The management comes with humanity therefore its the universal

character. It is found everywhere and in all places, this imparts

effectiveness to all human endeavours, and in general is essential for any
social form. In this way we can characterize it as universal because it is a
phenomenon that occurs wherever there is a social organization and that
within these always have to be a systematic coordination of media.

Management is always accompanied by many different sciences such as
economics, accounting and engineering among others, nevertheless
management maintains its specificity despite their close connection during
the different processes. However despite that the administrative
proceedings is composed of different phases, this process is unique,
constant, what varies is the degree of implementation in the different
processes in which is desired to apply. For this reason it should always
keep the interaction going of its four essential elements: planning,
organization, direction and control.

In management will inevitably arises the eternal argument that if this is a
science or an art, however, through the historical background an
international coincidence of many authors who consider management as a
combination of science and art is seen.

Management can be conceived as a science, because it is a set of ordered
and systematized knowledge of universal value, which studies companies
and organizations for descriptive purposes for understanding their
operation, evolution, growth and behaviour. It is a tactic science, which
aims to study how economic entities are constituted to analyse their
performance and the fulfilment of objectives.

But it also managing is an art. Because it refers the body of knowledge
that will serve as the foundation for developing a particular activity. Is the
use of fundamental awareness and its application in the correct situation,
to obtain practical outcomes, "Doing things right through creativity and
sensitivity". The art is done on an individual, subjective and experiential
basis.
These discussions and the statements that go together with them are the
reflection of the explanatory vagueness with which usually refers to the
management. Defining the nature of management will allow give an
reason of its meaning while at the same time distinguish the
administrative technique of management theory, which is a necessity in
any discipline to identify the nature of study.

The aim of this essay is not to carry out a thorough analysis of each of
them, but to address on the breadth to provide further explanation to
elucidate elements of what we mean when we speak of the nature of
management study.

Various authors have defined management as a science and as an art, and
among them there not seems to have a greater preoccupation for
establishing a sufficiently clear conceptual analysis to demonstrate that
these two dimensions can effectively contribute to the elucidation of the
meaning of management.

Among the authors who have defined management it as a science are
Harold Koontz, Heinz Weihrich, Terry George and Herbert Simon all of
them say that management is a science because it is organized knowledge
or that follows a scientific reasoning which may be used by the
administrative practice.

Without intending to enter into the philosophical debate on the nature of
science, it is assumed that this one does not propose, as their
fundamental principle, its practical meaning, because what defines
scientific knowledge is the explanation. In this regard the scientific
knowledge of management does not have to have an effect on managerial
practice; neither would we agree, as is stated by Simon, that there is a
practical science, what currently is known as the techno science, term that
denotes instrumental rationality and what science can do with the
technique or the technique can do with science.

Koontz and Weihrich argue that "[...] managers can work and perform
better utilizing the knowledge of management" and they point out that
this knowledge is what constitutes a science, thus, they say the organized
knowledge on which is based the practice can be considered as a science.
Also, Terry says that, "The development of the management science can
include, and includes the knowledge about the implementation of the
administration."

Is clear that the manager works better if they use the expertise of the
administration tools, even is imperative for administrative practice for the
administrator to rely on the expertise of their profession to carry out their
role, furthermore, it is also clear that the scientific understanding is able to
provide analytical elements for improving the administrative practice, even
when we claim that its purpose is not to the utility. However, the
knowledge that a manager applies is not necessarily a scientific
understanding as Koontz and Weihrich seems to affirm, we must
differentiate the knowledge which is necessary for the administrative
practice of the knowledge that aims to the explanation of the reality. For
instance possessing the knowledge for conducting a position analysis or
the drawing up of the payroll or a manual of procedures does not mean
that it is scientific knowledge; rather it is a proper practical knowledge of
the administrative profession which serves for solving management
problems.

Who it is considered as the father of management, Frederick Winslow
Taylor, coined the idea of considering the administrative technique as a
scientific knowledge, this was a decisive factor for consider the thoughts
of this author as the precursor of the so-called scientific school of
Management. Taylor points out in his book Principles of Scientific
Management that "the diverse methods and instruments used in each
element of each job there is always one method and a tool that is the
faster and better than any of the others. And that this best system and
this best instrument cannot be detected or created rather than through a
study or a scientific analysis of all the procedures and instruments in use,
along with a time and motion study that is accurate and meticulous."

Taylor assumes that the systematization of administrative work is an
attribute of the scientific analysis. Of course, Taylor refers to the scientific
issue from the perspective of the administrative reasonableness, explained
through the instrumental rationality of means and ends, but without
considering, at any time that, the explanation for the administrative
certainty, therefore that this denomination of scientific management it
does not suggest the slightest epistemological essence rather than the
mechanization of the administrative paperwork.

Bernardo Kliksberg observed that Taylors definition of managerial practice
is guided by techniques, in the shape of a set of operating rules or
standards, It also indicates that organizations, like all phenomena in the
natural and social world, it channels their behaviour within certain
regularities.

Effectively, the characterization of a scientific discipline is the ability to
explain regularity, which is what would define the degree the scientific
nature of the managerial science.

THE FALSE CONCEPTION OF ART IN MANAGEMENT

The management seeks to obtain maximum efficiency of results in the
coordination of resources and only through it you can attempt for
maximum efficiency or the utilization of the material resources such as
capital, raw materials or the machinery, and notes that a virtuous
manager is good for his abilities and the techniques that he/she owns to
coordinate all the elements available in the organizations in the most
efficient way.

Who manages has the expertise and manages the technical knowledge to
perform the function of administration, this assertion has been interpreted
by many administrative writers regarding this must be an art. In this
sense, it is assumed that in the possibility of possessing this qualities and
skills makes them an artist, and if, in addition, they have the self-
knowledge and if it their also have the knowledge of their own tasks are
considered as a scientist. It is evident that possessing qualities and
performing a good job no matter how complex it is does not make people
artists, and even less, having the knowledge about their profession does a
make an administrator a scientific.
In some way or the other every individual, at the moment they take
action, and use their qualities and techniques, and the knowledge as well,
does not imply the possibility of producing artistic things, i.e. as the eye
has the ability to see.

Among the authors who point out that management as an art seems to be
a consensus between them that the art manifests in managers while they
apply their knowledge with expertise, they organize and use the human
skills and finally because they have the ability to lead the human elements
and dispose of materials in the most productive way for achieving a
common goal. Also, Management is an art because who manages or
directs apply his knowledge, experience, intuition and talent. Koontz y
Weihrich synthesize that the artistic sense of administrative activities is the
result of administrative practice.

A more detailed explanation about the meaning of the art in management
gives us George Terry by pointing out that there is also the art of
administration, the meaning of art is to achieve a desired result through
the application of the skills. In other words, art has to do with the
application of knowledge or science, or the expertise in implementation.
This is particularly relevant in since in many instances countless creativity
and skill is needed in the application of administrative effort in order to
achieve the desired outcomes. Management is one of the most creative of
all the arts. It is the art of all arts, because it organizes and it uses human
talent. The explanation which Terry gives us regarding the meaning of art
in management could be better understood as the technique or the
techniques used by an administrator to manage or organize activities.

The fact of organizing and utilizing the human skills not mean we should
understand it as art, but as the skill with which men have to take actions
in order to solve administrative problems. However, although it is true that
creativity defines art that does not mean that we must consider similarly in
management, so what we do in management is to implement the
expertise to perform the actions whose primary purpose is to solve
practical problems.

The ability for managing cannot be more art than the mere possibility of
owning skills and applying them to the solution of management problems,
regardless of their artistic sense: it is to achieve high efficiency,
incorporating the administrative techniques, the knowledge and the skills
that are characteristic from the manager, but this does not mean that it is
an artistic skill, it is rather, of a technical skill. It is not proper to define
Management as an art activity based on the interpretation of the authors I
have referred so far.

In conclusion, the science of management refers to explanatory issues in
the resolution of theoretical problems and not practical, which implies a
level of significance that is a characteristic of management theory, also
the ability to manage cannot be more art than it is actually possible of
having the ability and applying it to the solution of administrative
problems, regardless of their artistic sense.

So we can consider that management is both of them, a science and an
art. It is a science because there exists an organized knowledge in the
management system, however, as has been stated before that the
administration is the most inaccurate of the social sciences by means of
they are a complex phenomenon of very a different order and the
differences that still remain between the public and private administration.
It is art because the practice of management of organizations consists of
the artistic application of scientific principles for the solution of issues, for
the optimization of resources and for achieving the pre-established goals.

As the science and art of management are complementary, a balance
between the two is needed because an adequate theory also requires
skills and creativity to be executed similarly.