speaking of charismatic authority; that is,
organizations under charismatic
and
unpredictable tasks and are thus less defined and more flexible in order to
accommodate the conditions.10
This is exactly how businesses with ever-changing conditions operate
today, including countless tech companies. And then, surely enough,
they’re led by eccentric, “charismatic” figureheads, like Elon Musk, Steve
Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and more.
So, the principles of Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy still hold true to the
organizations of today.
Likewise, the Ideal Types of Political Leadership relatively accurately
describe the main structures of authority and the characteristics of
organizations that follow.

Thus, Max Weber’s contributions are certainly noteworthy and relevant to

modern students of management theory.

RENSIS LIKERT: PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT

Rensis Likert made an important contribution to management in the 1960s, which was
to influence many large corporations in the US and Japan. Do you:

a. Strongly Disagree – b. Disagree – c. Neither Agree nor Disagree – d. Agree – e.

Strongly Agree

Almost all of us have, at some time, had to use this type of simple perceptual scale. It
is called a Likert Scale, after Rensis Likert, who invented it early in his career. But
there is more to him than that, as we shall see.
 Rensis Likert, 1903 – 1981

Short Biography
Rensis Likert was born in 1903, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In 1922, he went to study
Civil Engineering (following his father) at the University of Michigan. However, during
a Sociology class in his senior year, he realised he was more interested in people
than in things, so switched subject and won his bachelors degree in Sociology and
Economics, in 1926. In 1932, he was awarded a PhD for research in the new field of
Social Psychology, by Columbia University. As a part of his research he developed a
simplified scale for gauging opinions, which bears his name today. His research
demonstrated that, despite its simplicity, it was able to achieve equally reliable
results, when compared with more sophisticated approaches.

Likert then took on a series of increasingly important roles: lecturer in psychology at

New York University, Director of Research at the Life Insurance Agency
Management Association, and then in 1939, he became a Director responsible for
surveys at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Gradually his role in Government
surveys expanded, and during the US involvement in the Second World War, he
headed up a part of the Office of War Information.

After the war, Government contracted and surveys were no longer mandated by
Congress. So Likert, along with his colleagues sought to establish a centre for reseach
into surveys at one of the universities. In 1946, they settled at the University of
Michigan and founded the Survey Research Center with Likert as its first Director. The
centre changed its name in 1949 to the Institute for Social Research (ISR) and has
grown and thrived ever since. Likert remained Director until his retirement in 1970,
when his co-founder, Angus Campbell, became the second ISR Director.

During the 1950s and 60s, Likert directed his research interest towards management.
His 1961 book, New Patterns of Management, proved highly influential. It introduced his
four systems of management and articulated his advocacy for ‘System 4‘. He followed
this, in 1967, with Human Organization: Its Management and Value. This further detailed
System 4, and contains his most widely quoted statement:

‘…the greater the loyalty of the members of a group toward the group, the greater is the motivation among the
members to achieve the goals of the group, and the greater is the probability that the group will achieve its
goals.’

In 1970, he established his consulting business, Rensis Likert Associates, to capitalise

on his thinking, and he also continued to develop and publish his ideas. His 1976 book,
New Ways of Managing Conflict, was also very successful.

Rensis Likert died in September 1981.

Likert’s Four Management Systems

Likert articulated four styles of management. We can easily see these as an extension
of the Theory X / Theory Y approaches that Douglas McGregor articulated.
Rensis Likert – the Four Systems of Management

The four systems are:

System 1. Exploitative-Authoritative
Decision-making takes place at the top of the organization and these decisions are
imposed on others without consultation. There is little sense of teamwork and not
much communication, other than threats, which form the primary means of driving
performance (motivation). Consequently, it is only upper management who feel any
sense of responsibility for the organisation’s goals.

System 2. Benevolent-Authoritative
This is a patriarchal, patronising system based on a master-servant relationship
between management and employees. Rewards are the motivators and teamwork,
communication, and a sense of ownership of the organisation’s goals are still minimal.

System 3. Consultative
In this style, managers trust subordinates but not wholly. They motivate with both
rewards and involvement, and expect a higher level of responsibility for meeting
goals. There is a moderate amount of teamwork and some communication across and
between levels.

System 4. Participative
Participative management is based on trust and confidence in employees. Goals are
determined collectively and form a basis for motivation and rewards. This fosters a
collective sense of responsibility for meeting company goals, and
incentivises collaborative teamwork and open communication.

The Characteristics of Likert’s System 4

Likert felt strongly that System 4 was the optimum system for managing an
organisation, as McGregor argued for Theory Y as a means of motivating individuals.

He set out four principal characteristics of successful System 4 management:

1. Supportive group relationships, both within the group and between the group
members and the leader. A sense of care and collaboration.
2. Each person’s individual contribution, needs, value, and development needs to
be equally respected.
3. The group undertakes problem solving together, and aligns behind their
eventual consensus solution.
 4. Different groups overlap, with certain individuals playing the role of ‘linking
pin’ between them. These are people whom Karen Stephenson refers to
as ‘Gatekeepers’.

This all has a very modern feel to it and it is hard to feel the sense of novelty Likert’s
ideas had in the 1960s. This, I suggest, is a measure of the importance of Likert’s
ideas. So I choose Option e. Strongly Agree.

RENSIS LIKERT: PARTICIPATIVE

MANAGEMENT
Rensis Likert made an important contribution to management in the 1960s, which was
to influence many large corporations in the US and Japan. Do you:

a. Strongly Disagree – b. Disagree – c. Neither Agree nor Disagree – d. Agree – e.

Strongly Agree

Almost all of us have, at some time, had to use this type of simple perceptual scale. It
is called a Likert Scale, after Rensis Likert, who invented it early in his career. But
there is more to him than that, as we shall see.

Rensis Likert, 1903 – 1981

Short Biography
Rensis Likert was born in 1903, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In 1922, he went to study
Civil Engineering (following his father) at the University of Michigan. However,
during a Sociology class in his senior year, he realised he was more interested in
people than in things, so switched subject and won his bachelors degree in Sociology
and Economics, in 1926. In 1932, he was awarded a PhD for research in the new field
of Social Psychology, by Columbia University. As a part of his research he developed
a simplified scale for gauging opinions, which bears his name today. His research
demonstrated that, despite its simplicity, it was able to achieve equally reliable results,
when compared with more sophisticated approaches.

Likert then took on a series of increasingly important roles: lecturer in psychology at

New York University, Director of Research at the Life Insurance Agency
Management Association, and then in 1939, he became a Director responsible for
surveys at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Gradually his role in Government
surveys expanded, and during the US involvement in the Second World War, he
headed up a part of the Office of War Information.

After the war, Government contracted and surveys were no longer mandated by
Congress. So Likert, along with his colleagues sought to establish a centre for reseach
into surveys at one of the universities. In 1946, they settled at the University of
Michigan and founded the Survey Research Center with Likert as its first Director.
The centre changed its name in 1949 to the Institute for Social Research (ISR) and has
grown and thrived ever since. Likert remained Director until his retirement in 1970,
when his co-founder, Angus Campbell, became the second ISR Director.

During the 1950s and 60s, Likert directed his research interest towards management.
His 1961 book, New Patterns of Management, proved highly influential. It introduced his
four systems of management and articulated his advocacy for ‘System 4‘. He followed
this, in 1967, with Human Organization: Its Management and Value. This further detailed
System 4, and contains his most widely quoted statement:

‘…the greater the loyalty of the members of a group toward the group, the greater is
the motivation among the members to achieve the goals of the group, and the greater
is the probability that the group will achieve its goals.’

In 1970, he established his consulting business, Rensis Likert Associates, to capitalise

on his thinking, and he also continued to develop and publish his ideas. His 1976
book, New Ways of Managing Conflict, was also very successful.
Rensis Likert died in September 1981.

Likert’s Four Management Systems

Likert articulated four styles of management. We can easily see these as an extension
of the Theory X / Theory Y approaches that Douglas McGregor articulated.
Rensis Likert – the Four Systems of Management

The four systems are:

System 1. Exploitative-Authoritative
Decision-making takes place at the top of the organization and these decisions are
imposed on others without consultation. There is little sense of teamwork and not
much communication, other than threats, which form the primary means of driving
performance (motivation). Consequently, it is only upper management who feel any
sense of responsibility for the organisation’s goals.

System 2. Benevolent-Authoritative
This is a patriarchal, patronising system based on a master-servant relationship
between management and employees. Rewards are the motivators and teamwork,
communication, and a sense of ownership of the organisation’s goals are still minimal.

System 3. Consultative
In this style, managers trust subordinates but not wholly. They motivate with both
rewards and involvement, and expect a higher level of responsibility for meeting
goals. There is a moderate amount of teamwork and some communication across and
between levels.

System 4. Participative
Participative management is based on trust and confidence in employees. Goals are
determined collectively and form a basis for motivation and rewards. This fosters a
collective sense of responsibility for meeting company goals, and
incentivises collaborative teamwork and open communication.

The Characteristics of Likert’s System 4

Likert felt strongly that System 4 was the optimum system for managing an
organisation, as McGregor argued for Theory Y as a means of motivating individuals.

He set out four principal characteristics of successful System 4 management:

1. Supportive group relationships, both within the group and between the group
members and the leader. A sense of care and collaboration.
2. Each person’s individual contribution, needs, value, and development needs to
be equally respected.
3. The group undertakes problem solving together, and aligns behind their
eventual consensus solution.
 4. Different groups overlap, with certain individuals playing the role of ‘linking
pin’ between them. These are people whom Karen Stephenson refers to
as ‘Gatekeepers’.

This all has a very modern feel to it and it is hard to feel the sense of novelty Likert’s
ideas had in the 1960s. This, I suggest, is a measure of the importance of Likert’s
ideas. So I choose Option e. Strongly Agree.

RENSIS LIKERT: PARTICIPATIVE

MANAGEMENT
Rensis Likert made an important contribution to management in the 1960s, which was
to influence many large corporations in the US and Japan. Do you:

a. Strongly Disagree – b. Disagree – c. Neither Agree nor Disagree – d. Agree – e.

Strongly Agree

Almost all of us have, at some time, had to use this type of simple perceptual scale. It
is called a Likert Scale, after Rensis Likert, who invented it early in his career. But
there is more to him than that, as we shall see.

Rensis Likert, 1903 – 1981

Short Biography
Rensis Likert was born in 1903, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In 1922, he went to study
Civil Engineering (following his father) at the University of Michigan. However,
during a Sociology class in his senior year, he realised he was more interested in
people than in things, so switched subject and won his bachelors degree in Sociology
and Economics, in 1926. In 1932, he was awarded a PhD for research in the new field
of Social Psychology, by Columbia University. As a part of his research he developed
a simplified scale for gauging opinions, which bears his name today. His research
demonstrated that, despite its simplicity, it was able to achieve equally reliable results,
when compared with more sophisticated approaches.

Likert then took on a series of increasingly important roles: lecturer in psychology at

New York University, Director of Research at the Life Insurance Agency
Management Association, and then in 1939, he became a Director responsible for
surveys at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Gradually his role in Government
surveys expanded, and during the US involvement in the Second World War, he
headed up a part of the Office of War Information.

After the war, Government contracted and surveys were no longer mandated by
Congress. So Likert, along with his colleagues sought to establish a centre for reseach
into surveys at one of the universities. In 1946, they settled at the University of
Michigan and founded the Survey Research Center with Likert as its first Director.
The centre changed its name in 1949 to the Institute for Social Research (ISR) and has
grown and thrived ever since. Likert remained Director until his retirement in 1970,
when his co-founder, Angus Campbell, became the second ISR Director.

During the 1950s and 60s, Likert directed his research interest towards management.
His 1961 book, New Patterns of Management, proved highly influential. It introduced his
four systems of management and articulated his advocacy for ‘System 4‘. He followed
this, in 1967, with Human Organization: Its Management and Value. This further detailed
System 4, and contains his most widely quoted statement:

‘…the greater the loyalty of the members of a group toward the group, the greater is
the motivation among the members to achieve the goals of the group, and the greater
is the probability that the group will achieve its goals.’

In 1970, he established his consulting business, Rensis Likert Associates, to capitalise

on his thinking, and he also continued to develop and publish his ideas. His 1976
book, New Ways of Managing Conflict, was also very successful.
Rensis Likert died in September 1981.

Likert’s Four Management Systems

Likert articulated four styles of management. We can easily see these as an extension
of the Theory X / Theory Y approaches that Douglas McGregor articulated.
Rensis Likert – the Four Systems of Management

The four systems are:

System 1. Exploitative-Authoritative
Decision-making takes place at the top of the organization and these decisions are
imposed on others without consultation. There is little sense of teamwork and not
much communication, other than threats, which form the primary means of driving
performance (motivation). Consequently, it is only upper management who feel any
sense of responsibility for the organisation’s goals.

System 2. Benevolent-Authoritative
This is a patriarchal, patronising system based on a master-servant relationship
between management and employees. Rewards are the motivators and teamwork,
communication, and a sense of ownership of the organisation’s goals are still minimal.

System 3. Consultative
In this style, managers trust subordinates but not wholly. They motivate with both
rewards and involvement, and expect a higher level of responsibility for meeting
goals. There is a moderate amount of teamwork and some communication across and
between levels.

System 4. Participative
Participative management is based on trust and confidence in employees. Goals are
determined collectively and form a basis for motivation and rewards. This fosters a
collective sense of responsibility for meeting company goals, and
incentivises collaborative teamwork and open communication.

The Characteristics of Likert’s System 4

Likert felt strongly that System 4 was the optimum system for managing an
organisation, as McGregor argued for Theory Y as a means of motivating individuals.

He set out four principal characteristics of successful System 4 management:

1. Supportive group relationships, both within the group and between the group
members and the leader. A sense of care and collaboration.
2. Each person’s individual contribution, needs, value, and development needs to
be equally respected.
3. The group undertakes problem solving together, and aligns behind their
eventual consensus solution.
 4. Different groups overlap, with certain individuals playing the role of ‘linking
pin’ between them. These are people whom Karen Stephenson refers to
as ‘Gatekeepers’.

This all has a very modern feel to it and it is hard to feel the sense of novelty Likert’s
ideas had in the 1960s. This, I suggest, is a measure of the importance of Likert’s
ideas. So I choose Option e. Strongly Agree.

10 New Trends and Concepts In Management

(Explained)

Page Contents
• New Trends in Management
o #1 Workforce Diversity
o #2 Outsourcing
o #3 Knowledge Management
o #4 Learning Organization
o #5 Time Management
o #6 Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
o #7 Conflict Management
o #8 Stress Management
o #9 Participative Management
o #10 Green Management
o
New Trends in Management
Due to the rapid development of science and technology, globalization in
business, transportation, and communication system, increase the new pace
of economic development emerge various new perspectives in
management that a manager has to apply to today’s obstacles. Some of the
recent trends in management are as follows:

10 Recent Trends in Management are

1. Workforce Diversity
2. Outsourcing
3. Knowledge Management
4. Learning Organization
 5. Time Management
6. Business Process Reengineering
7. Conflict Management
8. Stress Management
9. Participative management
10. Green Management
Describing individually the above management trends are as follows:

#1 Workforce Diversity
Workforce diversity is the involvement of heterogeneous types of
employees in the organization who represents their age, gender, and
ethnicity. Due to changes in population dimensions, improved workforce,
social pressure, and increased globalization the diversity is constantly
increasing.
The world’s increasing globalization requires more interaction among
people from diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds. People no longer
live and work in an insular marketplace, they are now part of the
worldwide economy with competition coming from nearly every continent.
Due to these reasons, profit and non-profit organizations need more
diversity to become more creative and open to change.

Managing diversity in the workplace has become an important issue for

management today. An efficient manager has to manage a diverse
workforce from both an individual and organizational approach. May from
an individual approach he has to develop a better environment like
understanding, empathy, tolerance, and willingness to communicate with
his employees. And, from an organizational approach may he has to
develop policies, training, practices, and good culture in the organization.

#2 Outsourcing
Outsourcing means getting resources from outside. It is the process of
providing some parts of jobs to other organizations to bring quality and get
the benefit of specialization.

It is an important means of reducing costs and improving quality. If an

organization performs every activity by itself, it may not be able to
perform the activity efficiently and the quality of product or service may
also be inferior. Thus, organizations have to identify certain areas that can
be outsourced to minimize the cost of operation and increase the quality of
products.

#3 Knowledge Management
Knowledge management is the process that helps organizations to identify,
select, organize, disseminate, and transfer important information and
expertise for organizational prosperity. It emphasizes that knowledge can
be turned into business ideas and used for the success of the organization.
The effective management of knowledge enables management for effective
and efficient problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning, and
decision making.
It focuses on identifying knowledge, explicating it in such a way that it can
be shared formally, and showing its value through reuse. For
organizational success, knowledge, as a form of capital, must be
exchangeable among persons, and must be able to grow. And, for problem-
solving, knowledge, must be captured, so that knowledge management can
promote organizational learning, and lead to further knowledge creation.

#4 Learning Organization
Learning organization involves institutions where there is the provision of
continuous learning to adapt to the changing environment of businesses.
You know, the business environment is an ever-changing process. So, to
bring new concepts into the business, the innovation of new ideas, models,
design, structure, and technology is essential. A business organization
performing at the highest level today will not remain the same in the future
if there is no provision of learning.

For better learning in the organization, all employees should share

information, ideas, knowledge, and work as a team. To cope with the
changing environment and new technology, business organizations need to
have qualified employees with learning capabilities.

#5 Time Management
Time management is prioritizing the activities for using time effectively. It
is used for scheduling time. Time is a unique and most important resource
and if it is wasted, it can never be recovered.

Time management may help employees who are suffering from a lack of
planning, sort out their priorities, etc. It is about balancing different aspects
of life which makes the goal achievable. But remember time is always
limited.

#6 Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

Business process reengineering is a new trend in the management field. It
purports that the way work is done should be fundamentally and radically
changed so that every effort of the firm is driven to achieve customer
satisfaction and thereby greater performance and profitability.

Reengineering is about radical change. It does not mean slight and

incremental changes, leaving the basic structure as it was. It means starting
from “Scratch”.

Reengineering involves redefining the process. It is essential in a condition

when the current effort is insufficient for the organizations to satisfy their
customers.

#7 Conflict Management
Conflict refers to all kinds of opposition or antagonistic interaction
between or among individuals and groups. It exists when one party has
hampered or is about to hamper the accomplishment of goals.

The manager should identify the reasons for conflicts and solve them
through proper ways such as skill encouragement, handling constructive
conflict, and resolving dysfunctional conflicts.

#8 Stress Management
Stress refers to the body’s psychological, physiological, and emotional
response to any demand. Stress occurs when the pressure is greater than
resources. Large workload, long work hours, fewer resources, less job
security are the major causes of stress to the employees.

Stress management is concerned with taking some steps to minimize work

stress among working staff. Steps may include changing lifestyle, changing
in thinking, and changing in behavior.

#9 Participative Management
It means involving subordinates in the decision-making process with their
immediate superiors. Here, both the manager and the subordinates are
involved in the decision-making process. It increases the value of the
employees by considering them as part of the management.

Participative management empowers subordinates who know the actual

problems and can contribute to better decision-making. It is necessary to
consults employees of different inter-dependent departments to bring
uniformity in their performance.
#10 Green Management
Green management focuses on environmental conservation for the
sustainable development of business activities. It focuses on promotions of
green technology that presents the most viable way of meeting with the
new green-related activities.

In today’s business environment managers have to take a step to protect

and preserve the natural environment. To save natural resources most of
the large organizations are using renewable energy sources, adopting new
technology that reduces energy consumption, preserves forests, and
conserves water for future use.
:

12 Common Management Challenges and How

to Overcome Them
Managers who oversee teams commonly face several challenges related to productivity and
communication. Knowing how to recognize these challenges and address them helps increase a
manager's confidence and ability to lead a team. In this article, we discuss the most common
challenges of managing employees and ways to overcome these challenges.

12 common management challenges

Here are some of the most common challenges managers face and how to overcome them:

1. Decreased performance levels

2. Being understaffed
3. Lack of communication
4. Poor teamwork
5. Pressure to perform
6. Absence of structure
7. Time management
8. Inadequate support
9. Skepticism
10. Difficult employees
11. Transition from coworker to manager
12. Weak workplace culture

1. Decreased performance levels

Employees may experience periods of time where they are not as productive as usual. A decrease
in productivity can sometimes affect other team members and overall goals, making it important
to help employees feel motivated.

Managers who consistently review processes and procedures within the company can increase
efficiency. Perform a workflow analysis to review your current systems and restructure weak
areas. Another way to address this challenge is by asking questions and offering solutions to their
problems. One-on-one meetings provide a great opportunity for managers to reestablish work
hours and expectations regarding work productivity.

2. Being understaffed

Managers must recognize when it's time to hire another team member to help fulfill
responsibilities within their department. Because the hiring process is time-consuming, it's
helpful to get assistance from other managers and human resources professionals when pursuing
a new candidate.

If needed, ask for help when creating a job description, interviewing applicants and selecting the
right person for the desired role. Consider having applicants complete a sample work test to help
you determine the best fit for your team.
3. Lack of communication

Another challenge managers face when overseeing teams is ensuring effective communication.
Because every team member has a different personality, there is a chance for miscommunication
from time to time.

Increase the frequency of communication to ensure employees know exactly what you expect of
them and when you need them to complete it. Redefine standards that reinforce your team's goals
and purposes. Consider implementing a messaging platform for the workplace that allows
everyone to communicate quickly. Let them know if you prefer one form of contact over
another.

4. Poor teamwork

Sometimes, employees may lose focus on collaboration when they spend a lot of time
completing individual tasks. To re-establish teamwork, managers should revisit the purpose of a
project. Managers who take the time to acknowledge their team's efforts and clarify the purpose
of their work commonly see increased levels of motivation.

Consider dividing your team members into partners so they have a chance to work with someone
for a specific project. Team-building exercises are another great way to help everyone learn how
to work better together. Base the content of your exercises around the challenges your team
faces. For example, if they need to get to know each other better, focus on relationship building.

5. Pressure to perform

Some managers, especially new managers, to feel like they are under pressure to achieve
greatness from the very start of their role. If you frequently feel stressed about your leadership
position, take time to revisit the reasons why you were hired for the job. Recognize that leaders
learn from experience and mistakes. While planning helps, you will likely face unexpected
situations. The way that you choose to resolve conflicts and react to challenges reflects your
ability to lead.

6. Absence of structure

A common challenge that managers face in the workplace is the absence of structure, especially
when overseeing a new team. Depending on the work environment, some teams may need to be
supervised more closely than others in order to maintain productivity levels.

Take time to develop an organizational structure that helps employees know what you expect of
them. In addition, show your team respect to encourage loyalty.

7. Time management

Because managers are responsible for overseeing the members of their team and communicating
with other department heads, they typically struggle with balancing their own tasks. One way to
prioritize your own work responsibilities is by scheduling time throughout the day to do specific
work. Let your team know the times you'll be available to them and the times you plan to focus
on your work. Regularly update your calendar, and share it with team members so they know
when they can reach you.

8. Inadequate support

Managers sometimes need approval from the executive team of a company or the business owner
before moving ahead with a project. When the decision-making process takes longer than
expected, it may slow down their team's progress overall. The most important thing to do in this
situation is to be honest with your team members. Let them know that you are waiting for
information from the executive team, and if possible, allow them to work on other projects. Try
to arrange for a one-on-one with the decision-maker to expedite progress.

9. Skepticism

Teams often question the transparency of management when they feel distanced from their
supervisors, especially if certain employees feel like they are doing more work than others.
When people feel they are not part of the plan, their level of trust becomes compromised. Clear
communication and honest interactions help resolve skepticism in most instances because it
builds trust between an employee and manager. When you delegate tasks, explain why you
assigned it and how it contributes to the overall goal.

10. Difficult employees

Sometimes, managers oversee employees who cause tension in the workplace. Knowing how to
properly address any issues before they become major problems is one common challenge
managers face. To address specific concerns, request feedback from your team members to learn
about any issues they may have with completing work or communicating with team members.

Implement any feasible suggestions to show you're listening to your team. Take time to listen to
their concerns and find out what you can about the situation. If you're unsure of what to do next,
consider enlisting the support of an HR professional in your company. Their training supports
conflict resolution and other aspects of employee relations.

11. Transition from coworker to manager

People who get promoted at work often find themselves managing old coworkers. This situation
may feel awkward at first, but with time and the right leadership, it may become less of an issue.
Ensure team members that you're there to support their efforts and ensure they have everything
they need to accomplish their goals. It may help to have a meeting shortly after the transition
where you address the change in roles and allow your team members to ask any questions.