essay for organization and management

Managing Organizational Change Essay

Organizational change is carried out to enhance the functioning of the organization or a section of the organization. Change should not just be done without reason but should be done to improve the organization’s performance. Thus, thorough research is required before embarking on it.

This paper studies the need for change in organizations. It first examines the external and internal environments that affect change. It examines the driving forces of change by focusing on stakeholder analysis, SWOT analysis, and Kotter’s vision on organizational change. It studies the types of change and the major elements of change, resistance to change, and the assessment of change.

Organizational change takes place, especially when an institution changes its general success policy, gets rid of or adds an important practice or department or intends to change its way of operation. It also takes place when an institution advances through various life stages. For development to take place in an organization, it has to go through several changes at various stages in growth (Coghlan, 1994). Managers often strive to achieve success as required by their jobs.

Need for a strategy

Big performing organizations successfully influence their companies more efficiently than competitors and get more than 64% on profit from each worker than next-level performers. Fewer organizations; however view their companies strategically as they should – which is shocking looking at the degree to which institutions potentials and performance steer today’s business importance. Today’s businesses are not well equipped to give the expected business results of tomorrow (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

Various changes are necessary to ensure that strategic objective is totally accomplished. Unfortunately, many organizations change their business strategies into specific and workable plans, but the same extent of rigor is seldom given to the institutional allegations of the strategy (Ford & Ford, 2009).

Efficient organizational strategy allows an organization to grow into a company that can convey its strategy. Organizational strategy shows the importance of change in an organization and gives the strategy of the business plus a workable plan to execute the change.

Causes of Organizational Change

The technology used in organizations is often replaced over time. This implies that an organization requires to be open to innovation in technology. The skills of employees also need to be improved with the improvement in technology. Organizations which are not ready for change are less likely to exist in the coming years (Laurie et al., 2006). Organizations that want to be successful must be ready to embrace change and adapt to new environments.

Organizations undergo transformation times that can lead to stress and reluctance. Organizations must advance in production technologies, make new products demanded in the market, improve the skills of its workers and instigate new systems of administration. Organizations that successfully adjust are always profitable and respected. Managers are supposed to compete with every aspect that has an effect on their organizations (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

Factors that affect the environment are clustered into external factors and internal factors. External factors include social/cultural, political/legal, physical/natural technological, competitive, and global market factors. Internal factors include the company’s stability, people, attention to detail, innovation, and risk-taking (Kvernbekk, 2011).

External Analysis

No organization can exist without the influence of other organizations. It has to interact with others over time, including the customers, stakeholders, the government, suppliers, and unions (Coghlan, 1994). Every organization has responsibilities and objectives connected to each other in the business environment.

External factors manipulating change as mentioned above include social-cultural, political, natural, technological, competitive, and international market factors. Changes in these forces can lead to organizational changes like economic control, relations in the management of labor, production process, and the environment of competition (Isaksen, 2007).

Technology changes over time because of globalization. When a slight change is experienced in technology, organizations reduce their efficiency in costs and their competitive positions are weakened. These companies have to comply with the change and accept the new technology. This means that new software should be purchased affecting the running of the organization.

Given that all organizations export their products, they have to encounter competition in the global market. There are various forces that may influence the competitive place of an organization – these are other companies supplying the same outputs, and consumers that are not purchasing the output.

Any alterations in these forces needs appropriate changes in the organization. With a liberalized economy, there are very many international organizations in the market. This implies that organizations should have to restructure themselves to comply with the new situation (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008).

Buyers have constant changing demands on the products and services offered in the market. Organizations will therefore need to change their products to meet the requirements of the buyers (Petrescu, 2011).

Socio-cultural changes are evident in the daily lives of people in terms of their methods of working, needs and objectives. They affect the behavior of the workers in organizations and are as a result of different educational backgrounds, urbanization, self-governance and globalization. Adjustments are therefore necessary to tone with people.

Legal and political factors majorly describe the activities that can be undertaken by an organization and techniques that will be pursued by it in reaching those interests (Kereber & Buono, 2005). Any changes in these factors may influence the running of the organization.

Internal analysis

Any alteration in the internal factors of an organization may demand change. Such changes are needed due to changes in management personnel and insufficiency in present organizational customs. There is always a change in managerial positions within organizations due to retirement, dismissal, promotion or transfers.

Every leader works in whatever way they know best. When a new leader is appointed, he brings in his own ideas with him (Maurer, 2011). Employee – management relationship often changes due to new management. To add on that, the personnel will change their outlook on operations even though there are no changes thereby forcing the organization to change.

The nature of the personnel changes with time. Employees who are above 50 years are loyal and respect their employers. Employees between 30 and 40 years are only loyal to themselves. Employees below 30 years only respect their careers and are loyal to them. The personnel profile is rapidly changing too (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

The new generation of employees is well educated and concentrates on personal value and even query the authority of the management. They have a very complex behavior, thus driving them to achieve organizational success which is difficult for the managers.

The stability of an organization is a major internal factor of change. When an organization has financial problems, the management will have to look at every possible alternative for the business to survive. These alternatives may include reducing operations, doing away with programs, which are not profitable and cutting operating costs.

Cutting costs may even mean reducing the number of employees. Downsizing of employees often brings numerous problems caused by overworking, which may lead to employee strikes (Isaksen, 2007). The management usually faces hard times as they are confused on what measure to take. It is important that they consult different constituents to come up with the best solution that will not greatly affect the running of the organization.

Stakeholder Analysis and Management (Kotter)

Stakeholder analysis is not a very simple task to perform. The leader has to come up with decisions that may affect or be affected by needs of stakeholders. Stakeholders have the capacity to oppose changes made in an organization or influence them (Kotter, 1990). Stakeholders’ interest is not only in the financial benefits of an organization but also on its management.

The importance of analyzing the various interests of stakeholders in an organization is to invent a plan that can get the biggest support. This involves doing away with barriers that could hinder the change from taking place.

Stakeholder analysis entails involving stakeholders at every stage of the organizational change to enhance the efficiency of programs and services.

The process of solicitating interests, priorities, and concerns of stakeholders in the initial stages of monitoring and evaluation, helps in addressing the needs of stakeholders and also assists in behavioral change. Involving stakeholders and putting their opinions to account gives prospects to inquire on assumptions and investigate other explanations and add to innovation and learning. It also enhances the acceptance of change (Kotter, 1990).

Identification of Customers, Suppliers, and Competitors (Porter’s 5-Forces Model)

Rivalries usually develop among organizations competing for the same market. Competitors employ methods of advertising, warranties, and competitions of prices to improve their market share in specific industries. Rivalry may sometimes cause slow growth in industries and price cutting and investments of high-stake. Changes that may be introduced in any organization should be positive to give it a competitive edge.

The strength of suppliers is enhanced when a group of companies run them because there will be no substitute products. The organization has no control over these effects. Organizational changes should always be strategized to modify the power of suppliers (Stonehouse & Snowdon, 2007).

The power of buyers is vital. Buyers are capable of pushing prices down and demanding better quality products and services. Buyers are more powerful when they are in large numbers, the products and services are important aspects of the buyer, switching costs are minimal, and the buyer has complete disclosure on supply, costs, demand, and prices. The bargaining power of buyers varies with time and the competitive strategy of an organization.

The threat of new entrants relies on an industry’s economies of scale, switching costs, product differentiation, government regulations, and requirements of capital for entry (Potter, 1998). New organizations can anticipate barriers like technology, labor forces, and strategic planning in the business.

Driving and restraining forces

Driving forces encourage the process of change to have effect. They easen the process of change as they push people toward the direction of change, and cause a move in equilibrium towards change. Restraining forces oppose driving forces. They prevent change as they make people go against change. They therefore influence a shift in equilibrium, which counters the effort of change (Humphreys, 2005).

Passive resistance

This is a method of protest that does not involve any violence against laws so as to force a change. It involves acts like strikes, demonstrations, and boycotts. Passive resistance has characteristics like worrying and complaining about the strategy of change management. Passive resistance is a serious case and needs to be reviewed. It is a distraction that can reduce the pace of the whole organization’s rate of learning and acceptance of the strategy of change management.

Aggressive resistance

Aggressive resistance is expressed in hostile behaviors that show aggression. It can be defined as a personality disorder expressed by negative attitudes and resistance in work-related situations. This type of resistance is manifested in procrastination, stubbornness, and deliberate failures in completing tasks that one is assigned (Ford & Ford, 2009).

Embracing change

For the continued existence of organizations, it is necessary to adapt to new environmental and market demands. Employees and organizations that embrace change are more successful, unlike the resistors who eventually accept change. Sometimes change is so difficult that it is sometimes resisted. The process of change needs determination and vision. During the process of change, motivators, and trainings are necessary. The environment should be conducive enough to allow change.

SWOT Analysis

SWOT signifies the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of an organization. SWOT analysis evaluates the internal weaknesses and strengths of a company with threats and opportunities in its external surroundings. It is an important planning tool when evaluating an organization.

It is founded on the notion that managers can use it to choose the perfect strategy to ensure the success of an organization. An organization’s strength is very important as it grants a competitive advantage over other similar companies. It gives an organization a good position in the market. Organizations should ensure that they do not affect their strengths while implementing changes (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

A weakness on the other hand, puts an organization at risk. It is a disadvantage of the company, and it makes it viable to competitive forces (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008). Weaknesses need to be scrutinized closely as they can cause the downfall of organizations. Weaknesses may include lack of a clear vision, poor image, poor technology and facilities, and low employee motivation.

An organization should ensure that implementation of any change is aimed at reducing the weaknesses in the organization and not enhancing them. Change should always do away with the weaknesses if not reduce them.

Opportunities are conditions that favor the organization and can be employed for constructive reasons. Opportunities are usually presented by the outside environment, and it is up to the company to maximize on them (Kereber & Buono, 2005).

These opportunities may be brought about by a conducive change in the environment or by the government in making the external environment suitable for them. Examples of opportunities may include new improved technologies, vertical integration, and powerful economies. Leaders should ensure that any change implemented will maximize all the organization’s opportunities.

Not all changes have a positive impact in the organization. External changes may also be a threat to the organizations. Leaders should be able to foresee such probable threats and impact changes that will neutralize the threat. New regulations, economic recession, and cheaper technology are examples of threats. Organizational changes should help in the reducing the effects of these threats and not enhance them.

Kotter’s view on change

Sense of urgency.

For change to take place, it is easier if the whole organization needs the change. A sense of urgency on the need for change needs to be created. This assists in enhancing the initial plan of making things happen (Kotter, 1990). It should be a very convincing talk on the current status of the market and what the organization’s competitors are doing that has necessitated change. If employees start discussing the change, it is as good as done.

This talk should include the identification of possible threats to organizations and demonstrate what could take place in the future. The leader should look at the opportunities that can be exploited by the organization should the change be implemented. Initiate a powerful discussion that will convince the employees and get them thinking.

Consultation to support the argument can be sought from stakeholders and customers that are not directly linked to the organization. Kotter stresses that change cannot be effective if three-quarters of the organization are not for the idea. Therefore, the need for change should be stressed to employees for them to understand and buy into the change (Kerber & Buono, 2005).

Formation of a strong Coalition

People need to be convinced that they need the proposed change. This requires powerful leadership and evident support from the top management in the organization. Change should not just be managed but sustained. A coalition is therefore important to persuade the employees who have different sources of power like political significance, status, and skills.

When the coalition is organized, it should move together as a team and continue to develop the urgency and force surrounding the need for change (Humpreys & Langford, 2008). For a coalition to be formed; the leaders need to be identified and emotional support sought from them. Team building also has to be reinforced in the coalition. Weak areas in the team need to be discovered and filled. The team should also have various employees from different sections and levels of the organization.

Develop a vision for change

Before a vision is developed the organization needs to know its current state and what it intends to achieve from the change. When a vision is clear, employees get to understand the importance of change and why they should embrace it. When employees get the picture of what the change will do for them and for the organization, they will see the reason for change and accept it.

The most important values need to be sought first followed by a statement of the expectations of the change in future. The vision should be executed by creating a strategy that can execute it. The coalition formed should understand the vision and practice it most of the time (Mathews, 2009).

Communicating the vision

Conveying the vision after its formation is very important. The vision needs to be communicated regularly and powerfully to make it more effective. It should also be inclined with everything that happens in the organization. The vision should not just be communicated in meetings but all the time. It should also be employed in the handling of issues in the organization and making of decisions. It should be top of the mind in every employee’s mind and demonstrated by the leaders (Isaksen, 2007).

Do away with obstacles

The above steps done, it is assumed that the employees will concentrate on the changes. Although all this is taking place, the management should ensure that there are no barriers disrupting the process of change. Doing away with obstacles can help in empowering of employees implement the vision and assist the process of change forge ahead.

Types of change

There are three types of change that are interrelated. These are guided, planned, and directed change. Directed change is propelled from top management and depends on authority, conformity, and persuasion. Leaders develop and state the change and try to convince the employees to embrace it, according to the importance of the business, emotional pleas, and logical reasons. Directed change exposes a quick, important approach to initiating change in an institution.

Planned change, which is very common, originates from any point in the organization although it is supported by the top. Leaders of change and initiators look for involvement in and loyalty to change by employing the use of particular actions, categorized through experience and investigations, which moderate the normal opposition and productivity damages linked with directed change (Coghlan, 1994).

Rather than developing and proclaiming a change, planned change gives an approach to the process of change. It tries make people participate in the process of change, recognizing, and supporting major stakeholders to take part in the outline and execution of the change.

Guided change is a completely different type of change. It originates at any level in the organization. It is founded on the loyalty of the employees and their input to the objective of the organization. In the competitive environment of today, this is the best method as it maximizes the skills and creativity of employees, as natural changes surface and develop, reorganizing current models and practices, and analyzing new concepts and perspectives (Paton, Beranek & Smith, 2008).

Guided change is a process of interaction of previous understanding and design, execution, and improvisation, gaining knowledge from the sharing the knowledge with others, bringing about constant re-interpretation and restoration of change as required. This learning contributes to constant enhancement of existing efforts of change and the capacity to produce new changes and resolutions. Each of the above types of changes has their positive and negative effects.

When directed change is not properly utilized, employees are forced to adjust to the reactions of the receivers to whom the change is imparted. These reactions include anger, loss, denial, bargaining, and sadness. Likewise, even as planned change develops a significant potential in the organizations of today when not well used it can lead to major drops in productivity, overcome the employees with its density, and isolate major stakeholders as a consequence of partial participation and good impact in the process.

Planned change has a similar shortcoming when there is no flexibility in the conditions of change. Efforts of planned change many a times restrain the capability of the company to reach its set goals.

To add on that the trouble for commencing and maintaining the change is still put directly on the management, from recognizing the importance of change and developing an image of aspired results to determining which changes are finally feasible (Petrescu, 2011). Guided change if not well employed can play a part in organizational problems, as constant changes and evolutions complicate and frustrate instead of enlightening employees and other major stakeholders.

Driving Forces of change and resistors to change

For change to occur, the driving forces should be more powerful than the preventive forces. A number of employees resist about any type of change. The leaders and managers should be able to handle the opposers of change and pay attention to their fears and remarks. When the opposers realize that their concerns are listened to, they will also give in to other opinions. In some situations, however, resistors of change need to be done away with regardless of their opinions.

Leadership role is very important in the execution of a major change. The leader is required to have a plan that focuses on the launching event, training, and orientation, monitoring, reward, progress report, and institutionalization. The launching event is very important as it gives the leader a chance to state the change with reasons for, and how the employees will gain from it.

The leader is also required to state the major challenges that will come with the change and explain the execution program. This event is supposed to be exciting and inspiring. This can be done by issuing of t-shirts, and souvenirs connected to the change program (Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens & Weir, 2006).

Change needs employees to act in new ways. It is good to give employees the training and skills that they require for the change. A needs assessment is therefore important to know exactly what is missing and what is needed. Acquiring the correct training program is the next step (Laurie et al 2006). At this point, just-in-time training is advisable.

Monitoring and measuring of the change is important. The results of the change need to measured to know just how good or bad the change is. The leader is mandated to monitor the whole practice and keep the employees up to date with the progress. Execution of any big change needs course rectifications and adjustments.

Rewarding and recognizing the efforts made by the management, and the employees is very important (Maurer, 2011). It builds momentum and motivates people to continue working and embrace the change the more.

Progress reports keep people updated with the process of change. This should be done via the organization newsletters, memos, meetings, videos, and e-mails. The leader should hold meetings regularly with the management to state pressing matters.

Institutionalization needs the absorption of change into the strategies, job descriptions, and the organization’s practices. The company infrastructure should be able to sustain the new changes for the change to be permanent. Revising the manuals and procedures to incorporate the change makes it more permanent (Isasken, 2007).

Implementing an organizational change is not an easy task. The leadership role at this point is very crucial, and the leader must understand the functions and responsibilities of the project manager and employees and his own role in implementing the change.

Cost of change

When a change is very costly, the chances of executing it are very slim. Cheap changes are easily implemented that major changes. Change involves training. Education is not cheap, especially for the entire organization as they may need a week’s training or training until change has been fully executed. Labor changes are also very expensive. Conducting of interviews and employment of new staff is also very costly (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

Resistance to change

There are numerous ways in which resistance to change can be conquered. Education and communication assists in realizing the need for change. This can be done by presentations, discussions, reports or journals. For this to work there has to be trust between the leaders and the employees. Employees have to trust their leaders in order to listen to them and follow their orders.

Participation and involvement entails the whole organization. When employees take part in the process of change there is a very small chance that they will resist it. Participation makes the employees committed to the change and enhances the reason for change.

Facilitation and support from the leaders is very important when implementing change. This includes being open-minded, letting the employees share their views, and using their ideas (Kereber & Buono, 2005). They should ensure that the work environment is accommodative and pleasant for workers. Training where necessary is recommended.

Negotiation and appreciation requires the leaders to offset resistance by giving incentives to the employees who cooperate. This may include increasing of salaries and giving of bonuses.

Manipulation takes place when the leaders are choosy on the employees who get news, how much news they give, the accuracy of the news, and when to circulate the news to improve the possibility that the change will be triumphant. Cooptation entails a major role in the process of change (Humpreys & Langford, 2008). The advice of leaders is required to get their support. Manipulation and cooptation ways are not costly, and they manipulate probable resistors of change to embrace change. However, these methods can fail if the employees get to know that they are being deceived, thus destroying the reliability of the leaders.

Benchmarking entails setting up measures of performance by use of relative data on major operations of the organization from competitor organizations in the industry. Management can push organizational change by employing insights obtained from benchmarking on the practices of the industry and the perceptions of customers (Michelman, 2007).

Before going into benchmarking, it is important to ascertain the target customers who describe their particular needs. It also helps in widening the potential industries and customers lying within the benchmarking scope of the company. Classify the drivers of business present for each product and service given by the organization. These can be the major drivers of business capable of managing costs of operation. Statistics about the competitor companies should also be accessed.

This can be derived from government sources, publications or the Internet. The organization’s performance should be compared with that of the selected company. The operation should be on internal, financial, and production matters as compared to the benchmark position of the organization.

The benchmark research should be used to initiate change. The benchmark research assists the leaders in implementing organizational change as it gives explanation for change. On the other hand, business intelligence derived through benchmark research can force internal changes and help organizations in responsibility of its destiny (Tushman, Reilly & Charles, 1996).

Coghlan, D. (1994). Managing organizational change through teams and groups. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 15(2), 18-23.

Ford, J., & Ford, L. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review , 87(4), 99-103.

Humphreys, J. (2005). Developing the Big Picture. MIT Sloan Management Review, 7(1), 96-112.

Humphreys, J., & Langford, H. (2008). Managing a Corporate Culture ‘Slide’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 24-27.

Isaksen, S. (2007). The Climate for Transformation: Lessons for Leaders. Creativity and Innovation Management , 16(1), 3-15.

Kerber, K., & Buono, A. (2005). Rethinking organizational change: Reframing the Challenge of Change Management. Organizational development Journal , 23(3), 25-38.

Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change . New York: The Free Press.

Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The Concept of Evidence in Evidence-Based Practice. Educational Theory, 61(5), 515-532.

Lewis, L.K., Schmisseur, A., Stephens, K., & Weir, K. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change. Journal of Business Communication , 43(2), 113- 137.

Mathews, J. (2009). Models of Change Management: A Reanalysis. ICFAI Journal of Business Strategy , 6(2), 7-17.

Maurer, R. (2011). Why Do So Many Changes Still Fall? (Part Two). The Journal for quality & participation, 33 (4), 33-34.

Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Harvard Management Update , 12(7), 3-4.

Paton, B., Beranek, L., & Smith, I. (2008).The transit lounge: a view of organisational change from a point in the journey. Library Management , 29 (1/2), 87-103.

Petrescu, R. (2011). The Importance of Communication in Organizational Change Process. Young Economists Journal , 9(16), 81-84.

Stonehouse, G., & Snowdon, B. (2007). Competitive Advantage Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry , 16(3), 256-273.

Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review , 38(4), 8-30.

• How HR Responsibilities Assist in Organization Change
• Level of Task Independence Acceptable Between Teams and the Impact of Interteam Conflict on Departmental Performance
• Managing Change in an Organization
• Employee Resistance in the Workplace
• Resistance to Organizational Change
• Project Marketing to Improve Project Success
• Quality Management in Organizations
• Designing and Evaluating a Wellbeing Intervention Program
• Factors that May Contribute to Inefficiency in Introducing Company’s Change
• Security Policies in HATI
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 10). Managing Organizational Change. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-organizational-change-essay/

"Managing Organizational Change." IvyPanda , 10 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/managing-organizational-change-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Managing Organizational Change'. 10 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Managing Organizational Change." May 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-organizational-change-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Managing Organizational Change." May 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-organizational-change-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Managing Organizational Change." May 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-organizational-change-essay/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Organizational Culture
• Hybrid Work
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• Most Popular
• AI in Action
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

MIT SMR ’s fall 2024 issue highlights the need for personal and organizational resilience amid global uncertainty.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

The Processes of Organization and Management

A unifying framework for thinking about processes — or sequences of tasks and activities — that provides an integrated, dynamic picture of organizations and managerial behavior..

• Organizational Structure

Managers today are enamored of processes. It’s easy to see why. Many modern organizations are functional and hierarchical; they suffer from isolated departments, poor coordination, and limited lateral communication. All too often, work is fragmented and compartmentalized, and managers find it difficult to get things done. Scholars have faced similar problems in their research, struggling to describe organizational functioning in other than static, highly aggregated terms. For real progress to be made, the “proverbial ‘black box,’ the firm, has to be opened and studied from within.” 1

Processes provide a likely solution. In the broadest sense, they can be defined as collections of tasks and activities that together — and only together — transform inputs into outputs. Within organizations, these inputs and outputs can be as varied as materials, information, and people. Common examples of processes include new product development, order fulfillment, and customer service; less obvious but equally legitimate candidates are resource allocation and decision making.

Over the years, there have been a number of process theories in the academic literature, but seldom has anyone reviewed them systematically or in an integrated way. Process theories have appeared in organization theory, strategic management, operations management, group dynamics, and studies of managerial behavior. The few scholarly efforts to tackle processes as a collective phenomenon either have been tightly focused theoretical or methodological statements or have focused primarily on a single type of process theory. 2

Yet when the theories are taken together, they provide a powerful lens for understanding organizations and management:

First, processes provide a convenient, intermediate level of analysis. Because they consist of diverse, interlinked tasks, they open up the black box of the firm without exposing analysts to the “part-whole” problems that have plagued earlier research. 3 Past studies have tended to focus on either the trees (individual tasks or activities) or the forest (the organization as a whole); they have not combined the two. A process perspective gives the needed integration, ensuring that the realities of work practice are linked explicitly to the firm’s overall functioning. 4

Second, a process lens provides new insights into managerial behavior. Most studies have been straightforward descriptions of time allocation, roles, and activity streams, with few attempts to integrate activities into a coherent whole. 5 In fact, most past research has highlighted the fragmented quality of managers’ jobs rather than their coherence. A process approach, by contrast, emphasizes the links among activities, showing that seemingly unrelated tasks — a telephone call, a brief hallway conversation, or an unscheduled meeting — are often part of a single, unfolding sequence. From this vantage point, managerial work becomes far more rational and orderly.

My aim here is to give a framework for thinking about processes, their impacts, and the implications for managers. I begin at the organizational level, reviewing a wide range of process theories and grouping them into categories. The discussion leads naturally to a typology of processes and a simple model of organizations as interconnected sets of processes. In the next section, I examine managerial processes; I consider them separately because they focus on individual managers and their relationships, rather than on organizations. I examine several types of managerial processes and contrast them with, and link them to, organizational processes, and identify their common elements. I conclude with a unifying framework that ties together the diverse processes and consider the implications for managers.

Organizational Processes

Scholars have developed three major approaches to organizational processes. They are best considered separate but related schools of thought because each focuses on a particular process and explores its distinctive characteristics and challenges. The three categories are (1) work processes, (2) behavioral processes, and (3) change processes (see “Three Approaches to Organizational Processes”).

Work Processes

The work process approach, which has roots in industrial engineering and work measurement, focuses on accomplishing tasks. It starts with a simple but powerful idea: organizations accomplish their work through linked chains of activities cutting across departments and functional groups. These chains are called processes and can be conveniently grouped into two categories: (1) processes that create, produce, and deliver products and services that customers want, and (2) processes that do not produce outputs that customers want, but that are still necessary for running the business. I call the first group “operational processes” and the second group “administrative processes.” New product development, manufacturing, and logistics and distribution are examples of operational processes, while strategic planning, budgeting, and performance measurement are examples of administrative processes.

Operational and administrative processes share several characteristics. Both involve sequences of linked, interdependent activities that together transform inputs into outputs. Both have beginnings and ends, with boundaries that can be defined with reasonable precision and minimal overlap. And both have customers, who may be internal or external to the organization. The primary differences between the two lie in the nature of their outputs. Typically, operational processes produce goods and services that external customers consume, while administrative processes generate information and plans that internal groups use. For this reason, the two are frequently considered independent, unrelated activities, even though they must usually be aligned and mutually supportive if the organization is to function effectively. Skilled supply chain management, for example, demands a seamless link between a company’s forecasting and logistics processes, just as successful new product development rests on well-designed strategy formation and planning processes.

The work processes approach is probably most familiar to managers. It draws heavily on the principles of the quality movement and reengineering. 6 Both focus on the need to redesign processes to improve quality, cut costs, reduce cycle times, or otherwise enhance operating performance. Despite these shared goals, the two movements are strikingly similar on some points, but diverge on others.

The similarities begin with the belief that most existing work processes have grown unchecked, with little rationale or planning, and are therefore terribly inefficient. Hammer, for example, has observed: “Why did we design inefficient processes? In a way, we didn’t. Many of our procedures were not designed at all; they just happened. … The hodgepodge of special cases and quick fixes was passed from one generation of workers to the next.” 7 The result, according to one empirical study of white-collar processes, is that value-added time (the time in which a product or service has value added to it, as opposed to waiting in a queue or being reworked to fix problems caused earlier) is typically less than 5 percent of total processing time. 8

To eliminate inefficiencies, both movements suggest that work processes be redesigned. In fact, both implicitly equate process improvement with process management. They also suggest the use of similar tools, such as process mapping and data modeling, as well as common rules of thumb for identifying improvement opportunities. 9 First, flow charts are developed to show all the steps in a process; the process is then made more efficient by eliminating multiple approvals and checkpoints, finding opportunities to reduce waiting time, smoothing the hand-offs between departments, and grouping related tasks and responsibilities. 10 At some point, “process owners” with primary responsibility for leading the improvement effort are also deemed necessary. Their role is to ensure integration and overcome traditional functional loyalties; for this reason, relatively senior managers are usually assigned the task. 11

The differences between the two movements lie in their views about the underlying nature and sources of process change. The quality movement, for the most part, argues for incremental improvement. 12 Existing work processes are assumed to have many desirable properties; the goal is to eliminate unnecessary steps and errors while preserving the basic structure of the process. Improvements are continuous and relatively small scale. Reengineering, by contrast, calls for radical change. 13 Existing work processes are regarded as hopelessly outdated; they rely on work practices and a division of labor that take no account of modern information technology.

For example, the case management approach, in which “individuals or small teams … perform a series of tasks, such as the fulfillment of a customer order from beginning to end, often with the help of information systems that reach throughout the organization,” was not economically viable until the arrival of powerful, inexpensive computers and innovative software. 14 For this reason, reengineering focuses less on understanding the details of current work processes and more on “inventing a future” based on fundamentally new processes. 15

Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the two approaches lies in the importance they attach to control and measurement. Quality experts, drawing on their experience with statistical process control in manufacturing, argue that well-managed work processes must be fully documented, with clearly defined control points. 16 Managers can improve a process, they believe, only if they first measure it with accuracy and assure its stability. 17 After improvement, continuous monitoring is required to maintain the gains and ensure that the process performs as planned. Reengineering experts, on the other hand, are virtually silent about measurement and control. They draw on a different tradition, information technology, that emphasizes redesign rather than control.

Insights for Managers. The work processes perspective has led to a number of important insights for managers. It provides an especially useful framework for addressing a common organizational problem: fragmentation, or the lack of cross-functional integration. Many aspects of modern organizations make integration difficult, including complexity, highly differentiated subunits and roles, poor informal relationships, size, and physical distance. 18 Integration is often improved by the mere acknowledgment of work processes as viable units of analysis and targets of managerial action. 19 Charting horizontal work flows, for example, or following an order through the fulfillment system are convenient ways to remind employees that the activities of disparate departments and geographical units are interdependent, even if organization charts, with their vertical lines of authority, suggest otherwise.

In addition, the work processes perspective provides new targets for improvement. Rather than focusing on structures and roles, managers address the underlying processes. An obvious advantage is that they closely examine the real work of the organization. The results, however, have been mixed, and experts estimate that a high proportion of these programs have failed to deliver the expected gains.

My analysis suggests several reasons for failure. Most improvement programs have focused exclusively on process redesign; the ongoing operation and management of the reconfigured processes have usually been neglected. Yet even the best processes will not perform effectively without suitable oversight, coordination, and control, as well as occasional intervention. In addition, operational processes have usually been targeted for improvement, while their supporting administrative processes have been overlooked. Incompatibilities and inconsistencies have arisen when the information and plans needed for effective operation were not forthcoming. A few companies have used the work processes approach to redefine their strategy and organization. The most progressive have blended a horizontal process orientation with conventional vertical structures. 20

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

Behavioral Processes

The behavioral process approach, which has roots in organization theory and group dynamics, focuses on ingrained behavior patterns. These patterns reflect an organization’s characteristic ways of acting and interacting; decision-making and communication processes are examples. The underlying behavior patterns are normally so deeply embedded and recurrent that they are displayed by most organizational members. They also have enormous staying power. As Weick observed, behavioral processes are able to “withstand the turnover of personnel as well as some variation in the actual behaviors people contribute.” 21

All behavioral processes share several characteristics. They are generalizations, distilled from observations of everyday work and have no independent existence apart from the work processes in which they appear. This makes them difficult to identify but explains their importance. Behavioral processes profoundly affect the form, substance, and character of work processes by shaping how they are carried out. They are different, however, from organizational culture because they reflect more than values and beliefs. Behavioral processes are the sequences of steps used for accomplishing the cognitive and interpersonal aspects of work. New product development processes, for example, may have roughly similar work flows yet still involve radically different patterns of decision making and communication. Often, it is these underlying patterns that determine the operational process’s ultimate success or failure. 22

Next I discuss three categories of behavioral processes, selected for their representativeness and rich supporting literature: decision-making, communication, and organizational learning processes. All involve the collection, movement, and interpretation of information, as well as forms of interpersonal interaction. In most cases, the associated behaviors are learned informally, through socialization and on-the-job experience, rather than through formal education and training programs.

Decision-Making Processes. Of all behavioral processes, decision making has been the most carefully studied. The roots go back to the research and writings of Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon, who argued that organizational decision making was a distributed activity, extending over time, involving a number of people. 23 Because it was a process rather than a discrete event, a critical management task was shaping the environment of decision making to produce desired ends. This, in itself, is still a surprising insight for many managers. All too often, they see decision making as their personal responsibility, rather than as a shared, dispersed activity that they must orchestrate and lead. 24

These early writings spawned a vast outpouring of research on decision making; eventually they coalesced into the field of strategic process research. 25 One group focused on the structure of decision-making processes: their primary stages, and whether stages followed one another logically and in sequence or varied over time with the type of decision. 26 The goal was a model of the decision process, replete with flow charts and time lines, that mapped the sequence of steps in decision making and identified ideal types. For the most part, the results of these studies have been equivocal. Efforts to produce a simple linear flow model of decision making — in the same way that work processes can be diagrammed using process flow charts — have had limited success. Witte, for example, studied the purchase process for new computers and found that very few decisions — 4 of 233 — corresponded to a standard, five-phase, sequential process. He concluded that simultaneous rather than sequenced processes were the norm: “We believe that human beings cannot gather information without in some way developing alternatives. They cannot avoid evaluating these alternatives immediately, and in doing this, they are forced to a decision. This is a package of operations.” 27 Mintzberg et al. and Nutt, in their studies of strategic decision making, found it equally difficult to specify a simple sequence of steps. 28 After developing general models of the process, they identified a number of distinct paths through them, each representing a different type or style of decision making.

A second group of scholars adopted a more focused approach. Each studied a particular kind of decision, usually involving large dollar investments, to identify the constituent activities, subprocesses, and associated management roles and responsibilities, as well as the contextual factors shaping the process. Much of this research has examined the resource allocation process, with studies of capital budgeting, foreign investments, strategic planning, internal corporate venturing, and business exit. 29 This research has led to two important insights:

First, it has forced scholars to acknowledge the simultaneous, multilevel quality of decision processes. While sequential stages can be specified, they are incomplete as process theories and must be supplemented by detailed descriptions of the interaction of activities, via subprocesses, across organizational levels and through time. Bower, for example, identified three major components of the resource allocation process — definition (the development of financial goals, strategies, and product-market plans), impetus (the crafting, selling, and choice of projects), and determination of context (the creation of structures, systems, and incentives guiding the process) — and then went on to describe the linkage among these activities and the interdependent roles of corporate, divisional, and middle managers. 30 A simple stages model was unable to capture the richness of the process: the range of interlinked activities, with reciprocal impacts, that were unfolding at multiple organizational levels. This finding has obvious implications for managers because it suggests that effective resource allocation — as well as most other types of decision making — requires attention to the perspectives and actions that are unfolding simultaneously above and below one’s level in the organization.

Second, this body of research focused attention on the way that managers shape and influence decision processes. By describing the structural and strategic context — the rules by which the game is played, including the organization’s goals, values, and reward systems — and showing how it is formed through actions and policies, scholars have demonstrated how senior managers are able to have a pronounced impact on decisions made elsewhere in the organization. While behavioral processes like decision making have great autonomy and persistence, they can, according to this line of research, be shaped and directed by managerial action.

Another stream of research has explored the quality of decision making. Scholars have studied flawed decisions to better understand their causes, examined the factors supporting speedy decision making, and contrasted the effectiveness of comprehensive and narrow decision processes. 31 These studies have noted certain distinctive problems that arise because organizational decision making is a collective effort. Janis, for example, citing foreign policy debacles such as the Bay of Pigs, noted that when members of a decision-making group want to preserve social cohesion and strive for unanimity, they may engage in self-censorship, overoptimism, and stereotyped views of the enemy, causing them to override more realistic assessments of alternatives. 32 However, certain techniques that introduce conflict and dissent, such as devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry, have been found to overcome these problems in both controlled experiments and real-world situations. 33

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy explicitly reformed the national security decision-making process to include devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry, and used both techniques to great effect during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 34 Similarly, Bourgeois and Eisenhardt found that successful, speedy decision making relied on rational approaches, the development of simultaneous multiple alternatives, and the use of up-to-date operating information to form judgments. 35 For managers, the implications of this line of research should be obvious: the need to introduce healthy conflict and competing perspectives to ensure more effective, timely decision making.

Together, these studies have shown that decision-making processes are lengthy, complex, and slow to change. They involve multiple, often overlapping stages, engage large numbers of people at diverse levels, suffer from predictable biases and perceptual filters, and are shaped by the administrative, structural, and strategic context. Their effectiveness can be judged, using criteria such as speed, flexibility, range of alternatives considered, logical consistency, and results, and they are subject to managerial influence and control. Perhaps most important, these studies have shown that decision making, like other behavioral processes, can be characterized along a few simple dimensions that managers can review and alter if needed. A company’s decision-making processes may be slow or fast, generate few or many alternatives, rely primarily on operating or financial data, engage few or many organizational levels, involve consensual or hierarchical resolution of conflicts, and be tolerant of or closed to divergent opinions.

Communication Processes. Social psychologists and sociologists have long studied communication processes, dating back to the original human relations experiments at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric, the pioneering studies of Kurt Lewin, and the efforts of the National Training Laboratories to establish the field of organizational development. 36 The field currently covers a broad array of processes and interactions, including face-to-face, within-group, and intergroup relationships.

The efficacy of these relationships invariably rests on the quality and richness of interpersonal communication and information processing activities: how individuals and groups share data, agree on agendas and goals, and iron out conflicts as they go about their work. 37 These processes frequently become patterned and predictable. But because they are embedded in everyday work flows, they are not always immediately apparent. Like decision-making processes, they reflect unconscious assumptions and routines and can often be identified only after repeated observations of individuals and groups. Moreover, the underlying processes are quite subtle, as Schein has observed:

“Many formulations of communication depict it as a simple problem of transfer of information from one person to another. But … the process is anything but simple, and the information transferred is often highly variable and complex. We communicate facts, feelings, perceptions, innuendoes, and various other things all in the same ‘simple’ message. We communicate not only through the spoken and written word but through facial expressions, gestures, physical posture, tone of voice, timing of when we speak, what we do not say, and so on.” 38

Because of these complexities, communication processes are best characterized along multiple dimensions. Schein has provided a relatively complete set of categories, including frequency and duration, direction, triggers and flow, style, and level and depth. 39 Some patterns can be captured through the tools of communication engineering, which model communication networks and present a picture of a group’s information linkages and flows in the same way that work processes are often mapped. 40

A few studies have pursued an intermediate level of analysis, combining activities into subprocesses. These subprocesses fall into two distinct categories: those needed for task management and work accomplishment and those for building the group and maintaining its relationships. 41 Examples of the first include information giving and seeking and opinion giving and seeking, and examples of the second include harmonizing and compromising. Several scholars have used these categories to develop simple self-assessment forms for evaluating group processes and have then linked the results to group effectiveness. 42

Together, these studies provide a relatively complete set of categories for diagnosing and evaluating communication processes. Like decision-making processes, they can be characterized along a few simple dimensions. Here, too, managers can use the dimensions to profile their organizations and identify areas needing improvement. The nature, direction, and quality of discussion flows are important, as are the interrelationships among group members, their stances toward one another, and the tenor and tone of group work.

Organizational Learning Processes. A wide range of scholars, including organizational theorists, social psychologists, manufacturing experts, and systems thinkers have studied organizational learning processes. 43 There is broad agreement that organizational learning is essential to organizational health and survival, involves the creation and acquisition of new knowledge, and rests ultimately on the development of shared perspectives (often called “mental models”). Most scholars have described these activities abstractly, without trying to group or categorize them. But there are persistent underlying patterns. The way an organization approaches learning is as deeply embedded as its approaches to decision making and communication. 44

Four broad processes are involved: knowledge acquisition, interpretation, dissemination, and retention. In each area, companies appear to rely on relatively few approaches that fit their cultures and have been adapted to their needs. Over time, these approaches become institutionalized as the organization’s dominant mode or style of learning. According to Nevis et al.: “Basic assumptions about the culture lead to learning values and investments that produce a different learning style from a culture with a different pattern of values and investments.” 45

Knowledge, for example, may be acquired in many ways. Each approach involves distinctive tools, systems, and behaviors and is associated with a particular learning style. The underlying processes differ accordingly. Companies like DuPont have focused their efforts on brainstorming and creativity techniques; others, like Boeing and Microsoft, have become adept at learning from their own internal manufacturing and development experiences. AT&T and Xerox have gained considerable skill at benchmarking competitors and world leaders; others, like Royal Dutch/Shell, have used hypothetical planning exercises to stimulate learning. Similar distinctions exist for the processes of knowledge interpretation, dissemination, and retention. Retention, for example, may be through written records or tacitly understood routines, and the organization’s memory may be accessed by a range of indexing and retrieval processes. 46

Organizational learning processes thus share many of the same characteristics as decision-making and communication processes. Activity is distributed throughout the organization, unfolds over time, involves people in diverse departments and positions, and rests on a few critical subprocesses or routines. It too is “an organizational process rather than an individual process” and can be classified into distinctive modes or styles. 47 In fact, when combined together, the three behavioral processes are often complementary and synergistic.

They interact in predictable ways, producing clusters of characteristics that are mutually reinforcing.

In the microcomputer industry, for example, the most effective firms were able to make quick decisions. 48 Their ability to do so rested on several mutually reinforcing activities. Decision making was rational and analytical, based on multiple alternatives and real-time operating information. Communication was open and wide ranging, with discussions that relied on shared ideas, pooled information, and the judgment of a few trusted counselors, but vested final authority with the CEO. Organizational learning was guided primarily by external scanning and search. There is an important message here for managers. Just as administrative and operational processes must be complementary and supportive, so too must behavioral processes.

Unfortunately, managers frequently assume that restructuring or reengineering work processes will be accompanied by simultaneous, virtually automatic changes in behavior. Such changes are usually considered essential for successful transformations. 49 But because they reflect deeper forces, these behaviors normally remain in place unless the underlying processes are tackled explicitly. Managers must recognize that successful improvement programs require explicit attention to the organization’s characteristic patterns of decision making, communication, and learning. Tools for stimulating change include simulations, exercises, observations, and coaching; each may be applied at the individual and organizational levels.

Change Processes

The change process approach, which has roots in strategic management, organization theory, social psychology, and business history, focuses on sequences of events over time. These sequences, called processes, describe how individuals, groups, and organizations adapt, develop, and grow. Change processes are explicitly dynamic and intertemporal. Unlike the relatively static portraits of work and behavioral processes, they attempt “to catch reality in flight.” 50 Examples of change processes include the organizational life cycle and Darwinian evolution.

All change processes share several characteristics. They are longitudinal and dynamic, designed to capture action as it unfolds, with three components always present: “a set of starting conditions, a functional end-point, and an emergent process of change.” 51 Change processes therefore answer the question, “How did x get from here to there?” Often, a story or narrative is required to provide coherence and explain the underlying logic of the process. 52 Most descriptions of change also divide time into broad stages or phases. Each stage consists of groups of activities aimed at roughly similar goals, and the transition between stages may be smooth or turbulent. 53

Studies of change have focused on four broad areas: creation, growth, transformation, and decline. 54 Each period represents a critical stage in the individual or organizational life cycle, and, over time, the life cycle has become the organizing framework for the field. Scholars remain divided, however, about the pattern and flow of events over time. The primary question is whether change processes proceed through incremental steps — what Gersick has called “a slow stream of small mutations” — or through alternating periods of stability and revolutionary change. 55 Ultimately, the choice is between traditional Darwinian theories and those based on a newer, punctuated equilibrium framework. While the subject is still under debate, evidence supporting the latter view is accumulating rapidly. 56

Whatever their focus, change processes fall into two broad categories: autonomous and induced. Autonomous processes have a life of their own; they proceed because of an internal dynamic. The entity or organism evolves naturally and of its own course. In some cases, the direction of change is preordained and inevitable. In others, transitional periods create flux, and the entity may evolve in multiple, unexpected ways. Processes in the former category include an organization’s evolution from informal, entrepreneurial start-up to a more structured, professionally managed firm. Processes in the second category include organizational and industry shifts that result from revolutionary changes in technology. 57 In both cases, Selznick has observed, managers must be attentive to the path and timing of development: “Certain types of problems seem to characterize phases of an organization’s life-history. As these problems emerge, the organization is confronted with critical policy decisions.” 58 Appropriate action depends, in large part, on fitting behavior to the conditions and requirements of the current stage. 59 An obvious example is knowing when to introduce policies, procedures, and systems into a loosely knit, entrepreneurial firm. Too early, and growth may be stifled; too late, and the organization may already have spun out of control.

Unlike autonomous processes, induced processes do not occur naturally but must be created. All planned change efforts therefore fall into this category. While they are triggered in different ways, such efforts, once underway, unfold in a predictable sequence. Each step is accompanied by distinctive challenges and tasks, with striking parallels in different theorists’ descriptions. Induced change processes are commonly divided into three basic stages. 60 The first is a period of questioning, when the current state is assessed and energy applied to dislodge accepted patterns. The second stage is one of flux, when old ways are partially suspended and new approaches are tested and developed. The third is a period of consolidation, when new attitudes and behaviors become institutionalized and widely adopted. Again, it is critical that managers develop actions appropriate to the current stage and know when it is time to shift to a new stage. Examples of three-part theories include Beckhard and Harris’s present state, transition state, and future state; Lewin’s and Schein’s unfreezing, changing, and refreezing; and Tichy and Devanna’s awakening, mobilizing, and reinforcing. 61

We can thus classify change processes on a few simple dimensions: they may be autonomous or induced, and involve slow incremental evolution or alternating periods of stability and revolutionary change. Complete process descriptions also include the precise sequence, duration, and timing of stages, as well as the nature and number of activities and participants at each stage. 62

A Recap of Organizational Processes

The three major approaches to organizational processes have much in common (see “An Organizational Processes Framework”). Each views processes as collections of activities, involving many people, that unfold over time. Each involves repeated, predictable sequences or patterns. And each takes a holistic approach, grouping individual activities and decisions in coherent, logical ways. The latter quality is especially important because it suggests that processes provide managers with a powerful integrating device, a way of meshing specialized, segmented tasks with larger organizational needs.

Despite these similarities, the three types of processes capture different organizational phenomena and are best viewed as complementary pieces of a larger puzzle. They can, in fact, be combined into a single framework that includes both cross-sectional and dynamic elements. (For a unified portrait of organizations as collections and reflections of processes, see “A Diagram of Organizational Processes.”)

A process view of organizations offers several advantages. First, it provides a disaggregated model of the firm, but does so in ways that make the analysis of implementation more tractable and explicit. Put another way, if organizations are “systems for getting work done,” 63 processes provide a fine-grained description of the means. Second, the diagram suggests the intimate connections among different types of processes and the futility of analyzing them in isolation. It is extraordinarily difficult — and, at times, impossible — to understand or alter a single process without first taking account of others on which it depends. 64

Perhaps most important for managers, a process view of organizations changes the focus of both analysis and action. All too often, managers’ first response to problems is to pin responsibility on an individual or department. Yet because processes shape the vast majority of organizational activities, they are frequently the true sources of difficulty. Accountability must therefore shift to a higher level: to those with wide enough spans of control to oversee entire processes. This principle has long been a staple of the quality movement, where it has been applied to operational processes. The preceding arguments suggest that managers need to be equally attentive to administrative, behavioral, and change processes. As a general rule, responsibility for these processes must shift to senior members of the firm.

Approaches to organization design must change as well. Most texts on the subject focus on tasks and structures, with detailed discussions of roles, positions, levels, and reporting relationships. 65 They say relatively little about processes or about how the work actually gets done. The implicit argument seems to be that organization design is largely a matter of architecture: drawing the right boxes and connecting them appropriately. A process perspective suggests that far more attention should be paid to organizational functioning, and that design efforts should begin by attending to processes and only later should shift to the structures needed to accommodate them.

Finally, this approach suggests that managers are continually enmeshed in organizational processes. The result is a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, managers are constrained by the processes they face, forced to work within their boundaries and preestab-lished steps to get things done. On the other hand, they try to influence and alter these processes to gain advantage. This continual shifting from “statesman” to “gamesman” is what makes management such a challenging task. 66 It also suggests another, quite different use of the word processes.

Managerial Processes

Management is often described as the art of getting things done. But because organizations are complex social institutions with widely distributed responsibility and resources, unilateral action is seldom sufficient. 67 Managers therefore spend the bulk of their time working with, and through, other people. 68 They face a range of challenges: how to get the organization moving in the desired direction, how to gain the allegiance and support of critical individuals, and how to harmonize diverse group interests and goals. In the broadest sense, these are questions of process: they involve how things are done, rather than the content or substance of ideas or policies.

The mechanics of implementation thus lie at the heart of this definition of processes. The focus is on the way that managers orchestrate activities and events and engage others in tasks so that desired ends are realized (see “Descriptions of Managerial Processes”). Action is the key, and process is implicitly equated with skilled professional practice. Not surprisingly, this use of the term appears in a wide range of professions where there is need for artistry, subjectivity, and careful discriminations. Architects, for example, engage in the design process; scientists employ the scientific process; and psychologists engage in the counseling process. Like management, each activity involves complex, contingent choices about how best to transform intentions into results.

Managerial processes, however, involve additional complications. Many scholars agree that “organizations … are fundamentally political entities,” 69 composed of diverse groups with their own interests that come into conflict over agendas and resources. 70 In such settings, successful managers must align and harmonize competing interests, while cultivating commitment and motivation. Skillful managers therefore spend relatively little time issuing ultimatums or making big decisions. Rather, they engage in an extraordinary number of fragmented activities, tackling pressing issues or small pieces of larger problems. 71 Often, the process requires building and using interpersonal networks, as well as “skillful maneuvering” to overcome political obstacles. 72

The challenge for managers, then, is to shape, prod, and direct their organizations, through words and deeds, so that larger goals are realized. The approaches they use — which were once the subject of courses on administrative practice — are managerial processes. They have an underlying logic that is easily missed when scholars focus on taxonomies of discrete tasks and activities, rather than unifying threads. 73 Moreover, because these processes require flexibility and a sensitivity to context, they seldom unfold in the same set sequence or maintain the same character on every occasion. 74

Empirical studies of managerial processes fall into two broad categories. One group has taken an anthropological approach focusing on a single manager in action, with vivid descriptions of his or her behavior. Case studies in business policy fall into this category, as do studies by insiders or journalists who have gained unusual access to a company. 75 The associated processes have usually been idiosyncratic and highly individualistic, reflecting the distinctive character of the managers studied. Such nuanced, textured descriptions provide invaluable insight into the processes of management but permit few generalizations.

A second group of empirical studies, usually by scholars, has sought broader conclusions. Typically, they have reviewed the time commitments and activities of a few managers, grouped them into categories according to purposes and goals, and then applied a process perspective. Three broad processes have dominated this literature: direction setting, negotiating and selling, and monitoring and control.

Direction-Setting Processes

Direction setting, the most widely recognized managerial activity, has appeared, in some form, in most empirical studies of managerial work. 76 It involves charting an organization’s course and then mobilizing support and ensuring alignment with stated goals. Kotter’s description of how general managers met this challenge is representative. 77 All the managers he studied began by developing an agenda, collecting information from a wide range of sources, and then assimilating it and forming a few broad thrusts or general goals. They then worked hard to frame messages, using diverse communication media and opportunities, to ensure that members of the organization developed a shared understanding of the new objectives. Often, these activities occurred within the broad parameters of the organization’s planning or goal-setting process, although much work was informal and unstructured, tailored to the unique skill of the manager and the distinctive demands of the situation. Gabarro and Simons reached similar conclusions in their studies of the “taking charge” process of new executives, where individualized managerial action was coupled with established organizational processes. 78

Together, these empirical studies have shown that direction-setting processes have several components: learning about the organization and its problems through a broad range of interactions, assessments, and continued probing; framing an agenda to be pursued during the manager’s tenure through conscious reflection and intuitive experience; and aligning individuals through communication, motivation, rewards, and punishments, often using new or established organizational processes. Critical process choices that the manager makes include which information sources to tap, which communication media and supporting systems to emphasize, and which approaches to use in framing, testing, and revising initiatives.

Negotiating and Selling Processes

Once the manager sets a direction, negotiating and selling processes are necessary for getting the job done. They work in two directions, horizontally and vertically. Because horizontal flows link the activities of most departments, employees frequently rely on individuals outside their work groups for essential services and information. 79 Formal authority is normally lacking in these relationships, and managers must use other means to gain cooperation. This usually requires building a network of contacts and then working with the appropriate individuals to negotiate the “terms of trade” for current and future interactions. 80 Various approaches are used to gain support, including currying favor, creating dependence, providing quid pro quo’s, and appealing to compelling organizational needs.

Successful negotiating requires an understanding of “the strengths and weaknesses of others, the relationships that are important to them, what their agendas and priorities are.” 81 Issues must be shaped and presented in ways that are palatable to individuals and groups with differing interests and needs. Sayles, who has conducted the most extensive research on these processes, noted that they usually began with “missionary work,” in which potential buyers and sellers were identified for possible future use. 82 A surprising range of contacts was necessary because horizontal relationships fell into so many different categories. All, however, required skilled salesmanship: the ability to interest outsiders in a project, gain exceptions from staff groups, and convince support specialists to invest time and resources. For this reason, the most critical process choices involved framing and presentation: deciding how to solicit help and present proposals in ways that appealed to others yet met one’s basic objectives.

Selling is also required in a vertical direction. Middle managers must normally convince their superiors of the value of their proposals if they hope to see them enacted; to do so, they frame projects to highlight urgency and need, bundle them in ways that increase the likelihood of acceptance, and assemble coalitions to provide credibility and support. 83 This activity is not confined to middle managers. Chief executives engage extensively in selling, for it is often the only way they can gain acceptance of their strategies and plans. 84

Monitoring and Control Processes

Once operations are underway, managers engage in a third set of processes, designed to ensure that their organizations are performing as planned. Such oversight activities are necessary because business environments are inherently unstable; they generate any number of unexpected shocks and disturbances. Monitoring and control processes detect perturbations, initiate corrective action, and restore the organization to its previous equilibrium. 85 Typically, managers begin with efforts to sense problems and formulate them clearly, followed by probes to clarify the problems’ precise nature and underlying causes. 86 They collect information through their own contacts, others’ contacts, observation, and reviews of records. 87 At times, they use formal organizational processes, like variance reporting; more often, effective monitoring is nonroutine and conducted as part of other, ongoing interactions. 88 Here, critical process choices include the information sources to tap, the data to request, the questions to pose, and the amount of time to allow before drawing conclusions and initiating corrective action.

Recapping Managerial Skills

These three processes have different purposes, tasks, and critical skills (see “A Managerial Processes Framework”). Although most managers treat them as distinct challenges, at a deeper level, they have much in common. All depend on rich communication, pattern recognition, a sensitivity to relationships, and an understanding of the organization’s power structure. Perhaps most important, all managerial processes involve common choices about how to involve others and relate to them as the organization moves forward. They are the essence of the manager’s craft and can be applied equally effectively to direction setting, negotiating and selling, and monitoring and control.

The variables are few, but the combinations are virtually limitless. Whatever the issue, all managerial processes involve six major choices that a manager must make:

1. Participants (Whose opinions should I seek? Whom should I invite to meetings? Who should participate in task forces? Which groups should be represented?)

2. Timing and sequencing (Whom should I approach first? Whom should I invite next? Which agreements should I solicit before others? How should I phase events over time?)

3. Duration (How much time should I devote to information collection? How much time should I give to individuals and groups for their assignments? How should I pace events to build momentum?)

4. Framing and presentation (How should I describe and interpret events? How should I heat up issues or cool them down? How should I frame proposals for superiors, subordinates, and peers? What questions should I ask to gain information?)

5. Formats (Should I make requests in person or over the phone? Should I communicate information through speeches, group meetings, or face-to-face encounters?)

6. Style (How should I induce others to cooperate? How should I utilize and distribute rewards and punishments? What tone should I take when dealing with superiors, subordinates, and peers?)

There are many possible answers. This variety helps explain why management, like many other professions, continues to be more an art than a science. 89 In the face of massive uncertainty, managers must make complex choices with few precedents or guidelines; the resulting processes seldom repeat themselves exactly. Moreover, seemingly minor variations in processes can have major impacts. Changes in sequencing, with one critical individual or department contacted before another, or shifts in format, with written memoranda replacing face-to-face meetings, often produce dramatically different coalitions and results. 90 The subtlety of these distinctions, plus the enormous range of possibilities, is what makes managerial processes so difficult to master. But, by thinking in process terms, managers are much more likely to link together their activities to produce the desired ends.

Implications for Action

The process perspective fills an important gap. Most research on organizations either employs highly aggregated concepts like strategy or focuses on low-level tactics and tasks. Researchers often ignore the middle ground. Processes, by contrast, are intermediate-level concepts that combine activities into cohesive wholes, yet offer a fine-grained, differentiated perspective. They are also inherently dynamic. Because processes unfold over time, they capture linkages among activities that are often lost in static models and cross-sectional analyses. A process approach encourages thinking in story lines rather than events; the appropriate metaphor is a movie rather than a snapshot. 91

For this reason, the approach is unusually helpful in addressing implementation problems. Managers can articulate the required steps in a process, as well as improvements. By contrast, traditional lists of roles and responsibilities leave the associated activities unspecified or undefined. Job descriptions framed in process terms should therefore make it easier for untrained individuals to step into new jobs and acquire necessary skills. 92 Managers should be able to focus their questioning of peers and subordinates on issues more directly related to the organization’s operation. 93 And a sensitivity to processes should give managers clearer guidelines about how and when to intervene effectively in others’ work. 94

We can combine the major organizational and managerial processes into a simple, integrating framework (see “A Framework for Action”). The framework consists of diagnostic questions that allow managers to assess the effectiveness of their, and their organization’s, approaches to action. For example, the question “Is there a clear rationale, direction, and path of change?” asks managers to determine whether direction has been set effectively for a particular change process. Similarly, the question “Have we obtained the necessary agreements and resources from upstream and downstream departments?” assesses whether negotiation and selling have been conducted effectively for a given work process. Together, the questions provide a reasonably complete framework for evaluation.

The framework has two primary uses:

First, it can help managers decide where, when, and how to intervene in their organization’s activities. To do so, they should work down the columns of the matrix, asking each question in turn to isolate the likely source of difficulties and identify appropriate remedial actions. Consider, for example, a company experiencing customer service problems. Because customer service is an operational (work) process, the questions in the first column provide guidance. If the answers suggest that problems can be traced to unclear goals, managers need to invest time in setting and clarifying objectives. If the problems reflect a lack of support from upstream designers and manufacturing personnel, managers need to devote time to cross-departmental negotiations and salesmanship. If the problems signify slow, limited customer feedback, managers need to upgrade the processes for monitoring and collecting information.

Managers can use the same approach for less tangible processes like decision making. Suppose that decision making is currently parochial and unimaginative, and managers have decided to improve the process by encouraging dissent and constructive conflict. Progress, however, has been slow. Because decision making is a behavioral process, managers should use the questions in the second column to diagnose the problem. If the answers suggest that difficulties can be traced to unclear concepts (e.g., “We don’t know how to distinguish constructive from unproductive conflict”), managers should focus on improved direction setting. If the difficulties reflect underlying disagreements about the appropriateness of the desired behaviors (e.g., “We are a polite company and see no reason to argue with one another”), managers should focus on selling the new approaches. If the difficulties are caused by poor awareness of current practices (e.g., “We don’t need to do anything differently because we already entertain diverse viewpoints and debate issues in depth”), managers need sharper real-time feedback and monitoring. Here, too, the matrix provides managers with a powerful lens for identifying the underlying sources of problems and for framing responses in process terms.

Second, the matrix helps managers identify their personal strengths and weaknesses. Because direction setting, negotiation and selling, and monitoring and control are very different processes, few managers are equally adept at all three. One way to identify areas needing work is for managers to proceed across the rows of the matrix, asking the relevant diagnostic questions about diverse organizational activities.

For example, to assess direction-setting skills, a manager might look at a number of operational processes under his or her control to see if clear goals have been established, might review a variety of decision-making and communication processes to see if preferred approaches were clearly described and understood, and might assess several current change initiatives to see if the rationale, direction, and paths of change were clear. A series of “no’s” in a row means that the manager needs to improve direction setting. As with the previous assessments of organizational processes, managers can conduct these evaluations working alone in their offices, teams of executives responsible for related projects or programs can work in groups, or entire departments or units can work collectively. In general, the size of the evaluating group should correspond to the scope of the process under review, and the larger the group, the more likely that formal approaches to data collection such as surveys, questionnaires, and diagnostic scales will be needed.

Clearly, a process perspective has much to offer. It sheds light on many pressing questions of organization and management while providing a number of practical guidelines. Here I present a starting point, a taxonomy and frameworks for defining, distinguishing, and classifying the major types of processes. Used wisely, they will improve managers’ ability to get things done.

About the Author

David A. Garvin is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School.

1. B.S. Chakravarthy and Y. Doz, “Strategy Process Research: Focusing on Corporate Self-Renewal,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 13, special issue, Summer 1992, pp. 5–14, quote from p. 6.

2. L.B. Mohr, Explaining Organizational Behavior (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982); P.R. Monge, “Theoretical and Analytical Issues in Studying Organizational Processes,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 4, 1990, pp. 406–430; A.H. Van de Ven, “Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process: A Research Note,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 13, special issue, Summer 1992, pp. 169–188; and A.H. Van de Ven and G. Huber, “Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 3, 1990, pp. 213–219.

3. A.H. Van de Ven, “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,” Management Science, volume 32, number 5, 1986, pp. 590–606.

4. L.R. Sayles, Leadership: Managing in Real Organizations, second edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989).

5. C.P. Hales, “What Do Managers Do?,” Journal of Management Studies, volume 23, number 1, 1986, pp. 88–115; and H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).

6. For discussions of processes in the quality literature, see: H.J. Harrington, Business Process Improvement (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991); E.J. Kane, “IBM’s Quality Focus on the Business Process,” Quality Progress, volume 19, April 1986, pp. 24–33; E.H. Melan, “Process Management: A Unifying Framework,” National Productivity Review, volume 8, 1989, number 4, pp. 395–406; R.D. Moen and T.W. Nolan, “Process Improvement,” Quality Progress, volume 20, September 1987, pp. 62–68; and G.D. Robson, Continuous Process Improvemen (New York: Free Press, 1991). For discussions of processes in the reengineering literature, see: T.H. Davenport, Process Innovation (Boston: Harvar Business School Press, 1993); M. Hammer and J. Champy, Reengineering the Corporation (New York: Harper Business, 1993); and T.A. Stewart,”Reengineeering: The Hot New Managing Tool,” Fortune, 23 August 1993, pp. 40–48.

7. M. Hammer, “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, volume 68, July–August 1990, pp. 104–112.

8. J.D. Blackburn, “Time-Based Competition: White-Collar Activities,” Business Horizons, volume 35, July–August 1992, pp. 96–101.

9. E.H. Melan, “Process Management in Service and Administrative Operations,” Quality Progress, volume 18, June 1985, pp. 52–59.

10. Davenport (1993), chapter 7; Hammer and Champy (1993), chapter 3; Harrington (1991), chapter 6; and Kane (1986).

11. Hammer and Champy (1993), pp. 108–109; Kane (1986); and Melan (1989), p. 398.

12. Moen and Nolan (1987); and Robson (1991).

13. Davenport (1993), pp. 10–15; and Hammer and Champy (1993), pp. 32–34.

14. T.H. Davenport and N. Nohria, “Case Management and the Integration of Labor,” Sloan Management Review, volume 35, Winter 1994, pp. 11–23, quote from p. 11.

15. I. Price, “Aligning People and Processes during Business-Focused Change in BP Exploration,” Prism, fourth quarter, 1993, pp. 19–31.

16. Kane (1986); and Melan (1985) and (1989).

17. H. Gitlow, S. Gitlow, A. Oppenheim, and R. Oppenheim, Tools and Methods for the Improvement of Quality (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1989), chapter 8.

18. P.F. Schlesinger, V. Sathe, L.A. Schlesinger, and J.P. Kotter, Organization: Text, Cases, and Readings on the Management of Organization Design and Change (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1992), pp. 106–110.

19. J. Browning, “The Power of Process Redesign,” McKinsey Quarterly , volume 1, number 1, 1993, pp. 47–58; J.R. Galbraith, Organization Design (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1977), pp. 118–119; and B.P. Shapiro, K. Rangan and J.J. Sviokla, “Staple Yourself to an Order,” Harvard Business Review, volume 70, July–August 1992, pp. 113–122.

20. For example, see: A. March and D.A. Garvin, “Arthur D. Little, Inc.” (Boston: Harvard Business School, case no. 9-396-060, 1995).

21. K.E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 34.

22. S.C. Wheelwright and K.B. Clark, Revolutionizing Product Development (New York: Free Press, 1992).

23. C.I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), pp. 185–189, 205–206; and H.A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, third edition (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp. 96–109, 220–228.

24. L.A. Hill, Becoming a Manager ( Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), pp. 20–21.

25. For reviews, see: J.L. Bower and Y. Doz, “Strategy Formulation: A Social and Political Process,” in D.H. Schendel and C.H. Hofer, eds., Strategic Management (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), pp. 152–166; and A.S. Huff and R.K. Reger, “A Review of Strategic Process Research,” Journal of Management, volume 13, number 2, 1987, pp. 211–236.

26. H. Mintzberg, D. Raisinghani, and A. Théorêt, “The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 21, June 1976, pp. 246–275; P.C. Nutt, “Types of Organizational Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 29, September 1984, pp. 414–450; and E. Witte, “Field Research on Complex Decision-Making Processes — The Phase Theorem,” International Studies of Management and Organization, volume 2, Summer 1972, pp. 156–182.

27. Witte (1972), p. 179.

28. Mintzberg et al. (1976); and Nutt (1984).

29. For studies on capital budgeting, see: R.W. Ackerman, “Influence of Integration and Diversity on the Investment Process,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 15, September 1970, pp. 341–351; and J.L. Bower, Managing the Resource Allocation Process (Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1970). For studies on foreign investments, see: Y. Aharoni, The Foreign Investment Decision Process (Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1966). For studies on strategic planning, see: P. Haspeslagh, “Portfolio Planning: Uses and Limits,” Harvard Business Review, volume 60, January–February 1982, pp. 58–74; and R. Simons, “Planning, Control, and Uncertainty: A Process View,” in W.J. Bruns, Jr. and R.S. Kaplan, eds., Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987), pp. 339–367. For studies on internal corporate venturing, see: R.A. Burgelman, “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 28, June 1983, pp. 223–244; and R.A. Burgelman, “Strategy Making as a Social Learning Process: The Case of Internal Corporate Venturing,” Interfaces, volume 18, number 3, 1988, pp. 74–85. For studies on business exit, see: R.A. Burgelman, “Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 39, March 1994, pp. 24–56.

30. Bower (1970).

31. G.T. Allison, Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971); I.L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972); L.J. Bourgeois, III and K.M. Eisenhardt, “Strategic Decision Processes in High-Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry,” Management Science, volume 34, number 7, 1988, pp. 816–835; K.M. Eisenhardt, “Speed and Strategic Choice: How Managers Accelerate Decision Making,” California Management Review, volume 32, Spring 1990, pp. 39–54; J.W. Fredrickson and T.R. Mitchell, “Strategic Decision Processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance in an Industry with an Unstable Environment,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 27, number 2, 1984, pp. 399–423; J.W. Fredrickson, “The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extension, Observations, Future Directions,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 27, number 4, 1984, pp. 445–466; and I. Nonaka and J.K. Johansson, “Organizational Learning in Japanese Companies,” in R. Lamb and P. Shrivastava, eds., Advances in Strategic Management, volume 3 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 277–296.

32. Janis (1972).

33. A.C. Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 39, number 1, 1996, pp. 123–148; D.M. Schweiger, W.R. Sandberg, and J.W. Ragan, “Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 29, number 1, 1986, pp. 51–71; and D.M. Schweiger, W.R. Sandberg, and P.L. Rechner, “Experimental Effects of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and Consensus Approaches to Strategic Decision Making,” Academy of Management Journal, volume 32, number 4, 1989, pp. 745–772.

34. Janis (1972), pp. 146–149.

35. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988).

36. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1988), pp. 17–19.

37. D.G. Ancona and D.A. Nadler, “Top Hats and Executive Tales: Designing the Senior Team,” Sloan Management Review, volume 31, Fall 1989, pp. 19–28; and D.C. Hambrick, “Top Management Groups: A Conceptual Integration and Reconsideration of the ‘Team’ Label,” in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 16 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1994), pp. 171–214.

38. Schein (1988), p. 21.

39. Ibid., pp. 22–39.

40. O. Hauptman, “Making Communication Work,” Prism, second quarter, 1992, pp. 71–81; and D. Krackhardt and J.R. Hanson, “Informal Networks: The Company behind the Chart,” Harvard Business Review, volume 71, July–August 1993, pp. 104–111.

41. Ancona and Nadler (1989), p. 24; Schein (1988), p. 50.

42. D. McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967), pp. 173–174; and Schein (1988), pp. 57–58, 81–82.

43. R.L. Daft and G.P. Huber, “How Organizations Learn: A Communication Framework,” in S.B. Bacharach and N. DiTomaso, eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations, volume 5 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1987), pp. 1–36; C.M. Fiol and M.A. Lyles, “Organizational Learning,” Academy of Management Review, volume 10, number 4, 1985, pp. 803–813; G.P. Huber, “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures,” Organization Science, volume 2, number 1,1991, pp. 88–115; B. Levitt and J.G. March, “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, volume 14, 1988, pp. 319–340; and P. Shrivastava, “A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems,” Journal of Management Studies, volume 20, number 1, 1983, pp. 7–28.

44. P.M. Brenner, “Assessing the Learning Capabilities of an Organization” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Sloan School of Management, unpublished master’s thesis, 1994); Daft and Huber (1987), pp. 24–28; D.A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review, volume 71, July–August 1993, pp. 78–91; Levitt and March (1988), p. 320; and E.C. Nevis, A.J. DiBella, and J.M. Gould, “Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems,” Sloan Management Review, volume 37, Winter 1995, pp. 73–85.

45. Nevis et al. (1995), p. 76.

46. T. Kiely, “The Idea Makers,” Technology Review, 96, January 1993, pp. 32–40; M.A. Cusumano and R.W. Selby, Microsoft Secrets (New York: Free Press, 1995); Garvin (1993); J. Simpson, L. Field, and D.A. Garvin, “The Boeing 767: From Concept to Production (A)” (Boston: Harvard Business School, case 9-688-040, 1988); R.C. Camp, Benchmarking (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press, 1989); and R.E. Mittelstaedt, Jr., “Benchmarking: How to Learn from Best-in-Class Practices,” National Productivity Review, volume 11, Summer 1992, pp. 301–315; A. De Geus, “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review, volume 66, March–April 1988, pp. 70–74; Huber (1991), pp. 105–107; Levitt and March (1988), pp. 326–329; and J.P. Walsh and G.R. Ungson, “Organizational Memory,” Academy of Management Review, volume 16, number 1, 1991, pp. 57–91.

47. Shrivastava (1983), p. 16.

48. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988); and Eisenhardt (1990).

49. B. Blumenthal and P. Haspeslagh, “Toward a Definition of Corporate Transformation,” Sloan Management Review, volume 35, Spring 1994, pp. 101–106.

50. A.M. Pettigrew, “Longitudinal Field Research: Theory and Practice,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 3, 1990, pp. 267–292, quote from p. 270.

51. Van de Ven (1992), p. 80.

52. Van de Ven and Huber (1990).

53. C.J.G. Gersick, “Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm,” Academy of Management Review, volume 16, number 1, 1991, pp. 10–36.

54. For studies on creation, see: D.N.T. Perkins, V.F. Nieva, and E.E. Lawler III, Managing Creation: The Challenge of Building a New Organization (New York: Wiley, 1983); S.B. Sarason, The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972); and A.H. Van de Ven, “Early Planning, Implementation, and Performance of New Organizations,” in J.R. Kimberly, R.H. Miles, and associates, The Organizational Life Cycle (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), pp. 83–134. For studies on growth, see: W.H. Starbuck, ed., Organizational Growth and Development: Selected Readings (Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1971). For studies on transformation, see: J.R. Kimberly and R.E. Quinn, eds., New Futures: The Challenge of Managing Corporate Transitions (Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1984); A.M. Mohrman, Jr., S.A. Mohrman, G.E. Ledford, Jr., T.G. Cummings, E.E. Lawler III, and associates, Large-Scale Organizational Change (San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989). For studies on decline, see: D.C. Hambrick and R.A. D’Aveni, “Large Corporate Failures as Downward Spirals,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 33, March 1988, pp. 1–23; R.I. Sutton, “Organizational Decline Processes: A Social Psychological Perspective,” in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 12 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1990), pp. 205–253; and S. Venkataraman, A.H. Van de Ven, J. Buckeye, and R. Hudson, “Starting Up in a Turbulent Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, volume 5, number 5, 1990, pp. 277–295.

55. Gersick (1991), p. 10.

56. M. Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 196; Gersick (1991); H. Mintzberg, “Patterns in Strategy Formation,” Management Science, volume 24, number 9, 1978, pp. 934–948; Starbuck (1971), p. 68; and Van de Ven (1992).

57. L.E. Greiner, “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business Review, volume 50, July–August 1972, pp. 37–46; and M.L. Tushman and P. Anderson, “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 31, September 1986, pp. 439–465.

58. P. Selznick, Leadership in Administration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), pp. 103–104.

59. Tushman, W.H. Newman, and E. Romanelli, “Convergence and Upheaval: Managing the Unsteady Pace of Organizational Evolution,” California Management Review, volume 29, Fall 1986, pp. 29–44.

60. R.M. Kanter, B.A. Stein, and T.D. Jick, The Challenge of Organizational Change (New York: Free Press, 1992), pp. 375–377.

61. R. Beckhard and R.T. Harris, Organizational Transitions, second edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1987); K. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science (New York: Harper, 1951); E.H. Schein, Professional Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), pp. 76–84; and N. Tichy and M. Devanna, The Transformational Leader (New York: Wiley, 1986).

62. A. Abbott, “A Primer on Sequence Methods,” Organization Science, volume 1, number 4, 1990, pp. 375–392; Monge (1990); A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research (Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990: chapter 9; and Witte (1972).

63. C. Perrow, “A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations,” American Sociological Review, volume 32, number 2, 1967, pp. 194–208, quote from p. 195.

64. D.A. Garvin, “Leveraging Processes for Strategic Advantage, Harvard Business Review, volume 73, September–October 1995, pp. 76–90.

65. See, for example: Galbraith (1977); and Schlesinger, Sathe, Schlesinger, and Kotter (1992).

66. W.G. Astley and A.H. Van de Ven, “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 28, June 1983, pp. 245–273, quote from p. 263.

67. C.A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, “Beyond the M-Form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 14, special issue, Winter 1993, pp. 23–46.

68. Hales (1986); Mintzberg (1973); Sayles (1989); and L.R. Sayles, Managerial Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

69. J. Pfeffer, “Understanding Power in Organizations,” California Management Review, volume 34, Winter 1992, pp. 29–50, quote from p. 29.

70. Crozier (1964); J.G. March, “The Business Firm as a Political Coalition,” Journal of Politics, volume 24, number 4, 1962, pp. 662–678; Sayles (1989); and M.L. Tushman, “A Political Approach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale,” Academy of Management Review, volume 2, April 1977, pp. 206–216.

71. Hales (1986); J.P. Kotter, The General Managers (New York: Free Press, 1982); Mintzberg (1973); and H.E. Wrapp, “Good Managers Don’t Make Policy Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, volume 45, September–October 1967, pp. 91–99.

72. E.M. Leifer and H.C. White, “Wheeling and Annealing: Federal and Multidivisional Control,” in J.F. Short, Jr., ed., The Social Fabric (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1986), pp. 223–242.

73. Hill (1992); and Kotter (1982).

74. W. Skinner and W.E. Sasser, “Managers with Impact: Versatile and Inconsistent,” Harvard Business Review, volume 55, November–December 1977, pp. 140–148.

75. Examples include The Soul of a New Machine, featuring Tom West, the leader of a project to build a new minicomputer at Data General Corporation, and My Years with General Motors, written by Alfred Sloan, who resurrected General Motors in the more than twenty years that he served as the company’s chief executive and chairman. See: J.T. Kidder, The Soul of a New Machine (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981); and A.P. Sloan, Jr., My Years with General Motors (New York: Doubleday, 1963).

76. Mintzberg (1973), p. 92; Sayles (1964), chapter 9; and Hales (1986).

77. Kotter (1982).

78. J.J. Gabarro, The Dynamics of Taking Charge (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987); and R. Simons, “How New Top Managers Use Control Systems as Levers of Strategic Renewal,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 15, number 3, 1994, pp. 169–189.

79. Sayles (1964).

80. Hill (1992); Kotter (1982); F. Luthans, R.M. Hodgetts, and S.A. Rosenkrantz, Real Managers (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1988); and Mintzberg (1973).

81. D.J. Isenberg, “How Senior Managers Think,” Harvard Business Review, volume 62, November–December 1984, pp. 80–90, quote from p. 84.

82. Sayles (1964).

83. J.E. Dutton and S.J. Ashford, “Selling Issues to Top Management,” Academy of Management Review, volume 18, number 3, 1993, pp. 397–428; and I.C. MacMillan and W.D. Guth, “Strategy Implementation and Middle Management Coalitions,” in R. Lamb and P. Shrivastava, eds., Advances in Strategic Management, volume 3 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 233–254.

84. D.C. Hambrick and A.A. Cannella, “Strategy Implementation as Substance and Selling,” Academy of Management Executive, volume 3, number 4, 1989, pp. 278–285.

85. Mintzberg (1973), pp. 67–71; and Sayles (1964).

86. Isenberg (1984); and M.A. Lyles and I.I. Mitroff, “Organizational Problem Formulation: An Empirical Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 25, March 1980, pp. 102–119.

87. Sayles (1964), pp. 170.

88. Mintzberg (1973), pp. 67–71.

89. D.A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner (New York: Basic Books, 1983), chapters 1, 2, and 8.

90. MacMillan and Guth (1985); and Bower and Doz (1979), pp.152–153.

91. Mohr (1982), p. 43.

92. E.D. Chapple and L.R. Sayles, The Measure of Management (New York: Macmillan, 1961), pp. 49–50.

93. Garvin (1995).

94. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1987); and Schein (1988).

Acknowledgments

More like this, add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Essay on Management

Students are often asked to write an essay on Management in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Management

Understanding management.

Management is a vital aspect of any organization. It involves planning, organizing, directing, and controlling resources to achieve specific goals.

Types of Management

There are several types of management such as human resource, operations, strategic, and project management. Each type focuses on different aspects of an organization.

Importance of Management

Management is important as it helps in achieving group goals, increases efficiency, creates a dynamic organization, helps achieve personal objectives, and contributes to the development of society.

In conclusion, management plays a crucial role in the smooth functioning and success of an organization.

Also check:

• Speech on Management

250 Words Essay on Management

Introduction to management.

Management is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses planning, organizing, directing, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals. It is the backbone of any organization, ensuring its smooth functioning and success.

The Essence of Management

Management involves strategic decision-making, which requires analytical thinking, problem-solving skills, and a deep understanding of an organization’s mission and vision. Managers must be adept at coordinating resources, including human, financial, and material, to ensure efficiency and productivity.

Management can be classified into different types, such as strategic management, operations management, human resource management, and financial management. Each type focuses on specific aspects of an organization, but all are interconnected and vital for overall success.

Role of Management in Today’s World

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, effective management is more crucial than ever. It helps organizations adapt to changes, overcome challenges, and seize opportunities. Managers must be forward-thinking, embracing innovation and encouraging creativity to drive growth and sustainability.

In conclusion, management is a dynamic and essential discipline that plays a pivotal role in the success of any organization. It requires a blend of skills, knowledge, and adaptability, and its importance cannot be overstated in today’s competitive and ever-changing business environment.

500 Words Essay on Management

Management is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses the coordination and organization of activities in an entity to achieve defined objectives. This process involves planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling organizational operations to ensure smooth, efficient, and effective functioning.

The essence of management lies in its ability to bring people together and harmonize their efforts towards a common goal. It is the backbone of any organization, providing structure and direction. Without effective management, organizations can become chaotic and directionless, leading to inefficiency and failure.

Management is not just about getting things done; it’s about getting them done right. It involves strategic thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and leadership. Managers must be able to anticipate potential problems, make informed decisions, and guide their teams towards the achievement of organizational goals.

Functions of Management

Management functions can be broadly categorized into five areas: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling. Planning involves setting goals and determining the best way to achieve them. Organizing entails arranging resources and tasks to meet those goals. Staffing involves selecting the right people for the job and assigning them their roles. Directing is about leading, motivating, and communicating with employees. Lastly, controlling involves monitoring progress towards goal achievement and making corrections when needed.

The Evolution of Management

Management as a discipline has evolved significantly over the years. The early theories of management, such as the classical and human relations approaches, focused on efficiency and motivation respectively. However, modern management theories, such as the systems approach and contingency theory, recognize the complex and dynamic nature of organizations. They emphasize adaptability, flexibility, and the importance of considering the unique characteristics of each organization.

Management in the 21st Century

In the 21st century, management faces new challenges and opportunities. The advent of technology has revolutionized the way organizations operate, necessitating managers to adapt to these changes. The rise of globalization has made cultural competence and understanding of international business environments crucial for managers. Moreover, the growing emphasis on sustainability and corporate social responsibility has made ethical management a key concern.

In conclusion, management is an essential component of any organization. It involves a wide range of activities, from planning and organizing to directing and controlling. The role of management has evolved over time, adapting to changes in the business environment. Today’s managers must be adaptable, culturally competent, technologically savvy, and ethically aware. By mastering these skills, they can guide their organizations towards success in a rapidly changing world.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Exam Stress Management
• Essay on Waste Management
• Essay on Time Management Is the Key to Success

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Organization and Structure

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There is no single organizational pattern that works well for all writing across all disciplines; rather, organization depends on what you’re writing, who you’re writing it for, and where your writing will be read. In order to communicate your ideas, you’ll need to use a logical and consistent organizational structure in all of your writing. We can think about organization at the global level (your entire paper or project) as well as at the local level (a chapter, section, or paragraph). For an American academic situation, this means that at all times, the goal of revising for organization and structure is to consciously design your writing projects to make them easy for readers to understand. In this context, you as the writer are always responsible for the reader's ability to understand your work; in other words, American academic writing is writer-responsible. A good goal is to make your writing accessible and comprehensible to someone who just reads sections of your writing rather than the entire piece. This handout provides strategies for revising your writing to help meet this goal.

Note that this resource focuses on writing for an American academic setting, specifically for graduate students. American academic writing is of course not the only standard for academic writing, and researchers around the globe will have different expectations for organization and structure. The OWL has some more resources about writing for American and international audiences here .

Whole-Essay Structure

While organization varies across and within disciplines, usually based on the genre, publication venue, and other rhetorical considerations of the writing, a great deal of academic writing can be described by the acronym IMRAD (or IMRaD): Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This structure is common across most of the sciences and is often used in the humanities for empirical research. This structure doesn't serve every purpose (for instance, it may be difficult to follow IMRAD in a proposal for a future study or in more exploratory writing in the humanities), and it is often tweaked or changed to fit a particular situation. Still, its wide use as a base for a great deal of scholarly writing makes it worthwhile to break down here.

• Introduction : What is the purpose of the study? What were the research questions? What necessary background information should the reader understand to help contextualize the study? (Some disciplines include their literature review section as part of the introduction; some give the literature review its own heading on the same level as the other sections, i.e., ILMRAD.) Some writers use the CARS model to help craft their introductions more effectively.
• Methods: What methods did the researchers use? How was the study conducted? If the study included participants, who were they, and how were they selected?
• Results : This section lists the data. What did the researchers find as a result of their experiments (or, if the research is not experimental, what did the researchers learn from the study)? How were the research questions answered?
• Discussion : This section places the data within the larger conversation of the field. What might the results mean? Do these results agree or disagree with other literature cited? What should researchers do in the future?

Depending on your discipline, this may be exactly the structure you should use in your writing; or, it may be a base that you can see under the surface of published pieces in your field, which then diverge from the IMRAD structure to meet the expectations of other scholars in the field. However, you should always check to see what's expected of you in a given situation; this might mean talking to the professor for your class, looking at a journal's submission guidelines, reading your field's style manual, examining published examples, or asking a trusted mentor. Every field is a little different.

Outlining & Reverse Outlining

One of the most effective ways to get your ideas organized is to write an outline. A traditional outline comes as the pre-writing or drafting stage of the writing process. As you make your outline, think about all of the concepts, topics, and ideas you will need to include in order to accomplish your goal for the piece of writing. This may also include important citations and key terms. Write down each of these, and then consider what information readers will need to know in order for each point to make sense. Try to arrange your ideas in a way that logically progresses, building from one key idea or point to the next.

Questions for Writing Outlines

• What are the main points I am trying to make in this piece of writing?
• What background information will my readers need to understand each point? What will novice readers vs. experienced readers need to know?
• In what order do I want to present my ideas? Most important to least important, or least important to most important? Chronologically? Most complex to least complex? According to categories? Another order?

Reverse outlining comes at the drafting or revision stage of the writing process. After you have a complete draft of your project (or a section of your project), work alone or with a partner to read your project with the goal of understanding the main points you have made and the relationship of these points to one another. The OWL has another resource about reverse outlining here.

Questions for Writing Reverse Outlines

• What topics are covered in this piece of writing?
• In what order are the ideas presented? Is this order logical for both novice and experienced readers?
• Is adequate background information provided for each point, making it easy to understand how one idea leads to the next?
• What other points might the author include to further develop the writing project?

Organizing at the sentence and paragraph level

Signposting.

Signposting is the practice of using language specifically designed to help orient readers of your text. We call it signposting because this practice is like leaving road signs for a driver — it tells your reader where to go and what to expect up ahead. Signposting includes the use of transitional words and phrasing, and they may be explicit or more subtle. For example, an explicit signpost might say:

This section will cover Topic A­­ and Topic B­­­­­.

A more subtle signpost might look like this:

It's important to consider the impact of Topic A­­ and Topic B­­­­­.

The style of signpost you use will depend on the genre of your paper, the discipline in which you are writing, and your or your readers’ personal preferences. Regardless of the style of signpost you select, it’s important to include signposts regularly. They occur most frequently at the beginnings and endings of sections of your paper. It is often helpful to include signposts at mid-points in your project in order to remind readers of where you are in your argument.

Questions for Identifying and Evaluating Signposts

• How and where does the author include a phrase, sentence, or short group of sentences that explains the purpose and contents of the paper?
• How does each section of the paper provide a brief summary of what was covered earlier in the paper?
• How does each section of the paper explain what will be covered in that section?
• How does the author use transitional words and phrases to guide readers through ideas (e.g. however, in addition, similarly, nevertheless, another, while, because, first, second, next, then etc.)?

WORKS CONSULTED

Clark, I. (2006). Writing the successful thesis and dissertation: Entering the conversation . Prentice Hall Press.

Davis, M., Davis, K. J., & Dunagan, M. (2012). Scientific papers and presentations . Academic press.

Home / Essay Samples / Business / Management

Management Essay Examples

In a management essay, one typically investigates various problems that appear in the process of managing a company, organization, or group of people. Such problems could be investigated in the context of real-world cases or of hypothetical scenarios but in both instances, the author draws on established knowledge in the corresponding professional field.

Obviously, this is highly useful in an academic setting when training young managers, leaders, future business founders, as it teaches them correct decision making based on an appropriate interpretation of facts, the art of working with people. Essays on business management vary greatly in structure depending on the specific task – review the samples below to gain an impression of the corresponding content, structure, and writing style.

The Qualities of a Good Leader: Vision, Empathy, and Resilience

Leadership is a multifaceted and indispensable aspect of human society. Whether in the realms of business, politics, education, or community, the qualities of a good leader play a pivotal role in guiding teams, organizations, and nations towards success and progress. In this essay, we will...

My Leadership Experience in College

College life is not just about academics; it's also an opportunity to develop essential life skills, including leadership. During my time in college, I had the privilege of engaging in various leadership roles and experiences that profoundly shaped my personal and professional growth. In this...

The Importance of Decision Making in Personal Life and Work

Decision making is a fundamental aspect of our lives, influencing the paths we take, the opportunities we seize, and the outcomes we achieve. Whether in personal matters or professional contexts, the choices we make have far-reaching consequences. This essay explores the significance of decision making,...

Why I Want to Participate in a Leadership Program

Leadership is not merely a title or a position; it is a journey of personal and professional growth. As I reflect on my aspirations and the path I envision for my future, I find myself drawn to the opportunity to participate in a leadership program....

What Does Leadership Mean to You: My Perspective

When asked the question, "What does leadership mean to you?" my mind navigates through a landscape of experiences, values, and beliefs. Leadership, to me, is not merely a position or a title; it's a multifaceted concept that encompasses qualities, actions, and responsibilities that inspire, guide,...

Exploring the Difference Between Management and Leadership

In the realm of organizational dynamics, two pivotal concepts, management and leadership, play distinct but interrelated roles. This essay delves into the nuanced difference between management and leadership, exploring their unique characteristics, approaches, and their collective impact on the success and growth of individuals and...

Nurturing Leadership: the Notion that "A Leader is Made, not Born"

The debate over whether leaders are born with innate qualities or whether leadership is a skill that can be developed has long captivated scholars, thinkers, and practitioners alike. The saying that "a leader is made, not born" encapsulates the belief that leadership is a craft...

What Does Customer Service Mean to Me: a Personal Perspective

Customer service, a vital component of any successful business or organization, holds a unique significance in my understanding of effective interpersonal interactions and organizational excellence. In this essay, I will share my perspective on what customer service means to me, exploring its core values, its...

Should the Rich Be Taxed More: a Balanced Perspective

The debate surrounding whether the wealthy should be subjected to higher taxes is a contentious issue that sparks conversations about economic equity, social responsibility, and the role of government. In this essay, we will explore both sides of the argument, considering the reasons for and...

Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Accounting

The realm of accounting is not only about numbers; it is also a domain where ethical decisions hold significant weight. Accountants often find themselves facing ethical dilemmas that demand careful consideration and a deep understanding of professional responsibilities. This essay explores the complexities of ethical...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

• Outsourcing
• Public Relations
• Internal Control
• Cost Accounting
• Balance Sheet
• Accounting Software
• Management Accounting
• Change Management
• Risk Assessment
• Customer Relationship Management
• Conflict Management
• Management By Objectives
• Performance Management
• Total Quality Management
• Working Capital Management
• Balanced Scorecard
• Time Management
• Comparative Analysis
• Business Ethics
• Decision Making
• Customer Service
• Project Management
• Leadership and Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Risk Management
• Knowledge Management
• Scientific Management
• Quality Management
• Dispute Resolution
• Strategic Management
• Human Resource Management
• Corporate Governance
• HR Management
• Corporations
• Entrepreneurship

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->