Foundational Philosophies of Management

Subject: Management
Pages: 5
Words: 1511
Reading time:
6 min
Study level: PhD

Introduction

Management goes hand in hand with business. The corporate life of today’s organizations cannot be imagined without managers and their routine activities (participation in the problem-solving, decision-making, and other processes). At the same time, the role of both individuals and groups within the business management environment is significant. The meetings of corporate members are organized to solve a certain problem, and to make an optimal decision that meets the objectives and interests of the organization (Hoopes, 2003). In addition, nowadays, the technologically advanced systems support business greatly; for this reason, the implementation of such intelligent technological systems as, for example, group support systems (GSS) is considered as a positive phenomenon aimed to facilitate and support group work and meetings. However, the co-existence of “the individualistic” and “the collective” within the business management environment causes certain problems related to human attitude to the supportive technologies (George, Marett, & Giordano, 2008, p. 653).

In only 3 hours we’ll deliver a custom Foundational Philosophies of Management essay written 100% from scratch Get help

There are many philosophical trends contributing to understanding management. Management philosophers greatly contribute to the development of management theory and practice. George, Marett, and Giordano (2008) are considered foundational philosophers. This paper is dedicated to one of their management theories. However, the philosophers’ views will be contrasted to the ideas of Fan, Shen, and Luo, (2010) and Shirani (2006) expressed in their works about the role of GSS in managerial decision-making. Thus, the present paper also outlines the differences in their views of the same problem concerning the world of management.

The Essence of George, Marett, and Giordano’s Management Theory

The study of the ideas of these fundamental management philosophers is focused on the influence of deception on the group functioning, and on the outcomes of the group decision-making process. In this context, the authors are interested in the value of an individualistic view of GSS. The philosophers noted, “from the individualistic perspective, technology is an active tool that works to enhance individual power” (George et al., 2008, p. 653). GSSs are effective instruments of individual gain and democracy in the business management environment. Involving GSS in corporate meetings, the corporate members take part in the computer-mediated communication (CMC). However, as meetings are a social issue, some problems caused by individuals may rise. George et al. (2008) underlined, “conflict among agendas and goals and the drive for self-interest and individual gain can lead to self-serving behaviors such as deception” (p. 654). Thus, to achieve a goal, an individual may resort to such unethical practice as deception. Deception can be seen as a stress-relieving mechanism used by an individual in the role conflict (George et al., 2008).

According to the Interpersonal Deception Theory, deception occurs during an interactive communication event of group members. Nevertheless, in the context of the group that uses information technology (GSSs and CMC), deception is believed an effective tool that influences group outcomes and does not negatively affect the results of the decision-making process. In addition, deception is a means that sharpens individual goals. In the CMC environment, deception represents ambiguous information to be accurately detected by GSSs. GSSs were specially designed to detect lies.

However, deception in individual cases proves to be an effective strategy in the achievement of organization goals. CMC and GSS bring positive change to organizations and groups that rely on informational technologies, because they enhance the achievement of collectivist goals making each individual actively participate. These technologies identify individual deception, and make a person find the truth that determines positive outcomes of the group decision-making process (George et al., 2008).

Differences in Management Philosophy Exhibited in the Management Literature

Some authors have other views on the GSS and deception in the business management environment. For example, Fan et al. (2010) agreed that GSS supports managerial decision-making, but it is not related to the deception of a corporate member. In contrast to George et al. (2008), the authors emphasize that effective managers should not deceive to achieve an individual goal. Such concepts as leadership, teamwork, and communication should exclude deception from the business management environment. If it occurs, the organization should eradicate it for the benefit of collective goals. To manage technology in the corporate context means to prevent the system from entry of false information. For Fan et al. (2010), GSS is not an instrument that just detect ambiguous information, but the means to create the atmosphere where only truth influences good performance. Unethical practices such as deception are not welcomed by the effective managerial decision-making process that relies on GSS as a supportive tool; GSS enhances not individual, but collective high-quality performance. GSSs stand out of the individualistic perspective, and can be viewed only in the group business environment (Fan, Shen, & Luo, 2010).

There are the authors that examine GSS only as a technological tool that meets four basic demands of the business management context: accurate information, authority, competence, and rewards (Shirani, 2006). For Shirani (2006), deception occurs in the tough decision-making. However, in contrast to George (2008), the author believes that only accurate information may stimulate an individual. The organization should give an access only to accurate information authority should relate only to people who use ethical practices and accurate information in the decision-making process. In this context, a GSS can be only a supportive tool that not only detects, but also excludes deception at all. Deception does not reflect people’s competences (gained truthful knowledge and skills), and does not deserve rewards (positive incentives to achieve shared organization goals). Unlike George (2008), Shirani (2006) does not support the deception strategy as an effective tool to achieve desirable outcomes. For the author, only a computer-mediated group strategy is effective in the decision-making process. Deception cannot lead to high organizational performance; thus, it should be eradicated by competent and experienced managers who rely on good, honest, and truthful leaders, and on GSSs that provide corporate members with accurate information (Shirani, 2006). Thus, deception destroys business, while truth strengthens the organization.

Academic experts
available
We will write a custom Management essay specifically for you for only $16.00 $11/page Learn more

The main difference in views of the mentioned authors with those of George et al. (2008) consists in the idea that deception in no way can be beneficial. Probably, Jones (2010) would agree that although deception can be detected by GSSs, it is unacceptable in business organizations that struggle in the ambiguous, changing, and challenging environment (Jones, 2010). Other authors, Beamish, Morrison, Inkpen and Rosenzweig (2003), would add that deception should be criticized and eliminated in both individual cases and the global business environment (Beamish et al., 2003).

Conclusion

As one may see, George, Marett, and Giordano’s (2008) management theory can be supported and criticized. On the one hand, for groups that work with technology, deception may stimulate productive collective decision-making processes aimed to accomplish organizational goals by implementation of GSSs. On the other hand, deception is an unethical practice that promotes wrong values and ruin business management environment.

Research Trail

The following flowchart shows the main factors that determined my choice of the foundational management philosophers.

 The main factors of the foundational management philosophers.
Figure 1. The main factors of the foundational management philosophers.

Some sources and authors undoubtedly helped me to write this paper. I followed the ideas in the book by Hoopes (2003) about modern business management to make my choice of foundational management philosophers (George, Marett & Giordano, 2008). The book inspired me to clarify the role of GSSs in the business management environment, and the influence of deception in the decision-making process. The articles by Fan (2010) and Shirani (2006) dedicated to managerial decision-making within the groups relying on GSS helped me to identify the pieces of evidence that contrast George’s (2008) views. As a result, I used these authors in the section aiming to show differences in views concerning a particular problem. Naturally, I used other sources that support the views of the chosen authors – Beamish et al. (2003) and Jones (2010). These authors paid attention to management in a global context, and organizational problems in general.

The Journal Article Analysis assignment greatly contributed to the present work. The assignment revealed crucial ideas of the authors (Fan et al., 2010; Shirani, 2006) concerning the problem raised by George et al. (2008) was. Fan et al. (2010) proved the value and effectiveness of GSS implementation in the business management context. Shirani (2006) revealed the significant role of computer-mediated groups in strategic planning and decision-making. The information derived from the articles of these authors appeared to be useful, as it expands the area mentioned by George et al. (2008). In general, George et al. (2008) touched upon the insufficiently researched GSS problem, and the influence and effects of deception in the managerial decision-making process. Nevertheless, the chosen articles from the Journal Article Analysis assignment also dwelt on the problem of GSS and ethics in management, and revealed other aspects needing further investigation.

Naturally, the credibility, reliability, and validity of the authors’ articles had been assessed before I included them in this paper. Fan et al. (2010) and Shirani (2006) are recognized specialists in their research area that embraces the business management and GSS in it. The content of the articles of the mentioned professors is undoubtedly of a high quality; thus, the information derived from these research works is credible, reliable, and valid.

References

  1. Beamish, P.W., Morrison, A., Inkpen, A., & Rosenzweig, P. M. (2003). International management: Text and cases (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
  2. Fan, S. C., Shen, G. P., & Luo, X. (2010). “Group Decision Support Systems in Value Management”. Construction Management & Economics, 8(8), pp. 827-838.
  3. George, J. F., Marett, K., & Giordano, G. (2008). ‘Deception: Toward an Individualistic View of Group Support Systems’. Journal of Associations for Information Systems, 9(10), pp. 653-676.
  4. Hoopes, J. (2003). False Prophets: the Gurus who Created Modern Management and Why their Ideas are Bad for Business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
  5. Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
  6. Shirani, A. I. (2006). “Sampling and pooling of decision-relevant information: Comparing the efficiency of face-to-face and GSS supported groups”. Information & Management, 43(4), pp. 21-529.