BS4S16-V1 - Leadership and Management Theories

Teacher: Caroline Ntara

Critically evaluate the application of leadership theories to a leader in an organisational

context (e.g. a company of your choice) and management theories to a contemporary

organisation.

R1801D4405723
Ogbonna Ifeanyichukwu Charles
02 September, 2018
Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 3

Main analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Definition of management ..................................................................................................................... 6

Classical management .......................................................................................................................... 8
Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management ......................................................................................... 8
Fayol’s Administrative theory.............................................................................................................. 10
Bureaucracy theory .............................................................................................................................. 12
Leadership ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Trait approach ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Behavioural approach .......................................................................................................................... 16
Contingency approach......................................................................................................................... 16
Transformational approach ................................................................................................................. 18
Transactional approach ....................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 21

References .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Introduction

According to the BusinessDictionary online, theory can be defined as “A set of

assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or

rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of

observed phenomena. The word's origin (from the Greek thorós, a spectator), stresses

the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality.” Not all established

theories were successfully implemented and same goes for some implementations that

cannot be proven theoretically. Stoner, et.al. (2003) proposed that theory is an astute

knowledge people based on what they have come across or experienced. Based on the

this perceptive, mastery of the culture around the theories is required to perfectly

evaluate theoretical thoughts. Culture depends a lot on generation and location, and

due to this, things change with time and place and what was accepted at a location in

particular time might not be acceptable in another place and the same time or vice

versa. And from Ackoff (1974) an action allowable at one location might be frowned at in

another location. Furthermore, theoretical frames are influenced by the organizational

culture that shows rights and wrongs, good and bad, and the kind of idea to be

discussing with or sharing with the workers in the organization (Watson, 1994; Dawson,

1996).

Before the industrial revolution, there were no many organizations and so there were no

many management. This was based on the fact that apart from the church, military,

trading, farming and some small construction, there were no much that required

management. The owners of the enterprise handles tasks like planning coordination,

controlling amongst other activities. All these changed with the rise of the industrial
revolution. With the invent of new methods of productions, organizations started

growing bigger and with more staff. This started going to the extent the owner of the

investment or just one person cannot handle these tasks. This led to them having to

depend on others to get these tasks done and with this, there were need for the theories

of management. With the industrial revolution in the twentieth century, scholars have

performed a lot of studies and concentrated on the organizational patterns and

structures. A variety of theories has been developed since then and have been tested,

matured as the notion of management and leadership.

Even though leadership and management complement one another, most people

cannot find a clear line between both and still have some gray area in separation of both

of them. A couple of definitions of management and leadership are quickly cited to help

clear this obscurity. Weijrich and Koontz (1993) defined management as organizing,

planning, staffing, controlling, directing, and coordinating to achieve specified

objectives. On the other hand, leadership is more about inspiring and motivating and so,

does not require an explicit authorization. Weijrich and Koontz (1993) described

managers as administrators who mainly develop plans and oversee the development of

the organization and also allocate resources. On the contrary, leaders basic task is to

transform the personality of the individuals and that of the organization. Leadership can

be seen as the successful relationship between and a leader and their followers. And

owing to this, managers can be classified as either good or bad leaders. In this modern

era, it makes sense that organizations understand the theories of leadership to help

then react quickly and appropriately to the changes within and outside the organizations

to be able to keep up with the fast-changing pace of organizational development.

For this reason, knowing the relevant management and leadership practices to apply is

very crucial for the organization’s survival and also meeting up with the vision of the

organization.

The Maryland Global Initiatives Corporation is a non-profit affiliate of University of

Maryland Baltimore (UMB) with a mission to administratively support international

operations currently for the research and clinical programs of its School of Medicine,

Institute of Human Virology Center for International Health Education and Biosecurity

(CIHEB) in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia, with registration application

in-process in Haiti. Across all countries, UMB has strong relationships with local

institutions and is credited for training thousands of healthcare professionals, supporting

national Ministries of Health, strengthening laboratory services, generating evidence for

policy development, and strengthening continuous quality improvement activities (CQI),

healthcare institutions, and health information systems. UMB CIHEB’s Nigeria country

office is staffed and led by Nigerian health experts who have been trained and

developed over 13 years by UMB to become a national resource for managing

infectious diseases, non-communicable chronic diseases, clinical and operational

research, and targeted health systems solutions, including for adopting point of service

laboratory technology, health care governance, and monitoring and evaluation. This

activity of the organization means that there is a management theory been practiced in

the organization.

A couple of leadership and management theories are defined, discussed and evaluated

scientifically or otherwise following the comments of researchers. Those theories are

scientific management theory, administrative theory, bureaucratic theory, some other

leadership theories that include trait theory, behavioral theory, transformational and

transactional theories. Theories were selected based on their randomly and based on

the theories practiced in the organization. The processes from MGIC Nigeria were used

to cite examples for some of the practices and used to critically evaluate the theories.

This analysis will start by taking a look at the definitions of management then the

evaluation of the management theories, then leadership will be defined and then

leadership theories will be evaluated.

Main analysis

Definition of management

Perception is a key to how individuals define and interpret ideas or theories. Scholars

from a variety of fields and locations have tried to define management in variable ways.

There are couple of definitions of management by many theorists.

‘Five areas of management constitute the essence of proactive performance in

our chaotic world: (1) an obsession with responsiveness to customers; (2)

constant innovation in all areas of the firm; (3) partnership – the wholesale

participation of and gain sharing with all people connected with the organization;

(4) leadership that loves change (instead of fighting it) and instils and shares an

inspiring vision; and (5) control by means of simple support systems aimed at

measuring the ‘‘right stuff’’ for today’s environment.’ Peters (1988)

Peter tries to portray management as some key activities that people in management

will be performing to keep the organization going forward and that includes the external

relationships of the organization.

Koontz and Weihrich (1975, p.2) stated that ‘management is the process of designing

and maintaining an environment in which individuals, working together in groups,

efficiently accomplish selected aims.’

Here Kroontz and Weihrich are defining management in terms of the environment, they

are proposing mostly of the managers making the work environment conducive for the

workers to perform effectively in the workplace.

‘To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to

control.’ Fayol (1916)

Fayol’s definition of management represents how managers make people to get the

work done at that time. People are made to work mostly by command.

‘Managing is an operational process initially best dissected by analyzing the managerial

functions ... The five essential managerial functions (are): planning, organizing, staffing,

directing and leading and controlling.’ Koontz and O’Donnell (1984)

Kroontz and O’Donnel proposal as the definition of management had five managerial

functions which includes staffing, directing, leading and controlling which are directly

talking about the relationship of the management to workers and how they get the job

done.

‘Management is a social process ... the process consists of ... planning, control,

coordination and motivation.’

We can see that the definitions of management changed overtime, initial definitions of

management from Fayol sees management as commanding but from the definition from
Brech, it has to do with motivation. In Koontz and O’Donnell’s definition, they mentioned

leading and directing as part of the activities of management and this is pointing out the

shift in the paradigm of management from commanding to motivation and leading the

staff to effectively get the job done.

Classical management

Classical management theory emanated towards the end of the nineteenth and the

beginning of the twentieth centuries. The three well-known theories of classical

management are

 Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management

 Fayol’s Administrative Theory

 Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy

Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management

Acknowledged by Koontz and Weihrich (1975, p.2) as the father of scientific

management, Taylor whose main objective was to optimize production by increasing the

effectiveness of the mode of production by employing the empirical mode of operations

and increasing the wage of workers. Taylor proposed using the empirical methods to

create harmony between tasks and train workers to do tasks in a certain way.

Taylor’s thinking was that the only method of increasing the efficiency of doing a work

can only be found out by an empirical study of the processes involved in doing the work.

This process will involve replacing the already known ways of performing a task with

another defined scientifically. Scientific management initially requires a thorough study

of each of many alterations of how to implement a certain task, the best way of doing
the task will be selected based on the time and how it works in harmony with other tasks

to increase production. This method is then taken as the standard way of performing

this task and will continue to be used until a better way replaces it.

The main concept of scientific management was the task allocation and has probably

been the most criticized concept of the scientific management theory. This is the idea of

splitting tasks into smaller tasks to be able to find an optimized way of performing a

task. And this would also include ordering the process of performing the tasks. This can

be seen in the support department of the MGIC, the call center agents have specific

tasks to do and have an order in which they do the task. Task are shared in this

department with precision, the agents are told what to do starting from their first

response on picking the phone and how to respond to specific questions.

Taylor's scientific management theory inspired a lot of other preceding theorists, like

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and, later, Henry Gantt, who also preferred scientific methods

to arrive at the best process of performing a task. (Nelson, 1992) Taylor’s work was

initially appreciated by theorists, economists and politicians in the USA and Great

Britain. Like all theories, Taylor’s scientific management theory has its critics. After a

couple of decades from its inception, the theory was out of favour.

John Maurice Clark notes that science is constantly multiplying the rate of

standardization and scientific management tries to replace the tricky expertise of the

craftsman (Clark 1918: 147). And Irving Fisher stated that:

Frederick W. Taylor has made a unique place for himself in history as one who

bridged the gap between science and industry, between theory and practice. The
 world owes him at least undying fame for his accomplishment in replacing

guesswork by science and thereby adding immensely to the wealth and welfare

of all mankind. Someday even labor may canonize him as a patron saint. (Fisher

1925, p.61)

One of the recurrent critics of Taylor’s scientific management theory is its observed non-

recognition of workers (Caldari, 2007). This is regarding workers as machines or tools

which will remove the ability of the worker to rationalize to increase the efficiency of

production. The thinking and planning is done by engineers and management leaving

the worker to be a part of a workflow and performing planned, calculated action in a

certain duration. In the theory, job satisfaction of the worker was neglected based on the

assumptions that the increased payment will be enough motivation for the worker.

Although, structured work procedures have been perceived to enhance quality, facilitate

training and reduce waste.

Ralston (2014) argued against scientific management theory saying that based on the

fact that empirical process will determine the best possible way of performing a task in

view of getting optimum efficiency. They argue that adopting this practice neglects the

skills of the workers while projecting standardised methods and this will prevent the

worker from appreciating their day to day functions in the organization. And this also,

prevents the worker from utilizing their thinking faculty and may be finding an easier and

better ways of performing their tasks.

Fayol’s Administrative theory

As the front-runners of the scientific management were working on finding out how best

to perform a task, the pioneers of administrative management studies the feasibilities of

merging a lot of tasks together and run an organization. Consequently, the

administrative management theory is based on determining the optimal method of

running an organization and this school of thought can also be referred to as the

administrative or traditional principles of management. Henry Fayol (1841 – 1925) the

father of administrative management theory was a French industrialist and the chief

architect of his organization. Chester Barnard and Colnel Lyndrall Urwick who was a

management expert from Britain are other well-known advocates of the theory.

Fayol in his book ‘Industrial and General Management’ stated that the tasks of an

organization can be divided into six groups which are technical, commercial, financial,

accounting, security and administrative. Focusing on the administrative or managerial

tasks, he proposed that the main tasks of a manager includes planning, organizing,

commanding, coordinating and controlling. Fayol stated that the management technique

is similar at different hierarchies and across business establishment.

He also presented 14 principles of management that addresses division of work,

authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction,

subordination of individual interest to general interest, remuneration, centralization,

scalar chain, order, equity stability of tenure of personnel, initiative including common

bonds as the overall protocol for management practice. He also emphasized on logic,

rationality and consistency. And as it can be seen, while Taylor worked from low to

upper levels of the organization, Fayol was doing the opposite with the ideology of

centering management.

Chester I Barnard who was President of New Jersey Bell Telephone and other

prominent positions in public service has a tremendous impact on the theory and
practice of management for about fifty years following his concept revealed in his writing

‘the functions of the executive”. According to him, one of the crucial responsibilities of

the manager is to advocate for collaborative action aimed at achieving the mission of

the organization. Harmonizing benefits received by the employee and their input and

adequate communication playing a big role in collaboration.

Colonel L Urwick a renowned U.K. based executive and management consultant in his

book ‘the elements of administration’ tried to bring together the ideologies and

propositions of the early management theorists which included Taylor, Fayol, Mooney,

Railey amongst others. A new school of thought known as the management process

school which was inspired by Fayol, Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell postulated the

management is a changing way of performing the activities of planning, organizing,

staffing, directing and controlling. These concepts and fundamentals of management

are assumed to be applied generally and globally, meaning that managers carry out

similar tasks regardless of the hierarchy and culture hence affirming universal approach

as another name for the management process approach.

Bureaucracy theory

Over the years, businesses expand and become more complicated with many levels of

middle and lower management for coordinating effort of the employees leading to the

inadequacy of the authoritarian-paternalistic management. Bureaucracy theory by the

German socialist and scientist Max Weber is a theory of management that constitute of

the classical thought of management and adapted with Taylor’s theory of scientific

management and Fayol’s theory of administration. Max Weber proposed a set of rules
to present a basis for harmonizing the efforts of the groups. The circumstances around

the workplace has molded these three theories in the same term that made them the

breakthrough of the classical approach of management (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013).

Weber (1978, p.973) argues that “Bureaucracy develops the more perfectly the more it

is ‘dehumanized’, the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from official business

love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational and emotional elements which escape

calculation. This is appraised as its special virtue by capitalism.” Weber’s theory of

bureaucratic management is based mostly on the framework of the organization and is

notable by eight rules having written work, rules, authority and reward as the most

important ones. A good number of these rules are still being practiced in big present-

day organizations globally (Grey, 2005; Horner, 1997). In MGIC Nigeria, this can be

seen to be the case in some departments like the support department of the

organization, the call center agents have a mode of doing things and have a specific

response to a particular type of issue. The also follow a strict reporting line and abide by

the reporting line while escalating the issues even when they might know the person or

the department to contact directly to sort out whatever the case might be. Nonetheless,

there are critics of the theory on the basis of its inability to accommodate people in

processes that result to ineffective performance of the organization. Merton (1968)

argues that the specified fixed roles, the hierarchical structure and stringently abiding by

the same rules can result to a lot of angst. A call center agent might get agitated when

an issue is reported to the next line supervisor and it takes more time than required due

to all the protocols the issue will follow before getting solved. Schumpeter (1950) puts

forward that most innovative personnel can be made to be redundant and unused by
planning and specialization of work that is strictly controlled and governed. In the survey

that is been conducted by the MGIC, data collection in the field is monitored by the call

center agents, they interact with the people who are on the field and have good

recommendations for how to make their work better but due to the long reporting line

which they are obliged to abide by, some of this suggestions or recommendations might

get to the party that can take decision when something has already gone wrong and this

brings unfulfilling feelings to the agents. It also makes them feel as if their opinion is not

required.

Academics suggests that the awareness of the surrounding of the organization help to

for see innovative ideas and also aid in the ease of communication between the clients

and customers (Saxenian, 1996; Gompers, Lerner, and Scharfstein, 2005). But in

bureaucratic organisations, the employees concentrate more on the activities happening

within the organization than outside and this results to lack of knowledge of the

innovative ecosystem due to lack of link between the implementers of the actions and

the decision makers in the organization.

Leadership

Leadership can be defined as motivating an influencing people to believe in a common

goal and work together to get the objective of the group completed. There are many

theories about leadership. Some of these theories are going to be critically evaluated

below.

Trait approach

Trait leadership approach according to (Scouller 2011) tries to determine the personality

change makes for leadership qualities and this includes achievements, intelligence,
demography, self-confidence, economic background, physical appearance, personality,

demography amongst others. Stephenson (2004) stated that academics over the years

have always argued the fact “leaders are born or made”. Different studies have shown

that prosperous leaders have distinct traits and are not the same with the other

individuals. This theory argues that people follow a leader based on some traits that the

leader possess. This theory focuses mostly on the personality of the leader and not the

task that the leader is going to perform. Some of the traits mentioned in this theory are

intelligence, self-confidence, determination integrity and sociability (Northouse 2013, p.

23).

Trait leadership approach like most theories has some critics. One of the arguments

against it is that it is more focused on the personality of the individual and not how

efficient the person is or the ability to get the job done. Alan Bryman (2013) has argued

that, trait leadership has low clarifying personal traits and low prediction power over

their job performance

Moreover, the predictable nature of leader’s behaviour is less effective and their traits

do not necessarily effective and consistent in all situations and cases (McCleskey &

Allen, 2014)

Jenkins identified emergent traits which are mainly the traits that are inherited and self-

confidence and effectiveness traits which can be learnt and also be acquired by

experience as the two main traits of leadership (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). This proposes

that even though there are traits of leadership that can be learnt, the leader still has to

inherit some traits.

This theory was said to have failed to produce a comprehensive list of traits to be

possessed by a leader even though a great amount of studies has been conducted in

this regard (Northouse, 2013). Cole and Kelly (2016) argued against this theory for it not

been able to pinpoint the traits distinguishing leaders from the followers.

Behavioural approach

Derue et al., (2011) said that the arguments against the trait leadership approach led to

the postulation of the behavioural approach. Behavioural leadership can be said to be

born out of shift in ideology from the trait leadership approach. This is a shift in what

people look at when they see a leader. It started looking at the main behaviour and

actions of a leader rather than that the personal qualities possessed by the leader. The

behaviour of the leader towards the people who is leading is a very important aspect of

this approach and the approach is mainly about the interaction between leaders and the

followers. Good attitude from leaders are seen to affect the confidence of the followers

and otherwise will make them not to be fit as leaders. It can be argued that the

behavioural approach did not factor in some variables like different scenarios owing that

a certain behaviour might not be as effective in all scenarios.

Time is another factor that is argued to not be considered by this approach, a behaviour

at a point in time used to tackle a situation might in later or earlier time not be suitable

for the same situation.

Contingency approach

This theory is based on contingency model created by Fred Fielder created fielder in

1960s by examining the nature and characteristics of the leader. The model suggests

that the effectiveness of a leader is based on the leadership approach chosen and the
circumstances (Fielder, 1967). It focuses on the leader’s ability to direct, the work to be

done, the control the leader has over his followers and the nature of the leader. This

theory lists task and relationship motivated styles of leadership. This model proposes

that the effectiveness of the leader is based on the leader knowledge to identify the

style of leadership based on the current task that he wants to take and also his ability to

direct his followers to get the task completed. In MGIC, we work mostly with government

organizations, the individuals in those organizations behave differently from those in

MGIC and there is no one method of working with them, so while working on some

projects, the person of contact will have to change a leadership style based on the

followers assigned to the person by ministry, while a couple of them might need a

motivational approach to get the job done, others will need a reward system to be able

to perform tasks given to them owing to the fact that the person of contact is directly not

paying their salaries and has a little effect on their payments.

The contingency theory argues that there is no single leadership style that will fit for all

situations. Most times, change in the organization is not only the when the leadership

changes the mode and the state of operations, the workers also change in attitude and

ways of doing things. (Greenleaf, 1977) defines contingency theories as a model of

behavioural theory that argues that there is no single mode of leading and also stating

the leadership styles vary depending on the situation at hand. The concept of situation

is very critical to this theory with three factors: leader-member relations, task structure

and the position power. The acceptability of the situations in an organization is based on

these factors (Northouse, 2007, p.114-115).

This theory takes the leader as the focal point of the relationship between the leader

and their followers and propounds that the followers has a critical responsibility in

explaining the association. The theory propounds that the choice of the leadership

approach to be adopted by a leader (Bass, 1997). Because Fieldler believes leadership

qualities are fixed, scholars have criticized this theory of lack of flexibility.

Transformational approach

Transformation leadership can be seen as a leadership approach that brings about

modification in people and the civil community. Optimally, this transformation in the

subordinates is aimed at making them to become leaders. Transformational leadership

is originally meant to increase the motivation, morale and performance of the

subordinates in a lot of ways. One way of doing this is linking the personality of the

follower to the mission and the unified character of the organization.

Burns proposed the ideas of transforming and transactional leadership and from his

point of view, transforming approach brings about a huge transformation in the life of

individuals and systems. It changes how employees see things, the order of importance

they place things, what they expect and aspire. According to Burns (1978) the

difference between transactional and transformational leadership is that transactional

leader motivates the employees by using a method that the employee will get

something in return which is a form of trade to improve efficiency and trustworthiness.

Contrarily, the transformational leaders are involved with the followers which

encourages them to put in their optimal commitment and loyalty to fulfill the mission of

the organization. The transformational leaders are more inclined to the advancing

individual qualities of each follower and not focusing so much on the organizational
framework. Transformational leaders support their followers to be more innovative

(Robbins and Coulter, 2007). This can be seen in the IT department MGIC. The leaders

in the department tries to make the followers more innovative and to be able to think for

themselves. This might be due to the nature of their work which is highly collaborative.

The leaders at higher levels in MGIC try to work with this theory, due to the amount of

responsibilities they are faced with, they are currently motivating people in their teams

to work hard and this help influence the followers to want to achieve the aim of the

department and the organization as a whole.

The transformational leaders raise the motivation and morality of both the follower and

the leader (House & Shamir, 1993). Transformational leaders are said to interact with

the followers bearing in mind the objectives and goals that share. Bass argues that a

transformational leader tries to get the followers to change their priority by exceeding

personal interests to greater needs which is in alignment with the Maslow (1954) higher

order needs theory.

In this approach, the followers and leaders set aside their self-interests for the that of

the group. And in this case the leader it tasked with focusing on the interests of the

followers and contributions with the aim of transforming them to leaders by inspiring

them (House & Aditya, 1997). The leader at this point can be said to be motivating the

followers to focus on achieving the aims of the group while the leader tries to find out

the needs of the individual follower and tries to find a way for them to meet these needs

by motivation and also trying to make them leaders to help motivate others around.

The transformational leaders are though of by their ability to find out the need for a

transformation, get others to buy in to the idea of the change, develop a perception that
controls the transformation and implement the transformation (MacGregor Bums, 2003).

A leader in this case will treat each follower independently and strive to establish their

awareness, integrity and expertise by making their work challenging and important. This

leader produces a vision with followers passionate to achieve it. The can be seen as

visionary leaders that create an improved environment of the followers and tries to

transcend them to focus more on the goals of the group (MacGregor Bums, 2003). The

Director of Health programs in MGIC Nigeria, tries to implement this principle in her

actions, owing to the fact that there are different ways of motivating different people, she

tries to motivate each individual at a time rather than trying influence a group at a time.

This has helped her shape her directorate and get people passionate to perform any

task that is assigned to them

Transactional approach

Transactional leadership happens when a leader trades a valuable thing with a follower

and these exchanges are based on the leader specifying things that the actions the

follower will take in order to get the reward. The goal is to enter a contract to get

something done rather that create a relationship between the leader and the follower,

and even though the follower got the job done, it cannot be said that based on that the

follower now understands that vision of the leader and now wants to work towards it.

Transactional leadership is contrasting with transformational leadership in that

transformational leadership tries to put the leader and follower in the position of a

mutual relationship that they motivate each other. Working with government agencies

has led to MGIC applying this approach of leadership. While working with other

agencies and having their staff assigned to a leader in MGIC to manage, it becomes a
bit tricky to get them to perform some operations. So, most times, the leader in this case

will have to come up with some reward system that will get them into some sort of

contract that they only get the reward upon completing the specified action. This has

immensely been helpful in the organization especially working with staff of other

organizations to get a task completed by both parties.

The transactional leadership was characterized as that in which the interactions

between the leader and their subordinate is based on a set of arrangements between

them (House & Shamir, 1993). This approach is based on the reciprocity where the

leader and the follower are under the influence of each other.

(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994) argues that for a transformational leader to be

effective, they may have to show some form of transactional leadership behaviours and

their style of leadership may include: idealized vision, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Conclusion

Critically evaluating the theories of management and leadership theories from various

approaches shows that the culture of the organization plays an important role in the

organization succeeding in a theory and culture as we know has a lot to do with time.

Owing to this, some theories are known to have helped some organizations grow but if

the same theory is applied recently, it tends to bring about a huge failure. The theorists

in the early twentieth century implemented a lot of scientific management theories not

paying so much attention to human needs and focusing more on increased productivity

and more profit. With time, nature of organizations changed, organizations become
bigger and more people are needed to help supervise and direct the actions of the

organizations. This resulted in change of the structure of organizations and a need for

the evolution of the theories of management.

Another thing to point out about this evaluation is that most organizations combine a

couple of theories to get the job done. Depending on the type of task been performed,

the amount or the complexity of the skill needed to perform the task, the level of the

organization and other variables, a corresponding theory is implemented. This tries to

show that there is not management and leadership theory that is all encompassing. For

jobs that requires high level of thinking and complex skills to complete, one can clearly

see that classical management theory will not be a good choice in this type scenario

while classical management theory can be applied in tasks that very simple and straight

forward.

Finally, the increasing of awareness among the employees became an impediment to

the top to bottom management style, whereas employees started to follow charismatic

leaders who are respectful, trustful, knowledgeable, and influential rather than traditional

managers who tend to apply a dull roles and policies apart from employees’ needs.

Those new leaders induced researchers to study their characteristics which result in two

categorizations of leaders: transactional and transformational leaders. Transformational

leader encourages followers to participate their thoughts and ideas, and works hand in

hand with the followers in order to motivate them and unify their objectives with the

organization’s goal. Transformational leader are model for their followers in which they

respectfully follow his orders to fulfil an extraordinary objectives. However, the followers’
trustful and loyalty to the leaders can be immorally abused to achieve unethical

personal ends.

In confirmation, the success of management and leadership theories relies on the

internal and external environment that effectively control the organizational structure,

culture, and performance. Additionally, to successfully implement any management

style, it is crucial understanding the surrounding culture whether for individuals or

organization. The organizational and individual culture vary according to time and

location. Therefore, theories that contributed to great successes in particular

organization one day, they essentially considered a major reason of collapsing different

organization in different era.

Finally, increased in the knowledge of the employees has hindered the top to bottom

management style. Employees tend to work well with charismatic leaders who respect,

trust and influence them rather than the usual managers that always want to implement

protocols that are not in line with the needs of the employees. Transformational leaders

are more of mentors to their followers and this helps to make them respect and follow

him, his orders and directives to achieve exceptional objectives. But there is a change

that offensive act towards the someone who is following a leader trustfully and loyally

will lead to the follower performing a bad deed.

Success of management and leadership can be said to base on the environment

surrounding the organization internally and externally which absolutely controls the

framework, culture and output of the organization. More so, to be successful in

implementing a management style, it is pertinent to be aware of the culture around the

organization and the personality of its individuals. Organizational culture can be said to
change with time and place, so a theory that led to a great success in an organization in

a particular place and time can lead to a major disaster in another organization in a

different location at a different time.

References
Ackoff, R (1974) 'System, Messes and Interactive Planning', in Ackoff, R (ed.)

Redesigning the Future. New York: Wilet, pp. 417-438.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., &Berson, Y. (2003) ‘Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership’.Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B.M. (1985a) ‘Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations’, New York: The

Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1985b) ‘Leadership: good, better, best’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13

No. 3, pp. 26-40.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.

Caldari, K, (2007) ‘Alfred Marshall's Criticism of Scientific Management’, European

Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14(1) Available at:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1cb6/7ece3cbe9dd5f84fe38ed06f9705624bf826.pdf

(Accessed: 31 July 2018)

Dawson, S. (1996) Analyzing organizations, 3rd edn., Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Drucker, P.F. (1974) Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices, New York:

Harper.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, K. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two

dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.

Fiedler, F. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gompers, P., Lerner, J. and scharfstein, D (2005) 'Entrepreneurial Spawning: Public

Corporations and the Genesis of New Ventures, 1986 to 1999', The American Finance

association,60(2), pp. 577-614.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970) ‘The servant as leader’, Cambridge, Mass: Center for Applied

Studies.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/2002). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Grey, C. (2005) Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressiv Era,

Shicago: University of Shicago Press.

Hatch,M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L. (2013) Organization theory: Symbolic, and Postmodern

perspectives. Oxford University Press [Online]. Available

at:https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=ar&lr=&id=tv4CMvRMwooC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&d

q=MODERN+THEORY+OF+ORGANIZATION&ots=SlQ76QEGOp&sig=hbxnd7ntEcg84

a6fhQI9K8-

9Xcc#v=onepage&q=MODERN%20THEORY%20OF%20ORGANIZATION&f=false(Acc

essed: 28th July 2018).

Horner, M. (1997) 'Leadership Theories: Past, Present and Future',Team Performance

Management Journal, 3(4), pp. 270-287.

Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H. (1975) Essentials of Management, 8th edn, McGraw-Hill.

Available at:

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=s_wzNWdevJoC&printsec=frontcover&source=g

bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed: 23 August 2018)

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, R. 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A

construction/ development analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648-657.

McGregor, D. (1960) ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’. Available at:

http://www.kean.edu/~lelovitz/docs/EDD6005/humansideofenterprise.pdf. (Accessed 02

August 2018).

Merton, R. T. (1968) Social theory and social structure, New York: Free Press.

Nelson, Daniel, 1992. A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management since Taylor. Ohio:

Ohio State University Press

Northouse, G. P (2013) ‘Leadership Theory and Practice’, SAGE: USA.

Peters, T. (1988) Thriving on Chaos – Handbook for a Management Revolution,

Macmillan.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. A. 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as

mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A twosample study. Journal

of Management, 25: 897-933

Ralston, Shane, 2014. Doing versus Thinking: John Dewey's Forgotten Critique of

Scientific Management, Southwest Philosophy Review

Saxenian, A. (1996) 'Inside-Out: Regional Networks and Industrial Adaptation in Silicon

Valley and Route 128', A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2(2), pp. 41-60.

Schumpeter, P. (1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper

Torchbooks.
Stoner, J.A.F., Freeman, R.E. and Gilbert, Jr.D.R. (2003) Management, 6th edn., New

Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Taylor, Frederick W., 1964, Scientific Management - Comprising Shop Management,

The principles of Scientific Management and Testimony before the Special House

Committee, Harper and Row

Watson, T. (1994) In search of management: culture, chaos and control in managerial

work, New York: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1978) The Technical Superiority of Bureaucratic Organisation over

Administration by Notables. In Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive

Sociology. Edited by Roth, G. and Wittich, C. Pp. 973-5. University of California Press,

Berkley CA.

Weijrich, H. and Koontz, H. (1993) Management A Globel Perspective, 10th edn., New

Delhi: Tata McGRAW.