"There is nothing more practical than a good theory." Lenin (1918) Peter Drucker (1956).
“The theories of direction are indispensable. Practice without theory is a dangerous exercise, no less risky than an inadequate theory. ”- Makridakis.
Managers are characterized by being practical people, they have little time and have to make decisions constantly, often guided more by experience and intuition than by the analysis of systematized information.
Minztberg, in his “stopwatch in hand” research on what five CEOs did for two weeks, which was the basis for formulating his theory on “managerial roles,” found that “…
their activities are characterized by brevity, variety and discontinuity, they are strongly oriented towards action and do not like reflective activities… ”. Years later, Kotter did a similar investigation reaching similar conclusions "… the work of those who lead is characterized by a great variety, a lot of intensity and little time to think…".
Makridakis laments that "… the single most important task normally neglected in management is learning…". According to Stoner "… managers get impatient when studying theories, which they think are things of the past…".
For these reasons, his reaction to the theories is understandable. They are very sincere in admitting it, when you are going to give them a managerial development program they tell you: "Professor, we don't want theory, what we need are practical things."
With great respect, I try to explain to them that theories are not speculations by specialists to make life difficult for managers.
I refer to the quote that leads this work and I comment that it caught my attention that two thinkers of such different ideologies coincided: Lenin, founder of the first socialist state in the world and; Peter Drucker, the main ideologue of the "management" of developed capitalism.
What are theories?
Theories are nothing more than generalizations of practice, interpretations that specialists make about what happens.
Regarding management theories, Stoner offers the following definition: "Coherent group of assumptions that are presented to explain the relationship between two or more observable events and provide a solid basis for predicting future events."
In this, and in any other definition, three aspects can be highlighted: the "assumptions", which is the "theoretical framework", the conceptual systems from which the one who formulates the theory starts to interpret what he has observed (or studied); the "observable facts", which are the events that any other person can verify and; finally, the "predictions", which expresses the possibility that the theory helps us to predict what may happen in the future.
Theories do not always fulfill all these aspects. Sometimes the "assumptions" are not convincing or shared by all; the "facts" that have been taken as a basis are not easily "observable." The possibility that it helps us to "predict the future" is the most questionable aspect, in a world characterized by the speed of change.
In the case of management theories, Weirich, a close collaborator of Koontz, author of the first text used to teach management, now deceased, points out that until the 1950s the main contributions did not come from academics but from empirical specialists.
Only in the last four or five decades has there been "… a veritable flood of research and work from academic campuses…". Weirich laments the enormous variety of approaches to management analysis, the vast amount of research and the considerable number of divergent opinions that have resulted in “… a terrible confusion about what is management, what are theory and science of the administration…".
Despite this, which Koontz called "the jungle of administrative theories", all specialists consider that administration is a mixture of science and art. Art is given in the ability to do the right things, depending on a specific situation and moment.
"Even so - Weirich emphasizes - administrators will work better if they make use of organized knowledge about administration, which is what constitutes science."
Why study administration?
To the question Why study administration? Robbins responds:
First, because we all have a permanent interest in improving the way organizations are managed, because we interact with them every day of our lives. Well-run organizations serve their customers better, and we are all customers, Robbins says.
Second, because when you start your career, at some point you may have to manage something or it will be managed by someone.
In summary, we are interested in knowing these things:
1. as a client of the organizations
2. as a potential subject of the process (administrator)
3. as a possible object (to be administered)
In these simple answers, administration can be identified as the processes through which resources and people are organized and directed to produce goods and services, in which we are all involved in some way.
The factors that intervene, the processes that are executed, the interrelationships that are established and the possible effects of all this are the things that are expressed in the management theories that, of course, are influenced by the interpretation of the one who formulates it.
On the need for leadership, Carlos Marx, in El Capital, said:
“All direct social or collective work on a large scale requires to a greater or lesser extent a direction that establishes a harmonious link between the various individual activities and executes the general functions that arise from the movements of the total productive organism, unlike those carried out by the individual organs. A violinist only conducts himself, but an orchestra needs a conductor ”.
Why study management theories?
To the question, why study management theory? Stoner responds that, for at least four reasons, which are summarized below.
Theories guide administrative decisions.
The study of theory contributes to the understanding of the processes on which the leader works. With this knowledge, you can choose the most suitable course of action. Theories, as generalizations from practice, allow us to predict what will happen in certain situations. "With this knowledge - concludes Stoner - we can apply different theories to different situations..".
Theories make up our concept of management.
The study of management theories allows us to identify where ideas about organizations and the people within them come from.
The theory of scientific management, which was the basis of the organization of chain production, in the first plant of Ford, where man was virtually an extension of the machine, started from considering that the worker was another piece, that its function was limited to the use of its physical energies.
Later studies, which gave rise to theories of the behavioral sciences, recognized that productivity was influenced by the interaction between people and that their participation in the production process could be increased if, in addition to their physical energies, they applied their minds and they participated in decision-making processes.
Theories help to understand the field of business.
When the evolution of management theories is studied, it is understood how these are the product of changes that have occurred in the environment in which organizations operate, influenced by technological, economic, social and political factors. This knowledge helps to understand why certain theories are appropriate for certain circumstances. This explains why the Taylorist approach, which prevailed in the early years of the 20th century, was valid in a situation where skilled labor was in short supply. But, which would be counterproductive, in conditions of a workforce with higher qualification levels and expectations.
Theories are the source of new ideas.
Theories give the opportunity to consider different ways of seeing and doing things. Therefore, they must be assumed as stimuli to thought. Stoner alerts us that no theory predominates in this field.
In contrast, the eclectic approach, the habit of taking principles from different theories as circumstances require, is very common in managerial theory and practice.
"Therefore - concludes Stoner - it is necessary to keep an open mind and become familiar with each of the main theories that currently coexist".
Regardless of the limitations that a theory may present, it always offers us the possibility of understanding phenomena, interpreting events and processes that, if the theory did not exist, it would be more difficult for us to explain.
Two of the topics that I work on in executive development, motivation and leadership programs are among the most prolific in the amount of theories that have been generated. Some with a broad evidence and research base, others with less “scientific consistency”.
However, it is difficult to do without any when studying these topics. Maslow is criticized that his theory of the "Pyramid of needs" does not have enough empirical evidence to support it. However, no one who works on the subject of motivation can do without analyzing it.
When I work on one of these two topics, after analyzing the formulations of the main theories, the groups try to identify what each of these theories can serve us in our environment. We always come to two conclusions:
1-None of the theories helps us to interpret, in a complete way, our realities.
2-In all theories there is "something that serves us." None of the theories, including Maslow's, is completely dismissed.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that, regardless of the limitations they may present and the dissatisfaction with which they leave us to understand some things, management theories are not “abstractions or things of the past”.
They are interpretations of the management processes that help to understand many things. At worst, they help to develop a professional culture about one of the most important activities in any society.
