The role of a manager is an organisational behaviour concept that has a contradicting debate going on between theorists and academics. Some thinkers say that the role of a manager should be to control their employees whereas others say that a motivational style of management would be better for the organisation. This piece will examine the argument in more detail by concentrating on authors with different points of view and why they believe their opinion on the role of a manager is correct. Then I will focus on why this debate exists and whether or not there is a best way to manage employees.
Heavey et al (2011) investigated the best way to enhance employee performance. To test whether trust of managers leads to employee commitment and …show more content…
They also discuss the ethical issues surrounding punishment and how the degree of control a manager has effects the severity of punishment they give out. In this sense Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) contrast to Heavey et al (2011) and Parkes et al (2007) who did not consider power and control as a form of management anymore. However there is a similarity in a sense with Parkes et al (2007) when they discussed the importance of implementing strategies correctly. This is because although Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) focus on punishment they state that this strategy can be risky if employees view the punishment as inappropriate it can damage manager’s status and could end up being counterproductive to organisational productivity. Employee solidarity could also be a problem if one worker thinks another has been treated unfairly. These observations also support the theory that it does not matter what the management strategy is if it is implemented correctly it will …show more content…
Hauff et al (2014) tested the high control system against the high commitment system to discover what had the greatest effect on organisational performance. Hauff et al (2014) also suggests a contingency approach where what system is used depends on various factors such as external and internal context, size of the organisation, business strategy and the resources available. Hauff et al (2014) also states that a mix of both approaches could be beneficial to organisations. In this sense Hauff et al (2014) is in agreement Heavey et al (2011), Goddard (2011), Parkes et al (2007) and Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) as they incorporate and bring together all their ideas in their work and do not dismiss any approach to management. Hauff et al (2014) agrees with Parkes et al (2007) when they discuss the need for full management support to commitment systems for them to work. Hauff et al (2014) also agreed with Goddard (2010) when they concluded that high commitment systems had little impact on organisational performance suggesting that it was no better than control systems. Goddard (2010) also supports Hauff et al (2014)’s idea that there is no way best to manage workers it is organisational context that determines which approach is best when he made the observation that the way in which workers respond to management approaches varies
Heavey et al (2011) investigated the best way to enhance employee performance. To test whether trust of managers leads to employee commitment and …show more content…
They also discuss the ethical issues surrounding punishment and how the degree of control a manager has effects the severity of punishment they give out. In this sense Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) contrast to Heavey et al (2011) and Parkes et al (2007) who did not consider power and control as a form of management anymore. However there is a similarity in a sense with Parkes et al (2007) when they discussed the importance of implementing strategies correctly. This is because although Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) focus on punishment they state that this strategy can be risky if employees view the punishment as inappropriate it can damage manager’s status and could end up being counterproductive to organisational productivity. Employee solidarity could also be a problem if one worker thinks another has been treated unfairly. These observations also support the theory that it does not matter what the management strategy is if it is implemented correctly it will …show more content…
Hauff et al (2014) tested the high control system against the high commitment system to discover what had the greatest effect on organisational performance. Hauff et al (2014) also suggests a contingency approach where what system is used depends on various factors such as external and internal context, size of the organisation, business strategy and the resources available. Hauff et al (2014) also states that a mix of both approaches could be beneficial to organisations. In this sense Hauff et al (2014) is in agreement Heavey et al (2011), Goddard (2011), Parkes et al (2007) and Wiltermuth and Flynn (2013) as they incorporate and bring together all their ideas in their work and do not dismiss any approach to management. Hauff et al (2014) agrees with Parkes et al (2007) when they discuss the need for full management support to commitment systems for them to work. Hauff et al (2014) also agreed with Goddard (2010) when they concluded that high commitment systems had little impact on organisational performance suggesting that it was no better than control systems. Goddard (2010) also supports Hauff et al (2014)’s idea that there is no way best to manage workers it is organisational context that determines which approach is best when he made the observation that the way in which workers respond to management approaches varies