Theories of Management
Most theories of management communication add insights to help us relate to our employees effectively. Many of these theories are complimentary to each other. On some level, all management theories are about communication by definition. The best way of understanding the theories of management is by understanding management as a lower level component of leading, and as Johnson and Hackman (2018) note, understanding leading from a communication perspective. As you read about these theories, try to think about what your management style might be. You can learn a lot about yourself by analyzing your style. How does your style affect your communication and your employees? Once you understand yourself, you can better understand your employees. Your textbooks provide you with a wide variety of theories to explore.
Theory X and Theory Y are two of the oldest theories. Theory X basically suggests that people have to be made to work because if they were given the choice, they would rather play. Theory Y on the other hand says that work is as “natural as play.” Theory X says that employees need to be directed while Theory Y indicates that employees will naturally provide self-direction which will be profitable to the company. Theory X suggests that people avoid responsibility while Theory Y indicates that employees will naturally seek and enjoy responsibility. Theory X proposes that people are motivated by money, while Theory Y indicates that people can be motivated by work itself. I am sure that you have read about these theories in other classes. Which theory makes the most sense to you?
How do these theories affect the communication of the manager? In the right situation, most of us would probably have to admit that we enjoy working. We were literally created to work. But it is possible to have a manager which does not recognize that his employees enjoy working.
When Ouchi studied the Japanese management style, he described it as Theory Z. In the Japanese culture, college graduates are courted by the best businesses and they stay with those companies throughout their lives. They are advanced by their seniority and not by their productivity or creativity. They often work from 7 in the morning until 7 at night. Then the men go to the local pub and drink while discussing issues at work. You can see how this puts the women at a disadvantage. The communication mandate of this culture id that work influences everything you do in your lives. Now while this theory sounds interesting, it is impractical in the American Culture because few Americans are willing to make that sacrifice—to give their entire lives to a company. Most Americans prefer to keep to maintain some kind of personal life.
Fred Fiedler Contingency theory is interesting because he suggests that it does not matter what kind of leader you are as long as your leadership style matches your leadership situation. In other words, if your management position is not working, it is because the job doesn’t match your style. I like that perspective. If you need to be more productive, you need to change the situation not you. After all it is much easier to change the situation than to change yourself. We are not easily changed.
Fielder says that there are two types of leaders: high task and high relationship. He called these styles Low LPCs (task leader) and High LPC (relationship leader.) LPC stands for least preferred coworker. After all, we only have one LPC. There is only one person that we would least prefer to have on our team, have as an employee, or worst yet, have as a boss. Who we select as our least preferred co-worker tells us more about ourselves than it does about that person. For example, if we see the LPC in totally negative terms, we are so concerned about the task that when someone does not help us accomplish the task, we believe that everything about him is negative. High LPCs do not see their least preferred coworker so negatively. While they do not want to work with him or her, but they believe their LPC has some redeeming characteristics. They differentiate between the task and the person; they are more relationship oriented. This about how these styles affects communication.
The fascinating prediction about Fielder’s Theory is that it doesn’t matter what kind of leader you are, it just matters if you are in a situation which matches your leadership style. A Low LPC works effectively in a situation where everything is going well. The task is clear. The people are happy and he has a lot of power. He also works well in a situation where everything is going poorly because in that bad situation he will carry the load all by himself in order to accomplish the task. The High LPC works well in the intermediate situation where he has a few challenges to keep him interested. He becomes bored if everything is going well. He becomes frustrated if he has too many challenges. So if the leadership style matches the leadership situation, performance is maximized. The High LPC enjoyed communicating through challenges while the Low LPC enjoys communicating so he can work effectively.
Heresey and Blanchard’s theory suggests that the leader needs to match his management style to his employees. For example, if you have employees that have low abilities and low willingness to work, you are going to have to tell them or direct them to do their jobs. On the other hand if you have employees with high abilities and a high willingness to work, you should simply delgate your authority to your employees empowering them. If you have employees who are willing but have low abilities, you will need to support them. They need guidance. Finally if you have employees with great skills, but are not willing to work, you need to promote their involvement by coaching them and by selling the job to them.In each case, you communicate with the four types of employees differently.
In every theory, the communication is influenced by the styles of the various employees and managers.
(Adapted from Dr. Melody Hufman)