Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMukubvu, Luke
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-07T09:05:23Z
dc.date.available2012-09-07T09:05:23Z
dc.date.issued2012-09-07
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/8968
dc.description.abstractManagement was once described as the art of getting things done through the efforts of oneself and other people (Follett, 1941) and is functionalised through acts of planning, organising, leading and controlling tasks and people for pre-defined objectives. These four cardinal pillars of management are translated into various models, tools and techniques of best practice of how to manage. While acknowledging that the substance of the current management models, tools and techniques have for years broadly contributed to how organisations are run, my research sheds more light on the shortcomings underlying some of the assumptions and ways of thinking behind these models and tools. My research findings based on my experience in working for the Department for International Development suggests that management practice and organisational change occur in the context of human power relationships in which people constrain and enable each other on the basis of human attributes such as identities, attitudes, values, perceptions, emotions, fears, expectations, motives and interests. I argue that these human attributes, human power relations and the totality of human emotions arise in the social, and understanding the ways in which these attributes shape local interaction and daily human relating is critical in making sense of the reality of organisational change and management. I suggest that management practice occurs in the context of everyday politics of human relating. It is that type of politics that takes place within families, groups of people, organisations, communities, and indeed throughout all units of society around the distribution of power, wealth, resources, thoughts and ideas. This way of thinking has enormous implications for the way we conceptualise management theory and practice. I am suggesting that managers do not solely determine, nor do employees freely choose their identities, attitudes, values, perceptions, emotions, fears, expectations and motives. These human dimensions arise from social relationships and personal experiences. As such, it is simply not for a manager to decide or force other employees on which of these human attributes to influence their behaviour. I am arguing that the social nature of management practice and role of human agents is inherently complex and cannot, in the scientific sense, be adequately reduced to discrete, systematic, complete and predictive models, tools and techniques without losing some meaning of what we do in management.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectmanagement toolsen_US
dc.subjectpublic sectoren_US
dc.subjectinternational developmenten_US
dc.subjectpower relationshipsen_US
dc.subjectlocal interactionen_US
dc.subjectcomplex responsive process of relatingen_US
dc.subjectorganizational changeen_US
dc.subjectindentityen_US
dc.subjectvaluesen_US
dc.subjectmeaningsen_US
dc.subjecthuman behaviouren_US
dc.subjectpolitical behaviouren_US
dc.subjectrealityen_US
dc.subjectsocial orderen_US
dc.subjectinvolvement and detachmenten_US
dc.subjectreflectionen_US
dc.subjectreflexivityen_US
dc.subjectmaking senseen_US
dc.subjectcontexten_US
dc.subjectmanagement practiceen_US
dc.titleReflecting on a Period of Change in a Governmental Development Agency: Understanding Management as the Patterning of Interaction and Politicsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record