Is Management ART or SCIENCE

It’s an Art
The question of whether management is an art or science is quite old. When
viewed as an art, management is remarkable, but natural expression of human
behavior. It is intuitive, creative and flexible. Managers are leaders and artists who
are able to develop unique alternatives and novel ideas about their organizations
needs. They are attuned to people and events around them and learn to anticipate
the turbulent twists and turns around them.

However, artistry in management is neither exact nor precise. Artists interpret

experience and express it in forms that can be felt, understood and appreciated by
others. Art allows for emotion, subtlety and ambiguity. An artist frames the world so
that others can see new possibilities.

Science is extraordinary. It is a method of doing things. It is the organized

systematic expertise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the
knowledge into testable laws and principles. When science is done correctly, it can
advice us in all of our day to day decisions and actions.

Management is basically an art which can be made efficient by scientific

methods. The artistic talents of the manager can be enriched by the usage of
scientific tools. However as the famous quote “A fool with a tool is still a fool”,
the artist in any manager definitely has an edge. His creativity and productivity can
be magnified by using the correct scientific methods.

The art of management existed long before automation. Without doubt, the science
has made the management easier. But focusing only on the science may lead to
shift of focus of the entire team and create overheads. Success of managers
depends on how effectively they can use the scientific aid to enhance their artistic
skills.

It’s a Science
Einstein said: “Intellect…has…no personality, it cannot lead, it can only
serve”

From the original five dimensions (inconsistently referred to throughout the book as
dimensions, domains or abilities – the use of the word "abilities" will be utilized for
this review), the authors have simplified these into four:

1. Self-awareness
2. Self-management
3. Social awareness
4. Relationship management

All four are closely related and build on the preceding ability, but it begins with self-
awareness. Self-awareness helps us recognize emotions in others. Good, resonant
leaders have the ability to manage their own emotions to do and say the
appropriate things at the appropriate time.

Possessing a social awareness – being aware of how others feel individually or in a

group – creates empathy, which is crucial for relationship management.

The four abilities have been defined into 18 competences. The authors argue
that these competences are not innate talents, but learned abilities. From
the four abilities and the 18 competences, people can identify their own abilities
and competences. The authors have found that no leader has an across-the-board
set but, rather, a critical mass of a selection of abilities or competences.

Dysfunctional Consequences Of Traditional MANAGEMENT

The Traditional Management concepts of Taylor, Fayol, and Weber contained
weaknesses, not apparent at the time, which resulted in significant dysfunctional
consequences for today's organizational performance. The most important
dysfunctional consequences were (1) job dissatisfaction and low employee
motivation (2) displacement of organizational goals, (3) labor-management conflict,
(4) inability to respond to changing conditions, and (5) customer/client
dissatisfaction.

(1) Job Dissatisfaction and Low Employee Motivation

Why should I say anything when the foreman gives me a dumb order? I ain't paid to
think!
- American laborer, 1960

(2) Displacement of Organizational Goals

I'm not supposed to tell you. I'm not paid for that.

- Statement by a Washington, D. C.
tax collection official when asked
by a taxpayer for a letter explaining
how a dispute over unpaid taxes had
been resolved.