What is management? In recent years, a number of schools or approaches to management have evolved. What is rather upsetting to the manager is that there are a variety of unrelated approaches without any sug^tion of their relationship to each other. Even more upsetting is that some of these approaches seem to be based on the disciplines of particular researchers rather than their ability to help managers. The study explores the rationale underlying two predominant orientations. One is concerned with the proc«s of management, while the other emphasizes the function of management. The managerial process involves such intuitive principles as planning, organizing, and staffing. The managerial function involves arranging equipment to perform functions such as procurement, production, and adaptation. The goal is to illustrate the relationship of these approaches to each other and to specific managerial needs.

The study was conducted among tiop managers in six municipal organizations. The research utilized a questiormaire and decision-making simulation for gathering data on the relationship of each managerial orientation. The results indicate that each orientation deals with different areas of managerial action. Key managerial processes focus on integrating, making decisions, recording information, motivating, imd negotiating. The managerial functions, in this study, are part of three subsystem efforts which are administrative, adaptive, and technical. When management is defined as a process, it has no relationship to functions; when it is defined as functions of specific subsystems, there is no positive relationship to the process. (ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; MANAGERLU- PROCESS; MANAGERIAL FUNC- TION)

1. iBtrodoction

Two predominant definitions of management emerge from the literature. One suggests that management is a process hinging on a set of integrating principles, while die other states that managers perform functions which are important to different subsystrans. A manager concerned with the mana^rial process utilizes a number of intuitive principles in performing such processes as planning, organizing, and staffing m order that he can respond to many of the day-to-day fvoblems and ensure that equipment, muipower, and materials are available and useful. The second definition suggests dmt a manager focuses on specific outputs utilizing industrial engineoing and woik-study methods for deagning and arranging equipment and jobs to perfcHin certain organizational functions. A manager’s focus on outputs implies that there are specific functk>ns to cany out In time, these functions cr«te thdr own mechani»ns for growdi and suppcMt; they b^in to develop an aî >aratus for operating as subsystems rather than a total system. Thus, the function of management production may hecomt important fen’ its own purposes and b e ^ to operate in isolation from the needs of the other.

The Managerial Process.

The m(»e abstract managemmt process, tased on tte initial works of H«m Fayol, suggests that mana^rs p«f(Hin a number of adm^tistntive proceses suiA as planning, organimg, staffing, budgeting, coordinatii^ and c«ntT(dling ([21,[14],[330. Sev««l managonent writers list a lar^ variety of mana^ial pnKesses whkA enlarge aod etoborate the expoiaica of managers Cr7],[10],[12],(13],(29H32D- Generally, these studies hig^il^t tiw laasaec^s perception of tite nature ol his job. Some discuss how a mana^r speiuis his tme Q4],[6],[20],{29],p0],l42D, while others describe die rdative importance of die kind of job, the nature of the (vganization, and the pastmality in determining how the jotdicrider bdiaves ([5H10], [23]). Time aie also a group of management studin, drawii^ from die human rdati<ms literature, whidi surest that mani^ement is a pcocess of g e t ^ diings doM through peojiie ([1],[24],[25]).

pmeess <rf mam^euMnt is MHKenwd widi «^uiizitig ei^iRwiice in otd^ diat prustices may be . We can wKtostand and team to apply Out aiost ^ective managoDmt practices if we study die

of succe^ul managoi. At sud^ tte process <rf maaagaoent c«»Maes many cwmms, conventirais, and haUts as its baas for imfnoving adninistratitm.

* A c c ^ e d l^ Ark Y. Lewin; recoved M y 1976. This pqso’ has been with die audun-16 mcmOs for 3

or Victoria. « 7

0<E5-1909/79/2507/065’«01.25 CopyritM e 1979, HW laMiiiilc of MuMCHBaBt Sacaca


The effectiveness of various mana^rial processes depends <m die degree to which the individual manager’s prindp^ are useful for setting pwls <rf die organization ([7], [9, pp. 70-71], [15], [26, pp. 296-368], [34]). A manager is m<»t effective when his intutios and {mndpies ot cperatxm are successful in establishing plans, polides, procedures, and rules to govern the execution of the woric. Important {xriiKafdes might relate to his flexibility, responsiveness, or clarity in performing the many jnvcesses. This imjriies that effectivenns depends upon whedier die princqdes utilized were relevant for thiMe involved.

7%e Mtmagerial Function.

Tlie writings of Frederick Taykn^ are some of die original works which describe the sdentific functioning of mana^ment On the surface, management scientists endeavour to find the c^timal relationshq> between equipment and the individuals operating it This often results in rules and procedures whidi describe die most efficient method of production. This emphaas is now prominent in the methods used by industrial engineers and c^)erations researchers ([43], [44]).

Modem management science focuses mostly on the production function. The goat is to construct a set of opo’ations where ideas and plans can be convnted automatically into action as well as fini^ed products.

It may be possible to define the basic function of a managerial system with refnence to production. There are indications that a manager has other functions to perform and must design and anrange jobs and equipment for them. According to Aursons, every social system must fulfiU those functicms of adapting to the environment, fulfilling goals, int^rating, and maintjining it^tf [35]. Pflffner and Sherwood view the formal oi^mization as a central system involving sociometric, functional, decision-making, power making, and communicating overlays [38]. Katz and Kahn define the oi^anization’s functioning with reflect to production, maintenance, support, adaptation, and management [22, p. 39]. These varied apfH-oaches seem to suggest that the [»’oblem of identifying functions and subsystems can be af^>roached in many ways.

The processes and functions of management play an important role in its ovoall d^nition. This relationship is evident in Figure 1. The diagram suggests that mani^ement involves inputs of people, materials, resources, and equipment which systematically relate to certain process^ and functions.

The managerial processes are concemed with the administration of inputs, while the managerial functions are concemed with how inputs produce outputs which are important to specific functions. The processes are usually designed by individuals having experience or knowledge in management This t j ^ of design views management as an “art.” The principles used to help the organization are viewed as rational [28] based on a manager’s intuitions and perceptions.

The managerial functions are concemed with prescribing q>ecific operations, procedures, and standards for achieving outputs. The functions of management are usually designed dirou^ resMrch into the organization’s (^)erations. They cuhninate in technical procedures he^nng the organization become more functionally rational [28]. Hiis is based on the ability to achieve output

(Examptes of inputs are


Managerial Processes (tiamd on a manager s ifituitton and principtes tn applytng the pnxasses)

(EMamples of the mana- gerial fvocess are

(banning organising


Managerial Functions

systems ormnmion growing out ot ftte functions perfonrwd)

(Output usuaify amrve organizatior}al limc- tionssuchas-

production. maintattmtce. adaptation.

FIGURE 1. Hie Processes and Functimis ol Maaagonent

Reiettrck Questions.

The rdati(Hid# between die processes a« l fuaditms d managwnntt is aot dearfy underwood, a i thm^ thoe H a g iowi^ bodty oi mearch descittsag’how some maiu^erial pmcestes affect tpedHc f ([45],[46S. These studies do not pron/iie aa ^iderstaading ct the (wcndi rdatic^Aqw (rf m processes a«l fuiMrtifHis.

Thu paper ex^f3^es the isqiUcati<His of e*di defiai&m oi maaagemeat l^ re^^xmtt^ to dw

interliaked1. Ate the processes perfo^Md hy f unctimis the maaag» patortml This qwstimi

As maaagm cany out te procen oi

y widi eadi othn aad wUk Oe dw raaufHial jxoeess k ttdy aa

evtOwtioa oi dtat prooen woidd


important to other proceses. Thus, the managerial process is not composed of a number ctf independent procKses. It is hypothesized that die priiicq>les and hunches facilitating die managerial process mi^t be inter-rdated to each other and to the functions performed.

2. Are the functions performed by management jait of speafic subsystnns? This question suggests that the functions adc^t the characteristics ot the subsystems widi recurrent cycles of inputs and ou4>uts.

As managers carry out the functions of procurement of resources, production, and strat^ic bargaining, their woric becomes diffnentiated into subsystons that are relatively independent of each other. The production system might grow out of die major work being done while die administrative sub^stem might become dkected at procurement and disposal of resources. Hie location of a subsystos requires an understanding of how the inputs, process, and ou^uts are fulfiiUng specific functions.

A subsystem is defined by its aUUty to develop a structure with norms and characteristi(» of operating. It is characterized by processes that restrict die type of inputs used and the outputs developed. Consequently, the managerial subsystems of any organization should consist of its own distinct functions, discrete processes, and principles that help it to operate.

In summary, this paper will disclose the relationship between the processes aad die fuactioas performed by management One question sugg^ts that this relationship can be understood by the intuition and principles of individual managers. The second question suggests that die systonic character of a manager’s work is derived from the functions a manager performs. The implication of each ^>proach to conceptual- izing management is also discussed.

2. Design <rf the Study This study was conducted in six municipal organizations in Southern California, serving communities

ranging in size from 25,000 to 250,000 readents. Research data and subjective judgments were obtained from top and middle management officials of each governmental department and, in some cases, from important community members who were knowledgeable about the functions of the local government system.

The research involved sevea key groups of personnel participating in a simulation of municipal decision-making during a crisis. The organization’s dq>artment heads, with dieir immediate assistants, participated in the study. Members of nongovernmental public organizations such as the chief administra- tor of the h<»pitals, the heads of public utility companin (gas, water, electricity) and Red Cross representatives, also attended. Hie number of participants in the simulations varied from 20 to 150. Data was collected from only the chief decision-makers (iV • 112 for aU six organizations).

The Design of the Simulation Game.

Steering committees, representing a cross section of personnel in each organization, were teqjonsible for designing the simulation and facilitating the researdi. They varied in size from five to twenty-five participants. The committee proved invaluable for gathraing data, designing the simulation, and overcom- ii^; redstance to the r^earch.

Each simulation lasted af^roximately three htrars aad was followed by a one-hour critique. During the simulation, die (qierational room was equij^ied with status maps, telefrfiones, incident logs, and furniture arranged to facilitate menage flow aad coordinaticm <rf departa^atal decision-making. Participants were allowed to m^aaize diemselves and rearrange any of die matoials. It was exi^ained that proUems would be relayed to them from thdr ^partmental <^ces via tdephon^ w messengers. Each (Apartment was warned that certain prolrtems woidd ovortax dieir resources and that diey were reqxHisible for estiaiating the severity of the prtMem, ntablidting iniorities, aad optimizing thor use (rf resources.

Problems came to the dedacm-makers from die steering committee «4iidi was situated in aaodier location. Hie steering committee members repiesrated die various d^tartmeats’ olTices whose pr<Atems were relayed to tte chief decisioa-makers. After the decisimi-makers had auufe a deciaoa, thqr rdayed mMsages to the steoiag ccnmnittee as if d^y woe contactii^ t l ^ deputmaOs. The memben ci the committee thea detamiaed if die dedsoas would be inapiemtated and provided feedbadc to die dedskHi- makers. Meatvts.

At aeted earlier, two auyw ccnurtnicte WH« eoqrfoyed potaiaiag to the procenes aad die f oK^kms poformed t^ maai^ei^ait A <peMkMmBe aad tea ^tiwd ttma tbe Mmola&ni erf maaagoiid ilei»oa- mddag wae die bam tot the data etUeetioa.. Tte ipiestxauaire laearared ̂ e maai^a’s poceptkMi <tf the effemvoMH d tte proceH ot mtmagatneAt dwaig te n«dati«». Dimi oa die aaaagn’s fuactimuag wu c«41ectcd by asMtsB^ lww te aiaia^ers had naed ttor resMBces to deal widi ^ imMoBs preteatod.

Tke ^Ms^oiuwte was dewdoped kom imerviem wUh tap level c^dais (N^SS) ia thne amilar Tte iasuetnemeeti w«e adced to ideatfy ttiMe pmeemea (widi ikmr omtalyi^ prmdpies)

ftat t^gifficMillsr wrtMiicwf Aeir o^aoatiiaml cffiecttvcaest. Twca^^one tens w o e HanWed oa Iht ^jaei^mat^m. I t o s , ^nt iteoa on ^ qaai^kfimtax* £ d IMM tniqrty Sn ammigaM ptocewei, bat te prtaeqdes i^icilyteg ftera.


The questionnaire used a modified form of the Likert scale. Re^ondents were asked to identify, cm a scale from 0 to 100, dieir percq>tion of the levd at which specific manaj^rial processes were exhibited. The manager’s pen^tioa was used as a measure of the managerial process because of the need to try to understand the highly sul^ective principle and intuitions managers use.

Once the questionnaire was administered, the task became one of selecting and understanding the basic dements of the managnial process which were the mcKt reliable and representative. Pearson correlations were performed, using the individual as the unit of analysis, to identify die cat^ories diat appeared to be the most summary indicators of the managerial process. The selection of cat^ories was l»sed on two criteria: (I) how the measure correlated with other items; and (2) assessment of those cate^ries that seemed most reliable. Altematively, tictoi analysis might have been utili^d. Due to the h i ^ correlation between measures, it was considered preferable to select several representative measures and preserve their intrinsic meaning. This approadi was taken rather than titmslatii^ die sqiarate items into composite factors.

Etata on the managerial functions summarized the manager’s use of resources in responding to the problems occurring during the simulation. The simulated problems ranged from fires, cave-ins, broken water and gas mains, to major industrial ei^losions and collapses of large hotels or ho^itals. Hw simulation was designed so diat each departinent, if it acted according to its standard {mxxdures, wouid run out of resources within one hour. Managers were forced to set priorities for their use d resources and to devise a new set of operational responses.

The effectiveness of a managerial function is the way managers use their resources. Four functions of management were chosen to represent effective functioning during disasters.

(a) O^iability to Adapt. An organization’s ability to adapt to its environment is an indication of each department’s availability of resources for handling problems. For analysis, each organization was divided into seven dq>artments: City Management Police, Fire, Public Works and Engineering, Community Services, Public Health, and Public Utilities. The capability to respond includes a summary of the possible problems occurring in each department’s relationship with its environment and a survey of the available resources within each department Two types of problems were measured: (i) those causing material damage and (ii) those involving life and death. Hiis distinction was necessary because different resources would usually be required to handle each of these types <A problems.

If one department had insufficient resources, while other departments had ample resoitfoes, the organi- zation’s overall capability wouid be less than desirable. This woiiid indicate that the top-\e\t\ decision- makers had failed to estimate die problems of each department and had not allocated rraouic^ to handle them.

(b) Efficiency. Efficiency is genwally measured by die ratio of ou^uts (retiims, benefits) to inputs (costs). This assumes that die organization has inputs, a production process, and ouq>uts. In this study, it is used to measure the manager’s ability to use his resources in assessing the ratios between the benefits of success and the cost oi resources expended. It is desirable to design procedures which embody both resource utilization and cost effectiveness. Cost-effective procedures had been dedgned for all problems. Some of these procedures were the result of agreements between management aad labor, while others were designed from studies on the utilization of manpower and equipment

The manager’s most effident response woukl be to allocate resources according to the standard procedures. When there is an exce^ive demand for resources, the manager must be able to re^xmd to the proUems with the highnt potential retum. Minimizing the resources allocated may be costly ia tstixe disastrous problems, but may be desirable for {m)biems of low priority. AccOTdin|̂ y, the ^ ident mani^er must allocate his resources to the problems whae there is potmtiid for achkviag the highest payoffs.

(c) Productivity. Productivity, unlike effickncy, is more concemed with the quantity d outputs pro- duced. In this study, it is a imasure of the total number of i»t>bl«iK n»olved (M- lives saved, without Kgard to the Mist of the resources used (inputs). A aiaaagn’ could ensure that IK is msse productive 1^ iacieaang the number of mowces allocated to a problem, di««by cxeatiag a hi^ier ou^rat This is based on the assuaif^oa that an w^mizatimi’s survival is dqjoi^at cm its abiUty to i»odiKe maitoaUe pnxtocts and outputs.

(d) Bvptining. A fourth criterion of a maaagn-‘s fuacticming is his ability b> baigaia tot resources in aa eaviroaiaent ctmtaiaing a number of oth» maaagNs, eadi with diffomt otgectives. A taaaager wiio te enKtive ia batgaiaiag dioald aot m d i k s ^ ei^cMt his abiUty Mi get res^iroes, as he k l&dy to iadte oippotaskm. Tim caaad«ntioB si^gests tbat a maaager’s ofKiiimai ^ectivoiess a u ^ be at aemt pout whore tibeie is stffl a substaatial | ^ tox other awmagers t t e o ^ baigaaiag as^ coopcnrikw. The mxaagtt’% bargainii^ c^wd^ty is die n l » betwea Ae actml r^idts titomq^ »»Tg»i«t»nB and coopemlkn with Ae o]Hiffial l e ^ t s iriudi coidd have beat acfatewed & n ^ ^ aaion ak»ie. It seag» diat baigtii^g is

maiA dt^ieu^oA oe Ae sevoity <rf tte ]»«4riaa. A« a vaxM, b«gaimig oqpaMity was for probl»is d m t e n l iteawge a ^ ]m>bl«sas ravtrtvog Mfe aM dMttu

The maw^w’s elEeetivmess, ia ths tfwiy, is a temsaxt d Vs ikSaXy to perfeoB taKtions Mranc ^luetett it a Ink of

twmwiwwMS d eMrgy turawMl die f o ^ t i c ^ pcrfonwd. AaamaSa^ 4 w qHe«»B a Ail


study relates to whether the mana^rial functions are made up of processes important to the operation of the subsystem.

Canonical corrdations were used to analyze the relationship between die four managerial functions and twenty-one processes. This method was chosen because the long-rtin goal was to discover if the factors emerpng had any relationship to independent managerial functions and processes.

In summary, two analytical methods were used to respond to the questions posed at die beginning of the article. One method (Pearson correlation) summarizes the interrelationships of individual processes and functions, while the second method (Canonical correlation) describes the systemic rationale underlying the proems and functions. The goal is to observe the relationshii» between the processes and functions of management using analytical methods suited to each orientation.

3. Managem^it as Interrelated Proc^ses and Functions

Most aspects of management are historically thought of in isolation to others. A manager’s work is characterized by brevity, variety, and fragmentation ([30], [39], [47]). The functions and processes of management are often characterized as highly indq>endent and unrelated ([21], [22], [32], [33]), although there have been attempts to categorize them {30]. The relationship between functions or processes can be highly subjective as it is based on managers’ prindples and intuitions. The set of relationships, presented in Table I, is an indication of how various managerial processes and functions interrelate. A summary of this table is presented in Figure 2.

It is immediately evident that most managerial functions and processes are not intercorrelated. However, one significant correlation does suggest that the system’s productivity is inversely related to the ejqilidt definition of roles, job descriptions, and functions. These findings and others ([11],[19]) suggest that highly specified rotes and job descriptions may increase monotony and inflexibility, and decrease productivity ai l ] , [19]).

The four managerial functions are often negatively related to each other. This suggats that the resources allocated to one fuiKstion may inhibit the manager’s effectiveness in another function. It may also suggest that certain manageri^ functions are completely unrelated to the effectiveness of others. Howevo-, a positive rdationship between the functions of producing and maintaining efficiency does exist Understand- ably, these functions are linked because bodi are conconed with production. Efficiency during production would affect the quantity of output over a long period of time. The relaticmships between minor and major problems (for the functions of responding and bargaining) are a possible indication of the similarities of these measures.

The managerial processes may be divided into five groups which have some paraild to those defined in other studies ([31], [32]). The primary group is made up of processes concemed with communication and coordination. Th^e processes are, with few exceptions, highly related to all the other procen^. They might be called “core processes” as they are concemed widi the manager’s own ability to provide day-to-day information to meet immediate needs. This sug^ts that one of the main dements of management is to obtain and transfer informaticm. A manager must integrate the information coming to him and use it to define roles, responsibilites, procedure or plans for how the or^uiization is to fimction. Hiis is a process of int^vtion rather than of direction [31, pp. 67-75].

The second groiq> of processes might be labelled decision-making. The decision processes are signifi- candy related to die core {H-ocesses of coordinaticm. Impcntaat parts of any decision process seem to be flexibility in implementation, re^xmse, participation, and evahiation. Althou^ there may be other processM imp<mant to decision-nuJdng, these seem to indicate that deddon-making is aot a discrete process a31],[40, pp. 77-94]).

The third category of processes, iirformation reccHding, is coacen»d with devekq>ing records to meet legal r«)uiremaits, as well as organizational and mdividuid needs. The iaf(Mraiati(m recordist process^ a n prtrimbly mcne concerned with the ^theriag of historical and i^r t^ ted aiormatioa. In some ways, tlMse processes may depmd on a managra’s int^rative ability, as wdl M facilitate his ability to int^nue.

A fourdi cat^cHy d muiagnial processes is made up d many im>tivatkmal {socesses siKh as remutmstkm, training aad updatii^ gauniag comuutmeiit, perfonaaace evaiatkm, aad (m>aiotkm. Hwie pnxxsses nm^ily parallel thme wh^e the vamager m involved wiA tlM saptn/mon d subordiaates [30, pp. 60-63].

The Wth categray a composed d a s i a ^ maaagerial fwoceH diat is Indeed to dw aiotiva&aial fsocenes aad uandated to ‘ ^ c<He processes ctmooned mtk ia^rsticm. Hie etae proeeu tot labour maaagetaetit uid i^oiia&m rdatet to SKitivalicm.

la maaa^ry, the ftuctwas aad jKOcesses jatmaMd ia F^ioe 2 M^gest diat the oumagn’s perception d die maa^orial process does not rdate to dK fuacticais necessary for ]»!odudag (w^mt Whetto-1^ is tme, in fact, is still opm to qanticm as te data provided detaibei the rdaiioaAip b^weea the maaager’s pttixp&m d ihe atec6maem d Ac |HOCCSS with the actual oaxpat produced, ^stnnii^ diat the maaaga’t iatwtixm a i ^ ptsoeplkmi we w ^ i l imtotton, diis data niggetts Oat dme may be a m> beMwen the processes n d fmctkms poforraed ia


3 o o S o o d o o d


CapatuMy 10 rBspontJ to fulwe

Bargaining Capatufiiy






•espor and 0 extertt


SI lei to

solicited extent action ability evalua


1/1 implementing decisions fintas to iridividuai needs lives whKtt parlicpation is

urnich decisfons and e implemented

of dec’siorr-makars to

: , he eftect of then

IS unOerstandabiltty and usability ol systeirf for performance evtluauon

19 relBtednass ol lorms and records to legal reQuirefTtents

20 extent io whic statistical reporting system meets organttaiionat needs

?i ability ot individuals to respona to ‘mrrtediate needs for information

tem to w ) roles /oO descriptions and n are •

tent to which orgonuationai roles and tsponsibilities are understood Dy individual

organization •iarity of aoy-tO’day procedures and

responsttui’iies flexibility of planning effort

tent to which appropriate members of staff aware of decisiorJi which nafe been made rafi quality ol communication and

•.oordination unOerstandabtlity and usabitity em for performance evaluation

boxta andpnemam b







remunefMtion and fringe tteneftts tramirrg and upaatmg of

commiirrmnt and motivation of sfafr system tor pertormance evaluation pOiS>tiiMies for promotion

Labor HmiaVon* PracM* procedures tor lat>or managtment tnd nBgotiation

FIGURE 2. Relatioiiships Between Function and Processes.

4. Msuu^^aeot as a Systaoi A S3rstems mode! describes the flow of energy from the enviixmm^it through the system itself and back

into the environment The functioning of any sudi system thus consists of the e n e i ^ flow to be used for obtaining inputs, processing them, and producing ouQmts. As n u m ^ o ^ are mstnimental in carrying out the functions of the system, thdr work becomes differentiated into relativdy independent subsystems. Each subsystem develc^ its own structure for receiving inputs, processing them, and producing ou^ut . To locate a subsystem and to ^>edfy its functions, therefore, requires an understanding of Uie tranfflsissions of energy around the overall functions performed.

Results of the canonical correlations are {Resented in Table II. Hie data illustrate that the managers were

TABLE II The Mtmageriai Suifsysi^ns {coefficients fi^ canonical vanabks)









Function or Prooess


Extent to iriiidi the orgaaiza- ticmal Folesand reiponsi- iMKlia an imderuood 1^ indrndsatointhe oqpaizatioB

Exteat to whicb apfmopriate membcn ol naff aie avaie of darwioiii irtuA kave been made

Remuaerslton Badtfnagfi bescfitt

TnnaiagMd npdati^ al pmnael


UaOtaaaMbmsytadamibmy ot Ise Q̂ CBBS nr mfiiiHuliftti

SabiyitemI (Teciiaical)

Re — 0.73 0.25





a 12

a i7

Subayitemll (Adimniitntive)

Iic-O.t» -0.52




– O M




Sttbiynemlll (Adaptive


0 J 6








TABLE II (cont.) The Managerial Subsystems {coefficients for amonical variables)

Subsystem I Subsystem II Subsystem III No. Function or Process (Technical) (Administrative) (Adaptive)

A Capabihty to Resp<H>d —serious problems 0.38 0.39 -0 .10 —day-to^lay problems -0 .30 -0 .48 0.56

I Flexibility of organization in implementing its decisions 0.39 0.12 – 0 . * *








Flexibility of planning efforu

Possibilities for promotion

Relatedness of forms and recnds to legal requirements

Extent to which decisions or actions are implemented

Responsiveness of organization to mdividual needs and obiectives


Bargaining —serious problems —day-to-day problems


– a 2 6





-0.66 0.52



-0 .38




-0 .36 0.20


-0 .55

– 0 J 9

-0 .41



0.12 -0 .21

Extent to wfai^ roles, job descnptions. asd function are well^Wined 0 ^ -0 .27 -0 .13

System for performance evalua- tion -0 .95 0.35 0.14

Procedures for labor management and negotiauons 0.50 -0 .14 -0 .26

Ability of the decision’makers to evaluate the effect of their decisions 0.21 0.11 0.14

Clarity of day-to-day procedures and responsibilities

14 Commitment and motivation of staff

20 Extent to which statistical reporting system meets organizaaonal seeib

21 Ability of individuals to re^xHid to immediate needs for information

The undetUsed items are thoee h i ^ enough to d loadiags are not uaderimed).

Adaptive Subsystem Tediaical Subtystem


-0 .26







-0 .15

i the meaning of the


-0 .19



factor if <JOOt) (cross

worldttg within die dynamks of thr«e subqnteins—the adninisbativei adapti««, and int^pvtive. Tte subsy^ems em«^iig from the caoosical ccMTdativ« r o u ^ y |>arallel those <^ia«d by other aulhofs P 2 ] . (35}). The fmctkms and ]»ocess« makiag up each Kibsystem are now (teioibed.

The A^tmistnttive (Miimemmce) StAsystau

The k^ fuacwm of the aifamaislntive subs^tem s coiM:«iied wiA the ^g<Mnt use <rf reMorces. qf, in thit case, is ccMicwTBed with imiMrowBg oâ fHtt ty redncn^ tte cortt and still mamtaiiring the


same level of input Efficiency is primarily a criterion of the int^nal life of die organization, and it is concerned with the economy of the organization’s desi^.

The administrative subsystem is, in this study, made up of a number of processes concerned with control. These procMses include payment, coordination, and communication. Payment is an incentive to periForm tadcs, while buining and updating skills prepares the individual to make decisions by himself. Coordination is important for establishing the lines of authority and the spheres of activity of each member Q>rocesses 7, 13). Because it is not possible to compel people to cooperate, it is scnnetimes necessary diat management create the conditions for suaxssful coordination. A continuous exchange of information can f<vm the basis for the necessary imderstanding. TUs tinderstanding may be created by managerial process<» where people are made aware of decisions (process 10) and which create a good standard of communication (process 11).

The Adaptive SiAsystem.

The data suggests that an important function of the adaptive subsystem is its ability to anticipate the resources required for potential problems. The manager’s responsibility is to ensure that the organization doesn’t become a product of its environment A changing environment forces the organization to respond to change in its design, structure, and technology.

These findings suggest that an adaptive subsystem is composed of processes which focus upon implemen- tation. A manager must devise incentives to ensure diat his (kciaons are implemented (process 16). Standards, plans and procedures must be developed. When deviations occur, he must be prepared to makt adjustments. Flexibility is the keynote to implementation as it can occur regardless of problems with standards, plans, and procedures (processes 1 and 9).

The Technical Subsystem.

The managerial functions of the technical subsystem involve production and bargaining. Productivity is the ability of the system to produce or perform the sn^ces, regardless of the expenses involved. Productivity, then, is the capability to provide services or get the job done. Our data also indicates that bargaining is an important function of the technical subsystem. This would relate to resolving conflicts, gaining resources, exchanging information and gaining coopoation. The function of bargaining is probably more important for obtaining resources for production than for actuaUy producing the goods and services. Thus, bargaining might be seen as a supportive function to production.

The managerial processes of the technical subsystem are chiefly concerned with the definition of procedures and req>onsibilities. They focus on the definition of objectives, procedures, jobs, information, and plans designed to re^wnd to ol^ectives. Combined, these processes suggest that the technical subsystem is designed by drfining procedures and processes.

The previous paragraphs have indicated various subsystems which are derived from this gro«q> of managers’ functions. Based on the perception of the managers studied, the managerial procoses are logical parts of a number of functions. Thoe groupings, in our d^inition, are called subsystems.

The Subsystems and their RelationsUps.

Each managerial subsystem shares some relationship to particular functions and process^. Table III illustrates how the technical, administrative, and adaptive subsystems are related to specific organizational functions and processes.

The data suggests that the technical subsystem is h i g ^ related to the capability to reqxntd. This subsystem would need to obtain information and {Hocedures on envircMimental trends, long-term function-


Ooumical Cmrelation between Subsystems ami Fwtctions and Processes

&ibqmem I Subsyittm II Subsystem III (Administrative) (Adaptive)





Capability to Respond (day-to-day proMeaa)

OqiabOity to Re^xmd (senous (Hoblens) .



Baifainins capabtt^






-0 .46



-0 .12




CM 022


TABLE n i (COTt) Canonical Correlation between Sidaystems and Fmctions and Procesxs

SubsyMm I SubqrsMm 11 Sabqntem lU (Tedinical) (A&ninisttUive) (Adaptiv*)

1. Flexibility of organization in implementing decisions 0.15 -0.11 – 0 3 7

2. Responsiveness of organization to individual needs and objectives -0 .06 – a O 3 -0 .22

3. Extent to which participation is soticited m making decisions 0.10 —0.22 —030

4. Extent to which decisions or actions are unplemmted 0.17 0.15 – 0 3 3

i. Abihty of the decision-makers to evaluate the effect of their decision. 0.19 OM – 0 3 2

6. Extent to which tiAn, job descnptions and functions are well defined 0.0« – 0 3 S -0.21

7. Extent to which the organizational roles and responsibilities are uiuter- stood t^ individuals in the organization 0.06 – 0 3 5 -0.17

8. Oanty of day-to-day procedures


11. Overall quahty of communication and coordination

12. Remuneration and frince benefits

13. Trammg and up-datmg <4 personnel

14. Commitment and motivation of staff

15. System for perfotmaace evaluation

16. Pombilities for |»omotion

17. Procedures for labor management and

and responsibilities

Flexibility of planning efforts

Extent to which appropriate members ct staff are aware of decisi<»s which have been made




-0 .13

-0 .12


– a 6 4


-0 .43


– 0 J 5


– 0 3 9


– 0 3 1

-0 .20

-0 .16


– 0 3 3


– 0 . M

– 0 3 9

-0 .44








IS. Undentandabifity and usabiliiy <* tte syuem of logs aiKl records – M l -0 .30

19. Retatcdoeu of forms and records to -0 .21 ” O – M

Extent to which statistical rcportiiqi ^stem meets oi^miiMioaat needs – a i B -Oje6

21. Abttity of iaittvidiiab to rei]ioiid to mmefiue needs for iBfofmatka 0.04

S^aOicaat conduioia are md^tacd p < OMl (twMailed KM of sjaaincaaa)


ing, the nature of cvganizational structure, die inter-retatimiAip with other ^tems , and die impact of die organization on the envircmment [22, p. 250].

The strong negative correlati(»i between the technical s u b ^ t o n and productivity and efficiency appears, at first, to be a struige anomaly. That is, operational {mxxdures and records are desired with efficiency and productivity as die goals [22, R ) . 248-249]. However, in emergency situations, (tecision-making usually requires a rejection of procedures and processes aimed at safety and c«iainty. Emergency situations may force the manager to reject uniform procedures and optimize die minimum resources that are available. In addition, the procedure and methods of the technical subsystem may be counter-productive to efficiency. Such procedures may have effects such as frustration and conflict, and thus reduce efficiency {24, pp. 146-166].

The administrative subsystem, in this study, seems to be quite separate from any of the organization’s functions. There is a ne^tive relationship between the administrative subsystem and capability to resp<»d. This may be logical as die administrative subsystem often emi^iasizes methods for attaining internal organizational stability and predictability ratho: than using resources for the future.

The administrative subsystem seems to be unrelated to productivity, effidency and bargaining. The independent operation of this subsystem may take the form of efforts to preserve the status quo. Selection procedures may screen out ^>plicants who would not be likely to adapt to the system. Socialization practices would encourage members to fit the mold. R^ulatory mechanisms would be developed to give some automatic correction to departures from the ncam of organizational functioning. Rules would be elaborated and provisions made for their policing. Uniformity would become the ideal whereby standards and operating procedures would be set In conclusion, adminisbative subsystems strive to institutionidize organizational behavior. As a result, they may not be concerned with functionii^ per se, and as a result run the risk of substituting organizational ritualism for genuine ftmctionalism.

The adaptive subsystem is correlated with many of the functions. Thoe is a relationship with one of the measures of the capability to respond. There is also a relationship with the functions of production and bargaining. The adaptive subsystem is concerned with the organization’s ability to deal with uncertainty. It should be concerned with tlu develt^nnent and adjustment of the organization’s structure to meet the needs of the environment and any situations that arise. As a result, it would be logical to expect that the subsystem would have a strmger relationship to functions for improving its capabUity to r^pond. The strong relationship to productivity and bargaining suggests that those functions are more important in reducing uncertainty.

The managoial subsystems d^ined are negatively related to many procnses of management There <k>es not seem to be any i^ttem to diis finding, because groiq>s irf processes (excluding decision-making) are not uniformly unrelated to ^>ecific subsystems. As most processes have a significant negative correlation, the intuitive logic of the managerial process^ and systemic logic are ^own to be quite differmt

This secticm has defined the admin^trative, adaptive, and tf<;hnk«l subsystrais of a managerial system. Each subsystem fuiuHions as an initependent unit T h ^ he^ to conceptualize the niaj<»’ focuses or points of endeavour that should be pursued if managemmt wishes to d^ine the organization as a network of subsystems. Therefore, a common ene i^ fk>w relates q>edfic functions with subsystem activities.

5. Craduaon This paper provides some undostanding of the rdaticoiAip between the processes (rf management and

the funct«»is the mamga poforms. (See Figure 3.) It has trkd to use mediods appropriate to undoitand- ing the rdationship between die intuitive k ^ underlying the managoiai processes and the systemic logic characterizmg how managers perform spedfic functkms. The results suggest tliat the managerial process^ have a h i ^ rdatitmdiip to eadi otto’, but no relationship to tl» hiM:tuMis «4ucii managos perform. A core group <rf maaagnial processes is einuxtaed with intention. Other rdated groiqM of proce»es are concerned with information recording, decision-making, motivatiin, and Ubot relatkms. Managnial processes are directed at r^wnding to day-to-day ptoMaas as ikcy arise. Ttey are iat>l^n-s<4ving in nature aiKi do not have any rdationdiip to medianisms lor de^^ning output functions. ProMems axt usually th<m^t of as iti’^idarities restating fr«nn poesiy administ»«d processes. Managnial efforts are directed at m^Moviiqi im>cesses so that functions can c^mate b^ter.

Man^RJal hnKtimig u e based oa the w ^ c n t a ^ i ^ diat an oi^uizaticni has a numbo- of iiqHa-oit^t relaticHiAqig f o o u i ^ mi diSoent foaclkms, eadi of vriiidi is mpoitaat to surrivaL In diis stwly, the key managnial fuiKtitms are ia^Mvt^t f<»r i»adndi^ ou^nm, Biamtainiiig dfmeacy, iapcmdiag to the eniwnaMnt, and bargaini^ Tbt data sii^gests that scnne ot dMK fmu^ioan bectnne differentiated into subsjnte^ with that owa iqfwts aod outputs. Thio, tte fuaditm of in«tî ni»M »̂g aSaaaney would be s < 4 ^ coMoned wi& gadierii^ iiqntts aad pto^aaag oa^nits ttuu are importaiU to ^Baatcy. In the Kune i»y , dw fOTCtioa ol hvguw^ would be ooocoiMd wi& a c ^ r i ^ iapatt so duU die wbgytiem could bargain eBectiv^. Ike fnactions (rf managemcat do mA natwa% dWoxatate into tabti/titmt tibat loots oa One functi(»g. Tke subtfyrtog^ ttat do e n a g e pertimi to sidbuniMivtiCT, ad^ttrtkm, aad pfwtec&m (l


There is some tndtsice that these subsystems have little relation to the {Hocen of management and are related more to many of the functions perfcained by management In this sense, the managerial functions are directed at ]Hodudng output




fMlftoiwMp tofiMWKta ftmcitomantf


Th* m»ntg»ri»l tunellent Tim managerial proem

Management is concerned with a number ot tunctions – producing output, maintaining etficiency. and bargaining

Managers perform a numtier ol processes such as ptanning, oiganizmg. controtling. budgeting, etc

The manageriat tunctions are systemicatty independent ot each other The tunctions ot management are based on the under- standing that an organization has a numtter ot input-output retationships making these tunctions take on a systemic character and operating in relative independence ot other tunctions

The ettectiveness of various manageriat processes is based on the managers intuitions for using these processes The processes ot management are based on the principtes the managers use.

There is a systemic rationattty under- tying the tunctions of management

There is an intuitive rationatity undertying the process of management Managerial action is based on the assumption that organizations are intuitivety rationat

The tunctions ot management in this study do not naturatty differ- entiate into subsystems focusing solety on tunctions The sub- systems emerging reiate to admini- stration, adaptation, and production

In studying the process of management, there ts a likelihood that certain processes are highty related to others In this study, the managerial process is composed of tive ma/or processes A core managerial process IS concerned with integration while related groups ot processes are decision-making, informatton recording, motivation, and labor relations

There is little significant relationship between the managerial subsystems emerging and fhe process of management

There is no significant relationship between processes of management and tire functions of management.

Management is a dynamic function relating to the conditions and constraints imposed upon the system The actual design ot the system depends on tfn functions it must serve: thts teads to the next step which would be to design the system so that each subsystem has specific functions

Management is an intuitive process of developing appropriate principles and ways of performing the processes tmportant to managetnent.

The management functions do not have any relationship to the manageriat process and are related to subsystems effort. The rela- tionship of fufKttons and subsystems is not totally clear but witl probably depend on the managerial turKttons that are directed at producing output.

The manageriat process wtll probably never bear any ralattorahtp to the production of outputs. The managerial processes are directed at responding to day-to-day problems in managamant. Tha processes are problem-solving In nature and do not have arty relationship to mechanisms for designing out-put functions.

The Managerial Functions and Process.

Aa inta«sting outc(»M of dw stttcfy a the inhereot differeiKe that exists between the i^tocetses and f fincticms at management The procMs of managmunt is based <» a nnmbo’ ot undntyinq; priadiites, wbfle the functions aie isqwrtant in prodiKing mitfrnt important to particular sabsy^am. A real difficidty ccwki ea^Se if a mam^er a t t e m i ^ to put sdmce ai»t’sy«t«iiic ratknialiQr itoo die process ot lmuageoieat la dw same way, dWfandties c<»dd r e ^ if a manager axumpted to &agn an wgauzatiiMi’s outfwt soUty on die pr incq^ ot the oumagHiti ptoeen.

There is no gi^oukm ttat the maaacoial procoaes and fuactk»s d i o ^ be rdated. This paper tas met^ st^fiOiei ttat, in tams (rf Ite data presated, tte nwuwgwal ^ocetau aad fuKticns a n uM rdated. l i e a«aisq»k»g <A ttoce who have staclkd die peooess cf ffiaaasraocst wmdd nggat t ^

goate, aiul oa^pvts of Out mgaiuzatkm wwild takt care (rf fiwiBsdves ff managwmcnt procetws


were imiMTOved. In the same way, those who study how an organization ^ould function usually give litde regard to the processes. Thus, this data simply illustrates a gap.

It is ]»’obably not posable to namnw the gap between die functions and {Hxxxsses of mana^ment Tlu; two orientations are based on two logical ways of thinking about nuuu^ement It may be enough to suggest that there are at least two parts to the management of an organization. The process of managraient may be very important for helping the organization make decisions, communicate, handle grievances, motivate employees, and tecotd infcmnation. However, these jHoce^es will not help the manager design ouqnit functions that are ^ective in reqwnding to the needs of management In the same way, the technical, administrative and adaptive sut»ystems are important for Ae types of ou^uts they {n-odux .̂ Those managers who concent diemselves with either one of these subsystems to the exclusion of another may find themselves in great difficulty. Thus, the study illustrates that management has a number of processes and a set of functions to perform.

What would hafqien if an organization was effective in producing output and ineffective in the process of management? Or what would happen if the (vganization was effective in the process of management and ineffective in terms of the functions it produced? Organizations that are productive, dfident, and adaptive, may still have a great deal of difficulty in establishing the managerial network necessary to make decisions, implement new plans, and provide the necessary administrative back-up (recwd keeping) necessary to handle accounts, deal with problems in labor rdations, and motivate die staff. A very effective design may completely falter and its implementation not be allowed simply because of an ineffective managerial process. In this sense, manageri^ processes and ou^nit functions may not be comirietely related, but may be separate elements, each important to different aspects of a manager’s performance. In the same way, there is probably some Ic^c in suggesting diat the very effective performance of a number of managerial procMses may be futile if the organization is not concerned with useful fimctions.

Th^e findings have a number of interesting im{dications for the evaluation of managers. In some senses, they suggest that it is not always possible to evaluate managers solely on the basis of the processes they perform. Similariy, in addition to bdng effective in the process of mana^ment, managers should be expected to perform functions related to [ffoducing ouq>uts.

References 1. ARGYMS, CHRIS, Personality and Organization: The Conflict Between System and Individual, Harper and

Row, New York, 1957. 2. BAKNARD, CHESTER 1., The Functions ofthe Executive, Cambridge, Mass., 1938. 3. BASS, B . M., “The Production Organization Exercise,” in New Per^>ectives in Organization Research,

ed. W. W. Cooper, H. J. Leavitt, and M. W. Shelley, Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964. 4. BEISH(»«, R. J. AND PALMBI, A. W., “Studying Mana^rial BehaWour,” Intemat. StutSes Management

& Organization, Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1972X p. 38. 5. BURNS, T., “Management in Action,” Operational Res. Quart., Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 1957). 6. , CoPEMAN, C LuuK, H. AND HANKA, F. de P., How the Executive Spends His Time, Business

Publications, Lc»don, 1957. 7. , AND STALKER, GECHIOE, T%e Management Of Innovation, Tavistodc PuUications, London,


Managerial Behaviour, Peifonmnce, md Effectivaiess, McGxaw-Hill, New York, 1970, Chi^ster 4. 9. CHILD, JOHN, “Managerial and Organizati(»a] Factors Assodated with C<»npany Poformance, Part

1,” / . Managmem StuSes, VoL U, No. 3 (Oct 1974), pp. 174-190. 10. , “Managerial and ChganizationiU Factors Associated with Company Perfcnmance: Part II-A

ContingHicy Analaysis,” y. Mmagemaa StmUes, Vd. 12, No. I (Fd>. 1975), pp. 12-27. 11. DAVIS, L. E., “The Effects of Autcraiatimi on Job Design,” InAistrial Relations, \ol. 2 (Oct 1962), i^.

53-71. 12. EiZKwo, AMTTAI, “TWO .^^iroadies to Chganizaticmal Analyas: A Critique and a Si^gesticm,”

AAmnistnttive ScL Quart., Vol. 5 (i96(^ pp. tSI-m. 13. , Modem Orpua2caUiia,Stesi’txit-1MlL, E a g ^ o o d Oiffs, N. J., 1964. 14. FAY<&, HSOO, Gmterd aid Industrial Mtmagfmem, Pitman, Lcmdcm, 1949. 15. FnuEY, AlAN C , M4D Houffi, Rcaratr J., Mtmagerial Proceu and Orpmizatitmal Behavior, Scott,

Fcseman, Glenview, IlL, 19^. 16. (tecMOOFOUUK, BASL S. AND TiU««0aAUM, ARNOLD S. “A Stt^y of OiganizationiU EJfectivenera,”

Amer. Sockdopca Rev., VcL 22 (1957), n>. 534-540. 17. (kK»i>Ai», JA^tmH, Assessmatt of Orgaidzatkmid ^ectmness: Analysis cmd Reaibip, Goodymt,

Tmt^me n&mSta, OtGf., 1971. 18. Gî EK, P. E., H A L ^ T , M . H . Ara> lUai^tsoH, P. J., “Caarakal Analyas: An Eiqxmtimi aad

/ . Mmk^^ I t a , Vcd. 3 (1966), pp. 32-39.


19. GUEST, R. H., “Job Enlar^ment—A Revolution in Job Deagn,” Personnel Administration, Vol. M (1957), 9-16

20. HoRNE, J. H. AND LUPION, ToM, “The Work Activities of ‘Middle’ Managers,” / . Management Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (February 1965), pp. 14-33.

21. KAST, FREMONT E. AND ROSENZWERG, JAMES E., Organizatim and Management, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 19m 22. KATZ, DANIEL AND KAHN, ROBERT L., The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, 1966. 23. KATZ, ROBERT L., “Scills of an Effective Administrator,” Harvard Business Rev., Vol. 52, No. 5

(Sept/Oct. 1974), pp. 90-102. 24. LlKMlT, RENSB, The Human Organizatim: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. 25. , New Patterns in Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961. 26. MAHONEY, THOMAS A., “Managerial Perceptions of Organization Effectiveness,” Management ScL,

Vol. 14 (1%7), pp. B76-B91. 27. MAIER, N . R. F., Problem-solving Groups and Discussions, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963. 28. MANNHEIM, KARL, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, translated by Edward Shils, Harcourt

Brace & Worid, New Yoric, 1947. 29. MARPLES, DAVID, “Studies of Managers,” / Management Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1967). 30. MiNTZBERG, HENRY, “Structured Observation as a Mediod to Study Managerial Work,” J. Manage-

ment Studies, Vol. 7 (February 1970), pp. 87-104. 31. , Vie Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, 1973. 32. , •Tlie Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” Harvard Business Rev. (July/August 1975), pp.

49-61. 33. , “Policy as a Field of Management Theory,” ^corf. Management Rev. (Jan. 1977), pp. 88-103. 34. MooNEY, JAMES D . AND REILEY, ALAN C , The Principles of Organization, Harper & Brothers, New

York, 1939. 35. PARSONS, T., Structure and Process in Modem Societies, Free Press, New Yoiic, 1960. 36. PERROW, CHARLES, “A Framework for the Analysis <rf Complex Organizations,” Amer. Sociolopcal

Rev., Vol. 32 (1967), f̂ . 194-208. 37. PERRY, M . AND HAMM, B. C , “Canonical Analysis of Relations Between Socioeconomic Risk and

Personal Inflnence in Purchase Dedsions,” 7. Marketing Res., Vol. 6 (1969X pp. 351-354. 38. PFIFFNHI, JOHN M . AND SHERWOOD, FRANK P., Administrative Organization, Prentice Hall, Engiewood

Cliffs, N. J., 1960. 39. SAYLES, LEONARD R., Managerial Behavior: Administration in Complex Enteijirises, New York,

McGraw-Hill, 1964. •W. SIMON, HERBERT A., “On the Concept of Organizational Goals,” Administrative Sd. Quart., Vol. 9

(1964), pp. 1-22. 41. STEPHENSON, T. E., “The Longevity of Classical Theory,” Management Intemat. Rev., Vol. 8, No. 6,

(1968X pp. 77-83. 42. STEWART, ROSEMARY, Managers and Their JiAs: A Study of the SimUarities aid Differenca in the Ways

Managers Spend Their Time, Macmillan, London, 1967. 43. TAYLOR, FREDERICK W., The Principles of Managemeia, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1911. 44. , Scientific Management, Harper & Brodiers, New York, 1947. 45. TURNER, JOHN H., FILLEY, ALAN C. AND HOUSE, ROBERT, StuOes in Managerial Process and

Organizaticmal Belutmr, Scott, Foreman, Glenview, 111., 1972. 46. UDY, S. J., JR., “Administrative Rationality, Social Setting and Organizational Devekqwient,” Amer.

J. Sociology, Vol. 68 (1962), |^. 299-3W. 47. WOODWARD, J., tndustritd Organization: Tiiewy aid Practice, Oxford Univ. Press, Utt^oa, 1965.

Comments are closed.