ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

MMB 414
LECTURER:
ROBERT MONAGENG
OFFICE: 235
Robert.Monageng@mopipi.ub.bw

INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT
THEORY
DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT?
There are several definitions of management:
Management is the use of techniques, based on
measures, artfully applied.
It is not an exact science, like engineering.
Management has often been compartmentalized as the
management of people and tasks, the implication
being that tasks are predictable and people are not.
Management is about control.

INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT
THEORY
This is incorrect; everything in management eventually
leads to people, so most things are unpredictable, and will
vary with time and from situation to situation.
In management one cannot even predict the result of the
sum of two numbers.
Remember, managers are not the 'bosses'; they are simply
employees of the organization, like everyone else, and are
doing a job for which they have acquired certain skills.
The engineer who goes into management expecting to be
a leader, to issue commands and have subordinates follow
without question, will be disappointed.

INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT
THEORY
The practices of engineering and of management may be
considered to have grown hand in hand.
As a profession, management is relatively new, if one
applies the definition of a professional as one having a
minimum standard of educational or work achievement,
administered by an independent body to which members
belong.
In the UK the IEE set up a professional group on
Engineering Management in 1970, which was almost one
hundred years after the IEE itself, was founded.
The growth of large corporations in the 1950s, particularly
multinationals, provided a boost to the professional
manager.

Organization Structures
An organization structure is the way the organization
allocates its resources towards meeting its strategic
aims. It is commonly defined by organization charts.
There are many structures that are in use by
organizations, e.g., line, staff, project based
(divisional), functional, flexible, matrix, and informal
(entrepreneurial)
We will only discuss four common ones, and these are
Entrepreneurial Organization Structure, Functional
Organization Structure, Divisional Organization
Structure and Matrix Organization structure.
All of them have their advantages and disadvantages.

Organization Structures
Entrepreneurial Organization Structure:
Advantages

MD in touch
Quick response
Less Overheads
Few procedures (client based)

Disadvantages
What happens when the king dies?
Delegation is a problem
Autocratic

Organization Structures
Functional Organization Structure:
Advantages
Specialist areas
Simple structure
Clear responsibilities
Manager in touch
Disadvantages
Communication slow
Managers overloaded
Operational rather than strategic
Expansion difficult

Organization Structures
Divisional Organization Structure
Advantages
Market focused (product/project focused)
Investment/disinvestment easy
Develop general managers
Disadvantages
Costly
Divisional competition
Technology/Business transfer difficult
Size and complexity control

Organization Structures
Matrix Structure
Advantages

Job communication
Less layers
Lateral communication
Good management development
Projects
Customer focused

Disadvantages
Possibility of conflict in reporting to two managers
(functional and project)

TYPES OF MANAGERS
Managers come in every shape and size, with very
different personalities.
This is not surprising, since managers are, after all,
human.
It should also be remembered that all employees
within an organization, whether they have the job
title of manager or not, are in reality managers, being
responsible for their own tasks if nothing else.
In looking at the types of manager we shall first
consider management levels and the styles that are
used by managers.

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Management levels can be considered as those that are shown
on organization charts; line and staff management; and
corporate and divisional management.
The interaction between the various levels of management
within an organization is illustrated by the figure below.

Adapted from Mazda (1998, pg. 15)

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Assuming a middle management level, each individual has
above him or her a manager, followed by the manager's
manager, and so on up the chain.
Communications can occur to any number of levels up or
down the organization, but the most frequent
communication is usually limited to two levels.
Communication upwards also occurs with other managers
who are at the same level as the person's own manager.

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
There will be numerous peers, both within the same
function and within different functions. Similarly,
down the chain there are likely to be subordinates
and subordinates' subordinates.
Communications radiate back and forth like spokes in
the organizational wheel. All these interactions need
to be managed, not only those that occur between a
manager and a subordinate.
Usually, as managers progress up the corporate
ladder, they will zigzag through the organization; very
rarely does one move vertically upwards, taking over
one's manager's job.

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
The sizes of organizations vary, and there is debate as to
the optimum size for maximum efficiency. The figure
below illustrates the most accepted curves for variation
of efficiency with size.

Adapted from Mazda (1998, pg. 16)

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Material considerations favour large sizes, which can
result in economies of scale within manufacture. Even
then efficiency will begin to decline if the
organization is too large and so difficult to manage.
People considerations favour much smaller units,
critical mass being reached much sooner. Thereafter
efficiency falls off as size increases. This is usually
because:

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
In large teams there can be many communication
problems and time wasted in ensuring that
communication occurs smoothly.
Staff working on large projects are less able to see
the contribution that their individual efforts make
towards the organization's goals.
The larger the team the greater the amount of
overheads it needs, such as supervision and
coordination.

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
To overcome the people problems while still
maintaining the advantages from material
considerations, many organizations are structured
into divisions or profit centers.
One such division could be devoted to manufacturing
only, giving a larger size operation from the materials
viewpoint.

MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Each division has a level of autonomy for its profit and
loss, and the divisional general manager is answerable
to corporate headquarters.
A small team of staff managers are now employed at
headquarters, with the tasks of:
Formulating corporate strategy and setting divisional
goals;
Monitoring divisional performance; and
Carrying out centrally those functions that benefit
from size, for example material procurement.

MANAGEMENT STYLES
A management style is a term that refers to the nature of
the relationship between managers and non-managerial
employees.
There are many, many different management styles.
Mazda has identified the below seven management styles,
Administrators, Time servers, Climbers, Generals,
Supporters, Nice Guys and Bosses.
This is not surprising, since the style used is often
determined by the personality of the manager concerned,
and this can vary through every shade between black and
white.
A manager often displays many of the attributes of these
styles.

MANAGEMENT STYLES
Also, most experienced managers have learned to
vary their style to suit the situation for example, the
organization level at which the communication is
taking place and the task that is being addressed.
It is, however, difficult to adopt a style that is
diametrically opposite to one's own personality, since
it will then be unconvincing and ineffective.

ADMINISTRATORS
Administrators look to company rules and regulations for
solving all problems.
They live 'by the book' and are usually very good
employees.
They show total loyalty to the organization and have
probably been with the company for many years.
Administrators are very formal in their approach and work
with strict lines of demarcation between departments and
functions.
They are usually not very good communicators, using the
official company channels for all communications, which
are often limited to one level upwards and downwards.

ADMINISTRATORS
They protect their department and status and look
after their staff.
They are not good at resolving conflict, looking to
company rules for resolving these.
Administrators expect everything to be black and
white, and for practical situations to match theory;
they are at a loss when this does not happen.
They are very logical and practical and have good
planning skills.
In spite of their rather mechanistic approach they are
generally respected by their staff, and by peers, for
their organizational loyalty and knowledge.

TIME SERVERS
These are generally older managers who have lost
interest in their job and environment, and are marking
time until retirement or moving to another job.
They take all necessary action to avoid stress, and
maintain a low profile within the company.
Their low personal motivation is reflected in the
people who report to them.
Conflict at all levels is avoided at any cost.
Although these managers are not generally lazy, their
low motivation means that they do the minimum
amount of work needed to hold down a job.

TIME SERVERS
Decisions are avoided since they could lead to
mistakes. Personal status is very important to them.
Time Servers usually have good management
experience, and if motivated can become a very
valuable asset to the organization.
They often consider themselves to be 'father or
mother figures'. They understand people and can
build an effective team if they try.
They recognize achievements in others and are ready
to acknowledge them.

CLIMBERS
These managers are driven by extreme personal
ambition and will sacrifice everything, including self
and family, to get to the top of the corporate ladder.
They want to achieve and to be seen to have
achieved, especially by those in a superior position.
Climbers will pursue personal advancement by fair
means or foul.
However, they become demotivated if this does not
show quick results, and this can eventually lead to
stress.

CLIMBERS
Personal knowledge is very important to them, as a
means for advancement, and they will learn from
their staff, pushing themselves at their staff's
expense, if it suits them.
However, Climbers look after those reporting to
them, knowing that they are measured on the output
from their department.
Self interests come before those of the organization,
and peers will be fought in order to gain an
advantage and to build an empire.
Status is important, but only as a sign of seniority.

GENERALS
This is usually a younger person who exhibits lots of
energy.
The General likes to rule and manipulate power, but is
achievement oriented: power is used to get tasks
done.
Generals work extremely hard, driving themselves
and those under them.
Generals are sociable and mix well at all levels.
They usually get their way with peers by
overwhelming them, although peers can resent this if
it is done too often.

GENERALS
Status is important to Generals, but for the luxury
associated with it, not as a symbol of seniority.
They are strong-willed individuals, often with the
same characteristics as a self-made entrepreneur.
Usually they are optimistic about the future,
sometimes wrongly.

SUPPORTERS
Supporters maintain a balanced view about the
world, the
organization, subordinates
and
themselves.
They are usually experienced managers who are
knowledgeable in management techniques and apply
them where they can.
Supporters work through people in achieving their
aims.
They are good at delegation and develop their
subordinates by giving them responsibility.

SUPPORTERS
The people working under them are highly motivated.
Supporters' personal technical knowledge is usually
lacking, but this is compensated for by the support
they themselves receive from the specialists within
their department.
Supporters are good facilitators and very good at
managing change.
They recognize achievement and reward it.
They are deep thinkers and have excellent
imagination.

SUPPORTERS
Often this can lead to a clash between the goals of the
organization and what they believe to be right.
However, Supporters are good compromisers and exhibit
effective intuition.
They are flexible but very persistent in carrying out tasks
which they believe need to be done.
They can handle stress.
Supporters tend to be loners and do not mix well with
peers.
This means that they can often miss out on information
from the grapevine, so that they are not always well
briefed on organizational matters.

NICE GUYS
These managers are usually weak-willed and are more
interested in being liked, by peers and subordinates, than
in achieving targets.
They do not criticize their subordinates, even when they
are poor performers, and may in fact support them too
much, so unconsciously retarding their development.
The productivity of the group under the Nice guy is low
and conflict often simmers under the surface, waiting to
burst out.
When it does the manager does not know how to handle
it.
Very few decisions are made and usually they are very
poor, since the manager is ready to yield to pressure from
almost any source.

BOSSES
These managers are bullies! They like to have their own way and
bully their staff (especially their secretaries) in order to enhance
their own sense of power.
They are a living example of the effect of power on people, as
stated by Primo Levi in his book The Drowned and the Saved:
'Power is like a drug; the need for either is unknown to anyone
who has not tried them, but after the initiation ... the
dependency and the need for ever larger doses is born; also
born is the denial of reality and the return to childish dreams of
omnipotence.'
Bosses occur at every level, often quite low within the
organization.
They operate in Administrative mode, playing things by the book
where it suits them. They use the power of their position, real
and imaginary.
They drive the people under them but not themselves.

BOSSES
They expect recognition from peers, but often do not get it.
Bosses are extremely inflexible and are often mistaken for
strong-minded people.
Usually, however, they are only strong talkers, and hide behind
abusive language.
They try to terrorize subordinates and peers, creating conflict to
emphasize their own power.
Managers in the Boss category are often brought into a
company to act as 'hatchet men'.
In the short-term they can show results, but long-term they are
very destructive, causing more harm than good.
They are insecure in themselves and get security by humiliating
others in public.
They advance by pointing out the mistakes of others, and not by
their own achievements.

TASKS AND PEOPLE

Although many different and complex factors have
been considered in describing the various
management styles, it is usual to use two main factors
when comparing them: the strengths of the various
styles in the management of people and tasks.
This is very simplistic, and can only provide a first level
guide.

TASKS AND PEOPLE

Tasks

It is also wrong to 'compartmentalize' management behavior, but in

the figure below we do just that! Each of the styles described in
earlier sections is placed neatly into its own little box, with no
overlap between boxes.
General
Administrator

Climber

Time server

Boss

Adapted from Mazda (1998, pg. 20)

Supporter
Nice Guy
People

TASKS AND PEOPLE

This shows how wrong it is to think of one style as better than
another since, on this scale, the most balanced style is that of
the Climber.
Analyzing this relationship of the concern for people and tasks
from the Blake and Mouton (1964), you can see that even the
most balanced style can be seen to be not the effective one.
Instead each style must be considered to have its strengths and
weaknesses, and each style has its place in various
circumstances.
Obviously some styles are met more often than others and can
be used more frequently.

TASKS AND PEOPLE

Concern for People

1,9

9,9

5,5

1,1
Adapted from Blake and
Mouton (1964, pg. 10)

9,1
Concern for task

TASKS AND PEOPLE

What is important to be remembered is that no one style is

adequate in all situations or contexts.
For example, a social club or trade union created primarily with
the main concern for providing services to its members would
tend to be strong on concern for people but not be pushing hard
(1,9 on the graph).
Military and traditional autocratic organizations would always
put the task first and foremost. This would be seen as
appropriate for a military organization (9,1 on the graph).
This would also be the style used in an organization operating
according to scientific management.
Difficulties occur when using this style in a modern democratic
society.

TASKS AND PEOPLE

A 1,1 style implies very little concern by management for
anything so organizational performance will be poor.
A 5,5 style is adequate for an ordinary performance of the
organization but it would not be operating at its full potential.
The implication of this view however is that managers need to
be concerned for both people and the task, striking a balance
between both aspects.
A 9,9 style is seen as the one most likely to lead to organizational
effectiveness. Employees would be fully involved and
committed, there would be trust between managers and
employees and productivity would be high. Management
systems would be well designed to enable effectiveness. It is
goal-orientated, team-based approach. Concern for task and
people would both be high. Employee motivation and
productivity should be high too.

DIFFERENT STYLES FOR DIFFERENT

PURPOSES
Different management styles would be required to handle
different situations, e.g. the means of dealing with a
disciplinary matter will differ from that used in problemsolving activities.
Management style required for routine day to day
activities is also said to differ from the one needed for
project management and design activities.
Similarly Blake and Mouton (1964) identified that the way
management deals with conflict resolution can also be
linked to the management styles in the grid as shown
below.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND STYLES

Grid

Resolution style

Managerial approach
to conflict resolution

1,1

Withdrawal

Fear of problems,
ignore or deny problem

1,9

Smoothing

Emphasize common
points, keep team
together

9,1

Forcing

Try to prevent problem

by forcing own views

5,5

Compromising

Identify a position likely

to gain maximum
acceptance.

9,9

Confrontation

Use conflict
constructively to find
solutions

GROUPWORK
(1) Advantages and Disadvantages of the different
forms of organizational structures.
(2) Graphical representations.
(3) Advantages and Disadvantages of the different
management styles.
(4) In which situations are they mostly suited.