Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Introduction

The word manage, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is derivative of the Latin manus, or hand and emerges from the Italian maneggiare, which refers to the handling or training of horses. Its use has since been expanded to represent a broader concern for the proper handling of things or people, particularly with regard to a company or organization. This is true across multiple levels of analysis. For example, at the most fundamental social unit, the individual, it can be said that people (to varying degrees) manage themselves. We formulate our goals, regulate our behaviors, and allocate scarce physical, emotional, and intellectual resources to our decisions and actions. Further to this, we frequently attempt to manage others; these could include our family, friends, colleagues, coworkers, cohorts, or competitors. We do this through efforts to motivate them, communicate with them, influence them, lead them, and resolve conflicts with them. People also attempt to manage their context and shape their environment; this might represent a group or team, project or venture, formal or informal organization, alliance or network, industry or institution, society or nation state, or perhaps even a transnational global movement. In doing so, there is a common thread to these actions that evidences unmistakable elements of “management”: orientation and direction, coordination and control, authority and responsibility, planning and design, and administration and implementation. Thus, in a sense, we are all inexorably managers regardless of whether we are given a business card with the formal title.

Not only does the reach of management run wide, but it also runs deep. That is to say, management is vitally important. It is with rare exception that our personal and professional activities need to be “managed”—implicitly or explicitly, internally or externally, indirectly or directly, proactively or reactively—to sustain efficient processes and achieve effective outcomes. However, highlighting something as important is quite different from saying that it is always done well. To the contrary we are all too often the victims, or perhaps the perpetrators, of poor management. It is simply not enough to cultivate advantageous resources and technologies, develop advanced skills and abilities, or construct superior capital and facilities. Who you are or what you possess (nouns) will only get you so far. We also need to pay attention to management dynamics (verbs). History is filled with countless examples of better managed “underdogs” leveraging their relatively meager means to upend better financed, entrenched, or equipped rivals. And in a world whose playing field has been characterized as increasingly “flat,” where resources, access, and opportunities are now more than ever evenly distributed, it is management that is frequently the key differentiator.

Management is also complex. Despite a long history of academic and applied investigations, there are no simple, comprehensive, universally applicable answers to its totality of challenges and conundrums. It should therefore be of little surprise that there are countless “theories” (loosely defined as well as loosely connected) of management. The study of management is almost as broad and diverse as its practice. It encompasses multiple levels of investigation, a wide array of subdisciplines, hundreds of journals, libraries of books, armies of consultants, an eclectic array of researchers and professionals, and diverse education and training programs. For example, focusing solely on the Academy of Management, the preeminent professional organization for management scholars, its ranks comprise nearly 20,000 diverse members from over 100 nations working in over 20 distinct and scarcely integrated academic divisions and interest groups, each with its own particular mores, models, and methodologies. Thus, even in this relatively specialized domain, we still come from different management traditions, practice different management techniques, address different management issues, and speak different management languages— too often scarcely aware of where the “others” are coming from.

Moreover, even when educators artificially narrow the field to discuss a discrete management topic, they often superficially toss out the name of a theorist (Taylor, Simon, Weber, etc.) or make a sideways reference to a specific theory (needs hierarchy, total quality management, etc.) and move on, as if assuming their audience possesses the necessary familiarity to appreciate, evaluate, integrate, and appropriately apply its assumption-based, domain-specific, frequently nuanced insights for improving their particular set of circumstances. Lamentably, this is far from the truth, and as such, management theory more often than not obscures rather than elucidates. Our students, our clients, our practitioners of the craft too often emerge more confused than empowered by these conversations. We hear questions such as, “Which motivation theory should I use?” or “What international strategies work best?” as if any of these tools can be applied without exception or without complement. And more than this, we are regularly presented with a seemingly endless stream of new books and journal articles with the latest fads and theories-of-the-day, professing to have “the answer,” yet often scarcely appreciating the theoretical insights that form their foundations, only to ride a brief wave of popularity but fall flat in the end.

In summary, management theory is, on the one hand, (a) elevated by its pervasiveness and importance yet, on the other hand, (b) shackled by its dizzying, disconnected (dis)array of dimensions, perspectives, ideas, voices, and trends.

Rationale for the Encyclopedia of Management Theory

It follows from the previous discussion that a common “one-stop” resource for presenting the fundamental characteristics, constraints, explanations, and applications of core management theoretical models and concepts would be of great practical and scholarly use. To date, there is no single definitive source or rigorous, systematic academic collection of the fundamental theories that define the field of management. In response, SAGE Reference decided to publish this two-volume Encyclopedia of Management Theory (EMT). I am honored to serve as its general editor.

Herein is the intention of this project—an authoritative compendium of the global landscape of key frameworks that have stood the test of time and whose insights provide the foundation for examining and advising contemporary management practice. The EMT is designed to serve as a reference for anyone interested in understanding, internalizing, and applying classical as well as contemporary management theory. Drawing together an impressive team of researchers and educators, it examines the key theories and the theorists behind them, presenting them in the context needed to understand their assumptions, arguments, and strengths and weaknesses. In addition to interpretations of long-established theories, it also offers consideration of cutting-edge research as one might find in a handbook. And like an unabridged dictionary, it provides concise, to-the-point definitions of key concepts, ideas, schools of thought, and major movers and shakers.

For the purposes of this volume, a theory is defined as an ordered set of assertions that are predicted to hold true under defined instances. Ideally, theories should posit (a) factors, such as variables, concepts, or constructs, (b) that are related in some systematic way, (c) because of underlying psychological, economic, social, or other dynamics, (d) within temporal, contextual, or otherwise specified boundary conditions. Drawing from the entries Theory Development and Multilevel Research within this volume, we see management theory at its best about attempting to capture the who, what, how, where, and when but also the why to decode and influence a broad range of interdependent phenomena. Yet too often, theories are not well defined or structured. Too often, their explanations ignore critical contingencies. Too often, their central tenets are misunderstood or taken out of context so that they are misapplied, ignored, or overgeneralized. Too often, their baseline assumptions and historical development are underappreciated or obscured. Too often their relationships with complementary frameworks are underdeveloped. These must be corrected if our field is to meaningfully advance, guide research, integrate insights, and successfully contribute to practice. Moreover even among those precursory surveys of management “theories” that do exist, there are few if any filtration systems and coherent distillations that apply a consistent formula to consider their elemental messages and relative importance. This shortcoming also must be remedied. To this end, we will use the following criteria for assessment: validity times impact. Validity: The theory has been substantially supported by research and has shown to be accurate in helping understand, explain, and predict management phenomena. Impact: The theory has significant implications for improving management practice and has generated viable applications to produce intended results.

Organization of the Encyclopedia

Inside the EMT, the reader will find over 280 signed, cross-referenced entries from an international array of respected management scholars that represent a broad-based coverage of major interest areas and perspectives in the field. Further to this, a “Reader’s Guide” was developed to group these entries thematically into the following categories that consider common management questions—yet often proposed different, albeit potentially complementary, answers:

  • What is/should be the nature of management and management thought?
  • How do you manage people’s personalities and perceptions?
  • How do you manage people’s motivations?
  • How do you manage interpersonal interactions involving communication, power and politics, and conflict?
  • How do you manage group composition, development, and teamwork?
  • How do you manage organizational structure, culture, and systems?
  • How do you manage environmental contingencies, networks, and institutions?
  • How do you manage strategic resources, frameworks, and processes?
  • How do you manage human resources practices, functions, and employee careers?
  • How do you manage within and across international cultures, climates, and other dimensions of diversity?
  • How do you manage decision-making rationality, ethics, and creativity?
  • How do you manage “management” education, research, and consulting?
  • How do you manage operational quality, logistics, and information systems?
  • How do you manage entrepreneurial thinking, creation, and engagement?
  • How do you manage learning, adaptation, and change?
  • How do you manage technology, knowledge, and innovation?
  • How do you manage leadership attributes, behaviors, and styles?
  • How do you manage social issues such as those concerning stakeholders, society, and the environment?

In addition, the EMT provides two appendixes that offer unique value for the reader:

  • Appendix A (longitudinal): An abbreviated timetable of the “Chronology of Management Theory”—to appreciate the historical, cumulative development of theory within the field,
  • Appendix B (cross-sectional): A delineation of “Central Insights” from the aforementioned encyclopedia entries—to encapsulate the major theoretical “take-aways” of the field.

Structure of the Entries

The structure of each individual entry is contingent on its placement in one of three groups, varying in length, based on validity and importance as determined by the editor and advisory board. For each of these categories, standardized author guidelines and checklists were developed that further differentiate this volume from other types of compilations.

Each entry begins with an opening paragraph (Introduction) that establishes a framework for the entry to clearly and concisely communicate its intention. It considers the following questions: Definition of the theory: What is the theory’s central purpose and premise? Domain of the theory: Why is the theory relevant to the topic of the encyclopedia (i.e., management)? Outline of entry: How will this article be structured?

The first and primary section of all entries (Fundamentals) describes the theory to systematically encapsulate its arguments. It considers the following questions customized to the particular nature of the topic: Content of the theory: What are the factors— core elements, variables, concepts, constructs, and so on—that make up the theory? Dynamics of the theory: What are the relationships—systematic ways in which the contents are related? Rationale of the theory: What are the underlying psychological, economic, social, and structural dynamics that explain the relationships? Domain of the theory: What are the temporal, contextual, or otherwise defined boundary conditions in which the theory holds? Context of the theory: What is the connection to similar theories and shared conceptions (general or midrange) of the phenomena?

For longer entries a subsequent section (Importance) offers an assessment of the theory to critically evaluate its validity and impact. It considers the following questions, again customized to the particular nature of the topic: To what degree has the theory been substantially supported by research and has proven accurate in helping to understand, explain, and predict management phenomena? How has the theory influenced management scholars and educators? To what degree has the theory provided significant implications for improving management practice and generated viable applications to produce intended results? How has the theory influenced managers?

For select theories that have been designated “anchor entries”—these are highlighted in the entry list with an asterisk—an additional section was requested that bridges the Fundamentals and Importance sections. Here a longitudinal examination (Evolution) was requested to dynamically trace its history and development. Significant discretion was allotted to consider in various lengths and approaches the following questions: What are the roots of the theory? What are the major changes, adaptations, tests, and adaptations to the theory that led to its most current form? What were the circumstances—economic, social, cultural, and so on—if any, that influenced its development, and what was their influence? Who are the people who contributed to its development and what was their contribution?

Each entry concludes with cross-references to other related EMT entries, to provide additional breadth to the discussion, as well as a list of approximately 5 to 10 supplementary resources (Further Readings), both seminal and contemporary, to provide additional depth to the discussion.

The Emt Team and Process

Numerous individuals were involved with the EMT project at different stages of the process. The Board of Advisors lent considerable expertise and insight to the selection, categorization, and structure of the volume. In many cases, they also wore the hat of entry(ies) author. They rank among the most esteemed luminaries in the management theory field, and I am grateful to them for their support, listed alphabetically: Jean Bartunek, Michael Hitt, Anne Huff, Paul Lawrence, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Andrew Van de Ven, and David Whetten. During the course of compiling the volume Paul Lawrence passed from this world—Paul was a treasured colleague (he was even gracious enough to serve on my doctoral thesis committee) and will be missed. A wonderful group of colleagues at SAGE Publications shepherded this project from conception to completion including acquiring editor Jim Brace-Thompson, developmental editor Sanford Robinson, reference systems coordinators Laura Notton and Anna Villaseñor, production editor David Felts, and marketing manager Carmel Schrire.

The selection of entries and authors for the EMT underwent a long, multiphase process. Feedback was solicited from numerous sources, including current and past officers of each Academy of Management division, editorial board members of several of the field’s most respected journals, conversations with respected colleagues, and input from the distinguished advisory board. In addition, searches of numerous management databases were conducted as well as reviews of core management research articles, texts, and compilations. From this process, topics were ultimately identified and authors were approached and contracted who were experts in these areas, many of them the principle investigators of the focal theories. Multiple iterations of each entry were drafted, reviewed, edited, revised, and copyedited. Whereas the great majority of authors delivered stellar entries, there were incidences of late drop-outs or quality concerns that necessitated us to remove an otherwise intended contributor or entry. Of course no process of this nature is perfect and there will undoubtedly be some omissions and limitations—as well as emerging research, perspectives, issues, and applications—that we will look to address in subsequent editions.

It should also be noted that within this volume some entries might be seen as more “theoretical” than others. That is to say, there is variability in the extent to which theories can be said to embody what several have put forth are the criteria for a strong theory. In addition, some entries drill down more than others to focus on key concepts or constructs whereas others adopt a more holistic or macro view that entertains different theoretical explanations, categorizations, frameworks, patterns, or perspectives of a focal management phenomenon. Moreover, the reader will also find differences between some entries in their basic assumptions, paradigmatic foundations, intended purposes, and even general intellectual approach. A conscious decision was made to prioritize a path that was more rather than less inclusive; this allowed for a more complete encapsulation of the management theory landscape rather than one that was artificially condensed. Said another way, the volume attempts to avoid the unnecessary rejection of potentially valuable explanations, which could be relatively more dangerous in these circumstances than offering a broader range of theories that vary in their popularity or current level of support and that include potentially but not necessarily more relevant and/or less-compelling insights. In “managing” this trade-off, the intention is to put forth these contributions to management thought in an open and straightforward manner that includes an explicit element of critical review and also invites rather than presupposes consideration by the reader.

Suggestions for Using the Emt

As you wade into this volume it may be easy to become disoriented with the great variety of models and perspectives or perhaps vacillate between them becoming an advocate of the most recently read or most persuasively written entry. As editor it is my charge not only to organize, solicit, and shape the entries but also to try to integrate them in some metalogical schemata as to bring the proverbial forest into focus without distorting the view of the trees. The EMT Reader’s Guide is helpful in this way by offering a thematic categorization of theories, but it should be seen as a beginning and not an end to the conversation. Because management is a relatively new and “soft” science, it is helpful to borrow from those who have walked a similar path—specifically, to consider lessons from the more seasoned domain of theoretical physics, a field that has also seen its share of luminaries and similarly struggled with the integration of diverse perspectives. Mindful of what Warren Bennis has termed “physics envy,” the following discussion selectively adapts two of the strategies communicated by Stephen Hawking that are particularly promising for management in advancing its theoretical precision and practical integration.

The “Trees”: Model-Dependent Realism

One of the most useful tools for understanding the trees (i.e., individual theories) within the management forest can be extracted from what Hawking refers to in his 2010 book The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books) as model-dependent realism. Per Hawking:

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism; the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model … and set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science…. [D]ifferent theories can successfully describe the same phenomenon through disparate conceptual frameworks. In fact, many scientific theories that had proven successful were later replaced by other, equally successful theories based on wholly new concepts of reality…. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a mode is real, only whether it agrees with observation…. A model is a good model if it: 1) Is elegant, 2) Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements, 3) Agrees with and explains all existing observations, 4) Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the mode if they are not borne out. (pp. 42–43, 44, 46, 51)

Let us unpack this. First, theories provide a picture of reality. They supply the categories to label phenomena as well as the map to interpret their relationships. For instance, if one is evoking Maslow’s model of reality, then a person’s motivations might be seen as striving to fulfill one unmet need or another—for example, internal esteem; alternatively, if one is using Vroom’s framework of motivation, then the same actions by the same person might be understood as hedonically attempting to better link outcome with valence. Therefore, it is imperative to recognize that our worldview is shaped by the theories that we employ. Whether we are liberated, or imprisoned, by them is another matter entirely and largely a fate of our choosing.

Second, that there is an evolutionary quality to theoretical development. This might take the form of successive improvements in the way that we see things, such as when new evidence is discovered or new applications are tested, or the advancement of wholly new paradigms for making sense of reality. Both cumulative as well as frame-breaking ideas populate the theoretical space. It is important to recognize not only the theoretical snapshots of management but the cinema and unfolding narrative of its story. Again, whether successive theoretical iterations represent positive enhancements or negative regressions is to be determined. We must be mindful that “newer” does not always mean better and “older” does not always mean classic.

Third, the veracity of management theory is ultimately decided on the shop floor and office space, not in the library or lecture hall. Independent of practical analysis and application, and outside of internal consistency, there is little compelling rationale to determine which competing model is “more real” than another. Management theories perpetuate or fade away (or at least they should) based on their realistic value. That is to say, their acceptance should be a function of the degree to which their predictions agree with and can shape observation. Fourth, and related to the above, the quality of a theoretical modeling is a function of its usefulness to managers. Models are more effective if they are simple, straightforward, broad-based, predictive, and provide tools for action that, if followed, will increase management efficiency and effectiveness. Certainly this is easier said than done, and the tension between criteria recalls Dr. Einstein’s pondering of necessary trade-offs that (paraphrasing) a theory can only be two of the following: simple, accurate, and comprehensive. It is therefore important to acknowledge that management is ultimately a professional field and must be judged by the degree to which it offers elucidating perspective, helpful tools, and practical guidance for using them.

Therefore, the first opportunity/challenge for the reader of this volume is to recognize the theories themselves, their language and their limits, and reflect on how they help explain, predict, and impact management dynamics and outcomes. My advice would be the following: Seek to truly understand, on their own terms, the essential insights of these frameworks. Try to customize their lessons and see how they might relate to your particular circumstances. Extract their most useful implications—for becoming a stronger person, for engaging in more successful interactions, and for constructing more facilitative contexts and mind-sets—to increase your management capacity. Yet do not be satisfied with the information and encapsulated knowledge communicated by the entries; combine them with sound judgment and prudent action to translate your enhanced potential into management “wisdom” for achieving personal and professional success. It is my hope that the EMT facilitates this.

The “Forest”: (Management) M-Theory.

Keeping our focus on the lessons of physics, but now looking not at the trees themselves but at how they relate to each other in the forest (i.e., management theory literature)—or pushing the metaphor farther, perhaps how they can be assembled into a terrarium— Hawking gives us a second vehicle: M-Theory:

M-Theory is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a whole family of different theories, each of which is a good description of observations only in some range of physical situations. It is a bit like a map. As is well known, one cannot show the whole of the earth’s surface on a single map. The usual Mercator projection used for maps of the world makes areas appear larger and larger in the far north and south and does not cover the North and South Poles. To faithfully map the entire earth, one has to use a collection of maps, each of which covers a limited region. The maps overlap each other, and where they do, they show the same landscape. M-theory is similar. The different theories in the M-Theory family may look very different, but they can all be regarded as aspects of the same underlying theory. They are versions of the theory that are applicable only in limited ranges…. Like the overlapping maps in a Mercator projection, where the ranges of different versions overlap, they predict the same phenomena. But just as there is no flat map that is a good representation of the earth’s entire surface, there is no single theory that is a good representation of observations in all situations…. Each theory in the M-theory network is good at describing phenomena within a certain range. Wherever their ranges overlap, the various theories in the network agree, so they can all be said to be parts of the same theory. (pp. 8, 58)

Let us extract the elements most relevant for our volume. Theories are like maps. They are more or less accurate depictions of a delineated area or landscape. As such, they have limited ranges of application, which are separated by explicitly acknowledged or implicitly active boundary conditions. As Dr. Hawking argues, and most management scholars would readily agree, there is at this time no single theory-of-everything (TOE) that is a good representation of all observations in all situations. Similarly, as inferred by numerous EMT entries, it is no easy task capturing the complex configurations of factors that combine to influence organizational success and differentiate the sage management scholar or continuously successful manager from their less distinguished counterparts. It is therefore necessary to “stitch together” (a la image or photo stitching) these depictions to see how each image relates to one another and, in the process, gain a better panoramic perspective of the overarching vista. This suggests that theories need not be seen as necessarily competing visions of reality but instead as representing potentially complementary mappings of different networked components within a multifaceted and multi-leveled reality. Areas of correspondence represent prospects for theoretical synergy. Areas of divergence represent prospects for theoretical reconciliation and extension (recalling dialectical arguments that a meeting of a thesis and its antithesis has the potential to yield synthesis). Ultimately, they are all contributors to a broader, more inclusive map; that is, they may all be part of the same “Management M-Theory.”

What might a Management M-Theory look like? Perhaps overlapping elements of critical and functional perspectives, humanistic and bureaucratic designs, external and internal forces, operational and innovative/entrepreneurial processes, tacit and algorithmic recipes? Integrated individual, interpersonal, group, organizational, environmental, and strategic analyses? Synchronized psychological, sociological, anthropological, political, and economic engines? Amalgamated information-, knowledge-, resource-, and wisdom-based lenses? A harmony of increasingly “high-definition” static management snapshots and dynamic management cinema? The actualization of a Management M-Theory is beyond the scope of this brief introduction. What is important is the general strategy that its idea represents for making sense of the 280-plus entries herein. Therefore, the second opportunity/challenge for the reader is to understand how the entries—both within and across reader’s guide categories—relate to, inform, and influence each other so as to provide the templates for a deeper, more comprehensive comprehension of management theory and an integrated, more effective application of its principles. My advice would be the following: Uncover the underlying theories nested within or derivative of complementary frameworks. Seek to truly understand the specific conditions in which their arguments apply. Actively explore how their focal domains interact with related models and where their conclusions might coalesce. Further, and borrowing from ancient but still relevant philosophical debates, consider how their individually articulated management (lower-case t, situation-specific) truths might be reconciled to help approximate overarching management (capital T, overarching) Truth. It is my hope that the EMT facilitates this.

In summary, as I conclude this introduction, let me share with you that it has been a wonderful experience constructing the Encyclopedia of Management Theory. It has provided me with an opportunity to revisit (and apply) many concepts and explanations, reconnect with valued colleagues and connect with new ones, and learn much from the process. My invitation to you, the reader, is to look at the contents of this volume in a variety of ways. Take a basic look—familiarize yourself with the entries and acquire fundamental information about their models and modes. Take a deep look—really dig into the entries and suggested readings to analyze their logic and comprehend the images and principles that they advance about management reality. Take a hard look—assess the validity and importance of the theories (i.e., the trees) and critically evaluate their usefulness in explaining, predicting, and influencing management dynamics. Take a progressive look— move beyond consumer to use them as a platform for buttressing and extending our field. Take a broad look—see how they relate to each other (i.e., the forest) and might be integrated into a bigger, more holistic picture. Take a reflective look—think about how they can help you on a customized path of personal development and growth. Finally, take a practical look—actively apply them in an integrated, synergistic paradigm to manage for success.

Eric H. Kessler
10.4135/9781452276090.n5
  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution