Management In Practice The Boots Perspective

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

The purpose of this essay is to critically examine what effective management means both from a theoretical and organisational perspective. Research for this essay looked at classical to modern theory literature from academics and interviews various managers of various experiences. The major findings indicate while management theories are comprehensive they are situational; Boots needs to continuously evolve its management style to cater for change in environment, culture and situation and most importantly to create a work environment that inspires exceptional contribution and that merits an outpouring of passion, imagination and initiative.

Introduction:

Effective management can actualise high calibre teams by using the values of effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. The high performance teams are guided by principles of individual effectiveness, since the failure of one can affect the performance of the entire group. Effective management employs an open organisational climate so as to ‘tap’ talents from the teams and individuals of the organisation. According to Drucker

‘The manager is the dynamic, life-giving element in every business. Without it the resource or production remains resource and never become production’ (1954, p3)

Throughout this assignment I will be examining what effective management means form a theoretical standpoint and how that translates to management styles adopted by The Boots Company.

The Theory of Management:

There many different theories regarding ‘management’ however management theory can be clustered into 5 groups as illustrated in Figure 1:

The Classical School:

The classical approach to management is thought in the terms of its purpose and formal structure. The classical idea of management was fundamentally concerned with developing a theory to improve organisations efficiency and effectiveness. Henri Fayol, one of the founding classically theorists was a practising manager who laid the building blocks of thought about organisation of work and the organisation of people at work. He is quoted saying:

‘To manage is to forecast and plan, to organise, to command, to coordinate and to control’ (1916)

Henri Fayol in conjunction with other practising mangers, namely F.W.Taylor, went one step further to develop a comprehensive theory of management. These branches of management developed through the school of classical theory management were namely bureaucratic, administrative and scientific management.

While Fayol and Taylor were tackling with the problems of management. Max Weber was a German sociologist. Although he spanned the same time period as Fayol and Taylor he was purely an academic and not a practising manager. His concerns with respect to organisations were from the point of view of authority structures through a hierarchical system described as bureaucracy. He constructed a model of bureaucracy called ‘rational-legal authority’

Max Weber believes all bureaucracies have certain characteristics, and they are as follows:

A well-defined Hierarchy. All positions within a bureaucracy are structured in which higher positions supervise lower positions. This provides a clearly identified chain of command.

Rules and regulations. A continuous organisation defined by rules. He believes that these rules and policies would provide certainty.

Competence. Appointment to ‘jobs’ is absolutely essential to ensure there would be no personal bias and the significance of ‘knowing someone’.

Records. Weber feels it is absolutely essential for a bureaucracy to maintain complete files regarding all its activities. He believes this record keeping would advance an accurate organisation ‘memory’ where accurate and complete documents will be available in concerning all bureaucratic actions and determinations.

The above features of bureaucratic organisations enable the authority of officials to be subject to rules and regulations. Indicating that authority is legitimate, not arbitrary. It is this point more than any other that led Webber to comment that Bureaucratic organisation was capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and was, in that sense, the most rational known means of carrying out as Weber put it ‘imperative control of human beings’

Weber’s model of ‘rational-legal authority’, although arguably instilled in organisations today has its critics. The main arguments being the loss of individualism, autonomy and individual freedom. A sense of isolation through specialisation can have a negative effect. Rather than improve efficiency and effectiveness, which is the key driver behind his model. It can cause a sense of loss of community and purpose and ultimately a lack of motivation.

Another category of classical thinking of management is the scientific approach. The scientific management approach reinforces research for developing a compendious management solution. The major representative for this school of thought, arguably, is Frederick Winslow Taylor.

Taylors beliefs fundamentally believed that management were not only intellectually superior to the average employee, but had a positive duty to supervise, organise and develop them within their activities. This would eliminate as Taylor described ‘The natural tendency of worker to soldier’ on the job (Taylor 1913). This ‘soldiering’ tendency, Taylor reasoned was down to:

Fear of unemployment

Fluctuations in earnings from piece rate systems. A system which Henri Fayol was a main believer in.

Rule-of-thumb methods.

Taylors answer to these concerns was to practice ‘scientific management’. Taylor developed four principles of scientific management:

A scientific management methodology can be developed.

Managers should assume the responsibility for choosing, training and developing their employees.

Managers should fully cooperate with employees to insure proper application of the scientific management method.

Management should become involved with the work of their employees as much as possible.

Taylor believed that ‘Scientific managements’ rational approach to the organisation of work would enable tasks and processes to be quantified with a considerable degree of accuracy. This accurate measurement would provide a basis for improving working methods. Through this accurate implementation it would bring enormous increase in productivity. He also though that it enabled employees to be paid by results, ‘piece work’, and to take advantage of additional incentive payments.

Although Taylor believed that ‘Scientific Management was ‘Revolutionary’ it did have its critics and obvious disadvantages. It was argued that this method left planning and control entirely in the hands of management and led to the fragmentation of the workforce as each job role is clearly defined and measured. It generated a ‘carrot on a stick’ approach to the motivation of employees by pay being strictly geared to output. However the main flaw can arguable to principle of micro management and insistence on close supervision which flies in the face of contemporary organisation management methods.

Human Relation theory:

The human resources approach looks at unlocking creative solutions through people through an interest in workers and considerate management styles to meet the employees’ social requirements. Through this thinking it is if the employees basic human requirements are met then this will increase motivation and ultimately productivity and efficiency.

Two of the best known contributors to the human resources were Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor.

Abraham Maslow through his job as a practising psychologist observed his patient’s problems usually routed in an inability to fulfil their needs. It’s from this that he developed a ‘hierarchy of needs’. Being a practising psychologist his hierarchy of needs naturally started with physiological needs but then progressed to incorporate the following (Daft 2006):

Physiological needs: Purely in an organisational setting this are reflected in heat, financial means, and environment.

Safety Needs: These include the need for security, stability, protection. An orderly working environment free from the threat of violence, job security and safe jobs.

Belongingness needs: Within an organisation this is the idea of belonging to a group and the desire for a sound working relationship in particular with respect to management.

Esteem Needs: From an organisational perspective this means the need to be recognised for contribution and an increase in responsibility.

Self-actualisation needs: Providing people with the opportunity to grow, be creative, and acquire challenges assignments and advancement

In Maslow’s Theory low order take priority these orders must be met before ascending to the next ‘need’. The hierarchy engages managers to see what employee motivation is. It helps in understanding the motivations and needs employees have and the requirement to satisfy the basic human needs subsequently achieving higher levels of motivation (Cole 2004).

Douglas McGregor is the second most predominant theorist associated with the human relation management. Figure 2 (Chapman 2002) illustrates his Theory ‘X’ and Theory ‘Y’ model. McGregor said ‘Theory X places exclusive reliance upon external control of human behaviour, whereas Theory Y relies heavily on self-control and self-direction.’

http://research-methodology.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Theory-X-and-Theory-Y.gif

His theory is based on two types of manager. Theory ‘X’ is a manger whose view of employees’ is that they are lazy, incapable of responsibility and untrustworthy. ‘X’ theory assumes that people inherently dislike work and will avoid if possible and that they prefer to be directed and have very little ambition and job security is there main driver. Theory ‘Y’ the exact opposite. The dramatic difference in management viewpoints towards colleagues as illustrated in McGregor’s theory help managers develop sound styles of management and employee motivation.

Systems Theory:

At its simpleist, ‘a system is a collection of interrelated parts which form a whole’. Cole (2010, p96). In the term of management theory it attempts to collate all various schools of management into a cohesive and comprehensive management theory.

Within the context of an organisation it attempts, in its simplest form, to take inputs, convert them to achieve outputs (Figure 3).

The inputs within an organisation are aspects such as: people, materials, information, finance etc. The conversion or transformation is looking at production and marketing, planning, controlling, previous theory models actively play a part in providing a functional overview of an organisation. Organising, research and development etc. This ultimately leads to outputs such as products, services ideas etc. whatever the original strategic organisational goal is. In stark contrast to previous theories’ previously discussed in this paper the systems approach, unlike classical and human resource the systems approach is holistic. This relies on all aspects interacting to obtain a given goal within an organisation. This system theory also provides managers with a tool for analysing an organisation without providing a specific theory. This model is dynamic since all outputs are constantly feedback from the information and results in the outputs to change, were applicable the inputs or transformation to obtain maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Basically all aspects rely on familisation of all system characteristics, inputs, and transformation and outputs result in, by this association a functional overview of an organisation.

Contingency Theory:

Like systems theory, contingency theory does not prescribe any managerial principles. It is an extension of the systems approach and develops a certain management/organisational style in a set of circumstances. It deals with relatives not absolutes it is essentially a situational approach. A viewpoint that emphasises the importance of the environmental situation in determining organisational behaviour (Cole 2011).

It is also arguable classed as behavioural theory that claims that there is no definitive way to organise an organisation, or to make decisions. It suggests that the optimal action is contingency. (Anon 2013)

Gareth Morgan (2007, pg42, Anon 2013) in his book Images of Organization describes the main ideas underlying contingency in a nutshell:

‘Organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance internal needs and to adapt to environmental circumstances

There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment one is dealing with.

Management must be concerned, above all else, with achieving alignments and good fits

Different types or species of organizations are needed in different types of environments’

In summary the role of management in the contingency approach is to develop an appropriate management solution for any given organisational environment. The contingency approach is devoid of management principles. It is a heuristic management paradigm highly dependent on the experience and judgment of the manager in an organisational environment. It is principilary dependent upon the contingencies of a situation (Hartman 2010).

Modern Theory:

Modern management which was developed later in the 20th century which deals with organisational effectiveness with its focus on strategic issues. It implies more than just efficiency ‘doing things right’ it also concerns effectiveness ‘doing the right things’. Efficiency and effectiveness can both improve speed, on-time delivery, and various other process baselines. In short modern management theory is a combination of the systems, contingency and quantitative approach. It is argues that each of the aforementioned theories within this essay cannot stand alone and a manager needs a well rounded approach to achieve a well-rounded organisation ready for all scenarios. (Anon, 2013?)

Management in Practice: The Boots Perspective.

‘To become the world's leading pharmacy-led health and beauty group.  We seek to develop our core businesses of pharmacy-led health and beauty retailing and pharmaceutical wholesaling across the world and become a significant player in many major international markets’ (Alliance Boots 2013, Intranet)

Boots well-defined mission statement which focuses on the market, customers and identifies its core values reveals boots philosophy and purpose. Setting these goal starts with top management. From this the overall planning and strategic goal through strategic plans are implemented. How Boots achieves this are through effective management styles. The way planning, organising and controlling of resources is critical to achieving success.

Boots achieves this ultimate aim like most organisations with different levels of management within the company structure. Simplistically, Top level, Middle Level, Lower level managers.

Top level management within Boots (Level 1, 2,) ultimately formulate Objective and established Company Goals as in the Mission Statement. It prepares strategic plans and Policies, budgets and programs for both long and short term operations. They are responsible for the success or failure of the company and maintain public relations with the outside world known as corporate social responsibility.

Middle Level management within Boots is split into two parts senior management (Level 3 and 4) and departmental management (Level 5). They receive the strategies from the top level management and realise this vision by co-ordinating the activities necessary within there departments. They interpret polices and direction from top level management to departmental management and subsequently to lower level management.

Lower level management (Level 6) Lead and direct the employees and are responsible for employee performance. They ensure that departmental objectives are met through direct contact with employees and plan day-to-day work and look after there needs.

In conjunction with this hierarchy Boots exhaustively monitors both external and internal activities to achieve its organisational objectives. Staying ahead of competition is key to the company’s success.

Boots achieves this by using various different management styles namely, participative, consultative, democratic and occasionally autocratic throughout its management hierarchy. Developing solutions to problems through collaborative working and following up actions to ensure that they are implemented is achieved through internal and external partnerships. Boots encouragement of taking accountability rather than looking to others, making requests of yourself rather than performing within your ‘comfort zone’ are classic example of Boots ensuring that they trust, empower and motivate their employees to pursue new possibilities.

Managing Teams autocratically, micro-managing without understanding employee needs is rarely practised at Boots. Rather a style of exploring all facts and circumstances both from a business and employee viewpoint before making any judgement and communicating in a way which the company ‘vision’ is clear and engaging and energising is the preferred method of management. Being Inspiring and Dynamic. Saying this there are management ‘who prescribe workload resulting in poor motivation and minimum attainment’ (FERN M 2013).

Boots organisational effectiveness activities also help to improve the success of the company. Survey-feedback activities such as the Great Place to Work (GPTW). This measures the level of engagement employees have within the workplace, it was developed by Boots and remains an important element of their annual human resources programme. This survey allows Boots’ to engage all levels to gain a real insight into what employees are seeing and helps build cohesion within the organisation.

Great Place To Work is designed to help our stores and teams understand what is working well, and what needs to be better," said Chief Executive Alex Gourlay, "Based on this feedback we will develop action plans across our business to ensure we’re focusing on what’s important to us."(2013, Boots Intranet)

Also Large group interventions are integral as this includes everyone who has a stake in change meet and gather perspectives from all parts of the organisation to enable the company to create a collective future. These organisational activities, although require a massive effort, enable Boots to accomplish a Rapid transformation both in organisation and human culture. This helps develop and maintain and effective workforce. These collaborative management activities have helped maintain Boots as a Great Place to work.

These methods of management practised at Boots, influenced by great leadership qualities ensure that all employees are clear in the role they play within the organisation which ultimately ensure company success.

Boots has a reputation for being traditional a ‘paternalistic’ company treating its employees well, involving them in the business and recognising the importance of motivation. Boots offer the chance of self-development, the recognition of good work, such as a bonus system and sense of achievement that employees’ can enjoy in their various roles. These ‘Motivators’ as Hertzberg termed them are vital for the success of the business. However this paternalistic approach in which managers make decisions in the best interests of the workforce through two-way communication, so employees feel that their needs are met. This is fulfilled through one-two-one, forums and briefs. This has its disadvantages though. It tends to slow down decision making and fundamental still has qualities of an autocratic management qualities. Over the past two years a change is taking place to be more targets driven and reward Performance through forced distribution – rewarding achievement and nurturing unfavourable performances.

Conclusion

Boots recognises that a business will thrive only if it develops the skills of its employees and keeps its work force motivated. Boots believes that it needs to retain the commitment of its employees. This approach is reflected in its management style.

It is also evident that a change from the current paternalistic/social approach to that of very goal orientated one is taking place. This concept of rewarding the achievers is another shift in management style ensuring organisational performance.

Management is complex. There are many different theories which try and achieve a cohesive concept of effective management. However within Boots there is no definitive theory which fits the organisation as factors such as environment and technologies change so must Management and leadership styles. Management is very much situational and varies from function to function and according to the need and condition of the company.

Recommendations:

The most significant step change in management style for Boots is the implementation of actively evaluating performance of employees, namely, through the Forced distribution model. Boots have begun this tough-minded approach of effectively ranking employees through a performance evaluation process to ultimately ensure outcomes are achieved. There have been instances of employees being surprised at final placement at end of year. To overcome the negative perception of forced distribution, managers must ensure that honest communication; thoughtful performance appraisals which must be articulated so that poor performances are made clear. This will ensure that upon end of year and final placement that penalties inevitably imposed will not be a shock. Forced distribution has the potential to corrode the image of a caring, thoughtful, motivating Boots. However if executed correctly it has the potential to increase productivity of employees which ultimately will lead to growth and making the mission of Boots a reality.