Universalistic Theories – the Contingency Perspective
UNIT 1 THEORIES OF COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION
The Universalistic Theory of Management
Universalistic Theories – The Contingency perspective
The Particularistic Theory of Management
This unit deals with the theories of comparative management and administration. It identified the universalistic and particularistic theories of management and administration. It goes further to look at the contingency perspective, the strengths and weaknesses of contingency theory of management and administration.
Management and Administration
As earlier discussed, comparative management is the area of study dealing with differences and similarities of managerial systems and management practices in different cultural settings. It requires an understanding of the complexity and diversity of environmental variables and their impact on institutions.
Some writers tend to differentiate between management and administration. Some use the term management to describe the process of managing a business or a profit-oriented concern and reserve the term administration for the process of running the affairs of government-owned and other non-profit oriented organizations. For example, we may speak of business management and public administration. The reader will be quick to point out that this distinction is not universal. Universities and Polytechnics offer courses in Business Administration and Business Management as well as courses such as Hospital Administration and Hospital Management.
Thus, the preferred term for such courses varies from one institution to the other. This duality in the usage of the terms suggests that the distinction along the lines referred to above is not universal. Management literature, in general, shows that the term management and administration can be used interchangeably. Top Management in government often call itself “this administration” while its counterpart in corporate (business) organizations would, for example, attribute the decision made by them as “management decision.”
Generally speaking, the term management seems always to relate to people or subordinates who need to be led or guided, whose behavior need to be coordinated and channeled and whose performance needs to be measured, appraised, controlled and rewarded. In other words, we manage people. This school of thought suggests that administration is concerned with policies, procedures, methods and such other facilitative and coordinative tools used to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. The proposition, therefore, is that administration involves formulating policies, establishing procedures and devising methods for work accomplishment.
While this distinction may sound elegant on the surface, it ignores the comprehensive, intricate