Posted by Recently I showed how to describe a manager’s work using organizational quantities, that is, to know what he does, how many times, for how long, etc. Of course, we need to know the same about his colleagues, for example, members of his team. Otherwise, we won’t replace him with an artificial manager, because he won’t be able to influence the behavior of others and won’t be able to predict – like a human – what each of his subordinates might do.
Now I will show another of my studies on this topic, which I published in the framework of the 2020 IEDRC KUALA LUMPUR CONFERENCE. Unfortunately, I didn’t go to this conference because the Covid pandemic was just starting, but I was able to attend this conference online. The article I published there shows examples of 3 team managers who participated in my research in previous years.
I need to clarify a methodological issue here right away. I have written about this several times before – why is it still impossible to buy an artificial manager? What is it about management science that it doesn’t evolve like other sciences and can’t automate the work of a manager?
First, several methodological problems in management science have emerged in recent decades. These problems include Koontz’s “jungle of theories” [1], high subjectivity in theories [2], “overproduction of truth” [3], chaos in definitions and scientific language [4], building “islands of knowledge” instead of developing a stable model of reality [5]. Second, the dominance of the study of organizational reality based on the situation at a particular time, leading to a static and momentary assessment of reality, and the excessive influence of theorists’ subjectivity on theory in management science [6]. Third, the incommensurability of the entire management sciences, especially in terms of methods of conducting research and interpreting their results, is not conducive to building a stable knowledge of what a team manager really does.
If we solved these problems, knew what a team manager really does, and could imitate him in team management, we could implement a kind of automation of team management recorded managerial behavior. Returning to the classic management point of view, this would be a true realization of Drucker’s words that in Drucker’s future, that in the future “computers” will not only make decisions, but will do much more.
The above organizational problems are solved by the concept of the system of organizational terms, described in part on this blog and in detail in my book:
Flak, O. (2018). Układ wielkości organizacyjnych. Koncepcja metodologiczna badania rzeczywistości organizacyjnej. (System of organizational terms. A methodological concept for studying organizational reality). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, pages 478, ISBN 978-83-226-3322-9
You can also find a brief description of the organizational size system in this article:
Flak, O., System of Organizational Terms as a Theoretical Foundation for Team Management Automation
[1] Henry Koontz. 1961. The Management Theory Jungle. The Journal of the Academy of Management. Vol. 4, 3 (Dec 1961), 174-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/254541
[2] Herbert G. Hicks and Friedhelm Goronzy. 1967. On methodology in the study of management and organization. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 10, 4 (Nov 1967), 371-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/255270
[3] Per Darmer. 2000. The subject(ivity) of management. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 13, 4 (Aug 2000), 334-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010339022
[4] Robert Hodge. 2003. Towards a postmodern science of language. Social Semiotic. Vol. 13, 3 (Jun 2003), 241-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1035033032000167006
[5] Marcelo Gleiser, 2014. The island of knowledge: the limits of science and the search for meaning. Basic Books, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.3.2690 [6] Stanisław Sudoł. 2010. Main Dilemmas of Management Science. Organization and Management. Vol. 1, 139 (Jan 2010), 7-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10166-010-0002-y