College and Research Libraries TAl KEUN OH New Dimensions of Management Theory The author identifies good organization and management as a vital factor in library operation. He attempts to acquaint the reader briefly with the history and development of management science from the Classical theorists and Scientific ·Management school through the Human Relations school up to the modern behavioralist and problem- oriented approach. He shows the influence of these different ap- proaches on library management up to the present and sugges.ts ways in which library managers could make further use of the vast body of theory and research in the management field. He recommends more utilization of existing knowledge along with , further research by li- brarians into management problems. THE LffiRARY, all will agree, is a form of organization. An organization may be defined as that which coordinates a large number of people to perform explicitly defined objectives which the individual cannot perform alone. It emphasizes ra- tionality, effectiveness, and efficiency in the achievement of organizational ob- jectives. One of the most important factors in the successful fulfillment of library func- tion is good managemen,.t and organiza- tion. Wilson and Tauber, in The Univer- sity Library, concluded that «the success of the library in performing its appropri- ate function depends, in considerable measure, upon the nature of its admin- istrative organization."1 1 L. R. Wilson and M. F. Tauber, The University Library (2d ed. New York; Columbia University Press, 1956), p. 125. Mr. Oh is project assistant at the Univer- sity of Wisconsin Medical School Library. He wishes to express his gratitude to Vir- ginia Holtz, Medical Librarian there, and to Professor Alan C. Filley, Associate Direc- tor of the Industrial Relations Research In- stitute at Wisconsin, for having read the manuscript of this paper and for having made useful suggestions upon it. In order to fulfill library objectives, then, there is little doubt that librarians should be aware of the continuing de- velopment of an accurate theory of man- agement and organization, and its proper application to the real world as reflected in current management practice. The role society now demands of the library has become so great that libraries will have to advance in many areas in order to keep up to these expectations. The following paragraphs outline the field of management and organization up to the present and offer some of the new guide- lines and insights that have been devel- oped for the consideration of students, library administrators, and teachers of library science. Main stream of library management literature drawn from Classical Organi- zation theories. Library literature shows that library management has drawn heavily from classical organization the- ories. These theories can be divided into two different ~chools of thought. The first is what students of library management and organization call Scientific Manage- ment and the second may be called Classical Organization theory. I 431 432 I College & Research Libraries • November, 1966 In 1912 Frederick Taylor and his asso- ciates promulgated the SCientific Man- agement theory. The basic assumption of their philosophy was that workers are economically motivated. The worker will respond with his best efforts, they prom- ised, if material rewards are closely re- lated to work efforts. They focused their attention on the production unit, or shop, and they considered the workers from a physical standpoint, as adjuncts to their machines. This e.mphasis on motivation by ma- terial reward popularized the prescrip- tive approach to efficient organization and the conduct of routine work. Ex- amples of this approach are the famous time and motion studies.) incentive pay plans, and specialization according to function. Managers were taught that im- proved organizational efficiency auto- matically increases profits ·and reduces waste, resulting in more material re- wards to workers. They expected these principles to help them achieve the de- sired efficiency. In the 1930's Fayol (in translation), Mooney and Reiley, Gulick and Urwick, R. C. Davis, Max Weber, and others originated Classical Organization theory . . This schogl, unlike Scientific Manage- ment, embraced the whole organization rather than an isolated production unit or shop. It considered organization units or departments to be coordinated parts in a system. In this theory, the main principle is the division of labor. From this all the other elements flow. It advised managers to break down complicated jobs into more specialized activities. This was sup- posed to result in more highly skilled workers who could carry out their jobs more efficiently. Under this principle of specialization, work was divided accord- ing to the task, process, type of clientele, geographic area, and the like. Classical Organization theorists bal- anced division of labor by the principle of unity of command. Authority through unity of command resulted in "pyra- mids" of control. The chief executive exercises his authority through descend- ing chains of command. The problem of span of control arises in this situation, as well as supervision, departmentaliza- tion, and levels of authority. It is hardly necessary to mention that this school also emphasizes the formal aspects of organization. · Present-day library management is dis- cipline-oriented. All this should have a familiar sound to students of library management. There is little doubt that most library management and organiza- tion courses still depend heavily on these classical theories for the bases of formal organizations. The nature of such theo- ries has caused students of library sci- ence to view library administration from a heavily discipline-oriented rather than problem-oriented viewpoint. Among the familiar terms, principles,. and ideas we have adopted from classi- cal theory are "static," "prescriptive,"' "discipline," and "authority." Some defi- nitions should be helpful in illustrating how classical theories have influenced library management. 2 • ''Static" describes something which is fixed and unchanging during a long span of time. Filley and House explain that "Static theories usually suggest that A causes B. That is, factor A is both necessary and sufficient for result B." For example, the statement that a good sal- ary scale attracts competent librarians means that a good salary scale is both necessary and sufficient to attract com- petent librarians. - "Prescriptive" describes a statement concerning what should be done or what should take place. A characteris- tically prescriptive statement in library management might be that library staff members work more efficiently with two fifteen-minute coffee breaks per day than with no coffee breaks at all. 2 See forthcoming article in Management Internation- al by Robert J. House and Alan C. Filley: .. Science, Theory, Philosophy and the Practice of Management.'' . New Dimensions of Management Theory I 433 · "Discipline-oriented" management the- ory results in the division of manage- ment principles among various fields of operation. One group of experts knows the principles of library manage- ment, another group knows the princi- ples of hospital management, and so on. "Authority" refers to the right to give commands from the top down. Such a system of authority is usually defined by an organizational position chart, in which, for example, the chief executive of a library commands a director of tech- nical services, who commands the head of a cataloging department, who com- mands the head of a subject cataloging division, who commands individual cata- logers, who command typists. Weaknesses of the classical theories. The organization · of libraries in this complex modern society owes much to the theoretical framework which the early classical theorists have provided. But it is important for librarians to be aware of the weaknesses in these the- ories on which they rely so heavily. The influence of Classical theories in library management has resulted in a "principles" approach to organization. Some modem theorists question the validity of principles if they are defined as permanent universal laws. Strother goes so far as to say that "there is very little solid evidence for the universality of principles of organization. As a mat- ter of fact, there is very little evidence as yet that there are any principles of organization, universal or otherwise."3 Another important defect of Classical theory is its undue emphasis on the for- mal aspects of organization. B·ased on the assumption that the worker's human nature leads him to seek the utmost ma- terial gain, it neglects entirely the effects of individual personality, informal groups, intra-organizational conflict, and 3 George B. Strother, "Problems in the Development of a Social Science of Organization," in Harold J. Lea- vitt, ed. The Social Science of Organization (Engle- wood CliHs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963 ), p. 21. the decision-making process on the for- mal structure. It is well for librarians to be aware .....- that the principles of Classical organiza- tional theories were formulated by suc- cessful managers by generalizing from their own experiences, and that they have not yet been subjected to rigorous empirical testing. March and Simon point out that "perhaps the most critical failure of classical administrative sci- ence is that it does not confront theory with evidence. . . . The theories tend to dissolve when put into testable form."4 Human Relations school. The Human Relations school developed in the 1930's, compensating for some of the deficien- cies in the Classical theories. The Hu.J man Relations school has its origins in the Classical school, but its main em- phasis is on th~ individual and the in- formal group in the formal organization. The importance of this school is that it is mainly oriented towards and based on empirical research. The theories, how- ever, are still static, discipline-oriented and prescriptive. The source of authority is still the formal organizational struc- ture. These shifts in focus from the formal to the informal aspects of organization reflect shifts in organizational charac- teristics and in management philosophy. In the early days of small-scale industrial activity, the idea that hard work and superior ability promised success in in- dustry was widely accepted. The indus- trious worker could expect someday to establish his own factory and acquire the right to exercise authority over his employees. But when industry grew and the modern world became more com- plex, the early concepts of organization no longer gave a true picture. Probably hard work and superior skills are still important ingredients of success in = com- plex modern organizations, but today one of the most important qualities of 'James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organiza- tions (New York : Wiley, 1958), p. 32. 434 I College & Research Libraries • November, 1966 all seems to be skill in human relations. ./' A pioneer study was done at the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne works in Chicago between 1927 and 1932. From it, came some results that generally disagree with many of the Classical organizational "principles." It showed that the quota of production is set by social norms, not by economic de- sires. It demonstrated that workers are more motivated by social rewards and sanctions than by economic incentives; that workers in their acts are influenced by the group; and finally, that wherever formal organization exists, both formal and informal norms exist and the in- formal norms are established by informal leaders. 5 As a result of this study, much further research has been done in the field of human relations. After World War II, such research became quite common- place. From these studies a large body of theory has developed relating to moti- vation, coordination, leadership, infor- mal status, communication, and so on. In general, human relations theory re- lates organizational structure and · work to the social needs of the employees. If the organization makes employees hap- py, the argument goes, it will gain their full cooperation and effort, thus reaching optimum efficiency. Library management and organization have not yet taken full advantage of the theories of the Human Relations school, although such phrases as "staff participa- tion in library management,'' "communi- cation techniques," "decentralization," and so on are frequently used. Criticism of the Human Relations school. The Human Relations school as- sumes, like the Classical theories, that worker satisfaction and productivity do not have to conflict. Modern theorists generally disagree with the view that the workers' needs and organizational 5 F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Man- agement and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939). needs can be perfectly harmonized. The conflict between the worker and the or- ganization, they hold, is inevitable, like autonomy vs. discipline, superior vs. sub- ordinate, and formal vs. informal rela- tions . . The Human Relations school does not regard the worker as an economic man who will increase his productivity for material rewards. It does not emphasize the formal aspects of organization. Rath- er, it encourages management to let employees develop social groups on the job, develop employee participation in management, democracy in the organi- zation, communication with informal leaders and groups, and the like. Mod- ern theo.cists, however, have criticized the "unrealistic happy dream" of being able to manipulate the work group by such inexpensive gifts as affection, es- teem, prestige in work, and so on. Research in the field of human rela- tions suffers from incompleteness. There is a lack of integration of the many facets of human behavior that have been studied. 6 Modern theorists charge that too much of the empirical research done by the Human Relations theorists has been confined to bu~iness and industry. They also claim that it is biased in favor of management in many instances. Modern organizational theory. While Classical and Human Relations theories still prevail throughout most of the man- agement · and organization discipline, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the deductive, prescriptive, and "principles" approach to management and organization. While the major emphasis on modern organizational theory and re- search dates from the 1950's, it originat- ed in 1938, when Chester Barnard, the father of behavioralism, published a book called The Functions of an Execu- tive. The behavioralists, including M. Haire, C. Argyris, R. Stogdill, and 6 William G. Scott, " Organization Theory: an Over- view and an Appraisal," in Joseph A. Litterer, ed. Organizations_: Structure and Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1964), p. 19. .New Dimensions of Management Theory I 435 others, are primarily interested in re- search and theory in regard to individ- ual and group behavior. They operate in various fields, or disciplines, such as business, psychology, political science, and sociology. A second group of researchers includ- ing A. Gouldner, A. Etzioni, P. Selznick and others, is primarily composed of sociologists who are interested in sub- jecting classical organization theory to empirical testing. Unlike the behavior- alists, these scientists usually investigate the total organization rather than small groups. A third category, led by H. A. Simon, R. Cyert, J. G. March and others, is the management science group. These schol- ars base their research primarily on ac- tual observation of the phenomena in question followed by abstract analysis of the results. They "build models"- systems of ideas which are supposed to represent and approximate real life sit- uations, and from which they attempt to prescribe and predict. 7 These modern organization theorists, unlike the theorists of the Classical schools, tend to emphasize 1empirical re- search and des.cription and generaliza- tion from large bodies of concrete data. They do not present absolute statements but· confine themselves to general state- ments of probability. Their empirical theories depend heavily on statistical for- mulations and tests. The source of authority, according to modern theorists, is political rather than economic. That is to say, authority does not come from an employee's defined position alone, but from many other sources as well, such as competence, personality, loyalty of subordinates, and the like. The mode1~n approach does not, like the Classical and Human Relations schools, limit its research to business and 7 These classifications of modern organization theory are drawn from A. C. Filley's unpublished ms., chap- ter four, "The Evolution of Management Theory," p. 18-19. industry, but rather it studies every kind of organization, from social clubs and prisons to military organizations and churches. I The modern organizational school is problem-oriented rather than discipline- oriented. In other words, for any par- ticular problem it chooses to study, it takes advantage of the findings of an- thropology, sociology, economics, politi- cal science, mathematics, and so on. It does not try to be rigidly prescriptive, to advise what must be done if certain goals are to be achieved. It limits itself largely to descriptions of the phenomena it studies. To borrow a summary of modern or- ganizational analysis from Etzioni, mod- ern theorists are concerned with: 1. Both formal and informal elements of the organization and their articula- tion. \ 2. The scope of informal groups and the relations between such groups inside and outside the organization. 3. Both lower and higher ranks. 4. Both social and material rewards and their effects on each other. 5. The interaction between the organi- zation and its environment. 6. Both work and nonwork organiza- tion.8 · Stogdill's Theory an example of mod- ern contributions. Ralph Stogdill's theory of individual behavior and group achievement9 is a good example of a modern theory whioh can contribute valuable new insights to library manage- ment. Unfortunately, it is not possible to describe the entire theory and all its ramifications in this brief article, but 8 Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organization (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 49. 9 R. M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959). For an excellent summary and analysis, see Alan C. Filley and Robert J. House,! "A Note on Cur- rent Organization Theory: a Summary and Analysis of Stogdill's Theory of Individual Behavior and Group Achievement," Wisconsin Project Reports, v. 2, No. 4. Bureau of Business Research and Service, School of Commerce, University of Wisconsin, 1965. 436 I College & Research Libraries • Novembe~, 1966 perhaps the following examples will il- lustrate the kinds of new ideas that could be gained by further study of modern management literature. Stogdill's theory synthesizes and ex- plains the results of more than eight hundred research studies. One of the most revolutionary new ideas he pro- poses is that managers should, never measure the output of their organization in terms of productivity alone. The out- put of a catalog department, he would say, should not be measured solely in terms of the number of books cataloged or cards typed and filed. The manager · should be equally conc;.erned with de- veloping an eager and !'esponsive staff which can be depended on under . diffi- cult as well as favorable conditions. Only in achieving a balance between these different kinds of output can a manager really attain optimum efficien- cy. He should never ~acrifice the intan- gible output of his organization for the sake of impressive statistics, or vice versa. Stogdill's theory is particularly suc- cessful in resolving the conflicts between Classical theorists and behavioralists. The behavioralists have minimized the importance of formal organizational structure. The Classical theorists, in corr,., trast, have always tended to feel that the more completely defined an organi- zation's structure is, the more efficiently that organization will function. Stogdill, however, has shown convincingly that an intermediate amount of structure leads to optimum efficiency ~nd the greatest satisfaction and freedom among · employees. If the employees of a li- brary are not clear about what rules they are expected to follow, what hours to keep, to whom they are responsible, what and how much they are expected to do, and so on, they will waste a great deal of time just checking, confirming, seeking approval to do one thing or another, and generally trying to find out what is expected of them. A struc- tural vacuum such as this may well be filled by informal group norms which do not contribute very much to organiza- tional efficiency. On the other hand, if the routines of library work are very rigidly prescribed and supervised, the employees will be- come bored and frustrated. While they may be pressured into higher produc- tivity over the short run, the resulting dissatisfaction will cause a net reduction in productivity in the long run. With an intermediate degree of formal structure, the employees will know ex- actly what is expected of them but will also be left some choice as to how they use their time and carry out their tasks. This will contribute to optimum total output. This new approach should be seriously considered both by library managers who seek to avoid making rules at all costs, and those who would like to reduce every activity to a written routme. Some managers of the old school feel that informal group relations have no place on the job. While they find such activities hard to control, their ideal is to eliminate them entirely. An econom- ically motivated worker, they argue, should not want to waste valuable time in, and is not being paid for, such ac- tivities. The behavioralists feel, however, that a staff member who is not so re- stricted will be happier and therefore more efficient. None of the research done on this subject has fully supported either side. Employees do not give their best efforts to organizations which try to extinguish all social contact on the job. And yet, if they are left almost completely alone, they may be perfectly happy and very unproductive. The Classical and Human Relations schools had assumed that workers' needs and organizational goals did not conflict, and they could not ex- plain these discrepancies. Stogdill draws an important connec- tion between structure and output. U n- New Dime~ of Management Theory I 437 der intermediate degrees of formal struc~ons theories for our management of ture, when the needs of the employees libraries. and training of librarians. These and of the organization are harmonized, dynamic new developments will no the existence of informal groups actually doubt be absorbed into library manage- contributes to efficiency. ment as well. For firm believers in extensive divi- Many libraries, unfortunately, have sion of labor, Stogdill's theory offers a been criticized for ineffectiveness, bad warning. Classical theorists assumed that service, and other defects. Some librari- because the assembly line method of ans have come to feel that libraries will working increases productivity it should always receive criticism from patrons be accepted wholeheartedly by employ- who do not understand their problems. ees. This has not proved to be the case. Criticism seems to have become an ac- Studies show that the boredom and frus- cepted part of library life. One scholar tration of employees who must do the has suggested that libraries can survive same tiny, undignified, and automatic in spite of criticism only because they motions day after day tends to cause an are social institutions occupying a roo- over-all drop in long-run efficiency. Ex- nopolistic position. Could they survive, periments in job enlargement have had however, if libraries became commer- very promising results. While extreme cialized and began to compete as busi- division of labor may give short-run ness organizations? Libraries, like any benefits, people tend to do better work/ other public service institution, have an when their jobs have enough challenge obligation to manage themselves as effi- in them that they can take some pride in ciently and effectively as possible. doing them well. This pride and the sat- Organizations differ in their character- isfaction the employees can take in their istics and goals but some of their es- work must also be considered part of the sential qualities, such as efficiency, effec- output of the organization. tiveness, and survival and growth are Conclusions and some suggestions. It similar. A broadening of scope and study should be emphasized that the Classical of th~ problems librarianship has in com- and Human Relations theories must not mon with many other kinds of organiza- be undervalued. These remain the basic tions would prove fruitful. Many aca- framework of our management disci- demic disciplines have now become pline. H. Koontz wrote that: problem-oriented in their management Every thoughtful business executive wh<;> wants to make his practice of management more effective should be concerned with the development of an accurate and useful theory of management. Any art-and man- aging is surely one of the most important arts-is improved by the discovery, under- standing, and proper application of theory by those who know how to use it. 1 0 Library managements and students of library management could benefit also by taking advantage of the latest devel- opments in management and organiza- tion theories. We have already drawn heavily on classical and human rela- 1o Harold Koontz, ed., Toward a Unified Theory of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 1-2. and organization courses. For example, at the University of Wisconsin, courses in organization and administration in the school of commerce, the sociology de- partment, the engineering department, and the policial science department draw material from the same bodies of theory and research. Library schools could per- haps improve their practices in the mat- ter as well. In 1933, Pierce Butler warned that: Unlike his colleagues in other fields of social activity, the librarian is strangely un- interested in the theoretical aspects of his profession. He seems to possess a unique immunity to that curiosity which elsewhere drives modem man to attempt, somehow, .... 438 I College & Research Libraries • November, 1966 an orientation of his particular labors with the main stream of human life. 11 One Jt)ight ask if this statement still ap- plies to the library profession. The importance of research in library management cannot be denied. Empir- ical research could give new dimensions and insights into the ways libraries should operate. It can give choices of action, suggest desirable action, and give predictions of possible outcomes. If li- brarianship is to advance as an academic discipline as well as a profession, it must put more emphasis on its research obligations in the field of management. E. J. Reece has observed that: It must have meaning, for example, to find even a few leaders recognizing that the attitudes of librarians to adminisb·ation has been hamperingly empirical; that their professional literature on the subject has been scant and immature; that research so far has imparted little to its history and rationale; that the administration of li- braries does not differ materially from that of other organizations; and that librarians could profit from the knowledge and ex- perience gained and the practice tested in other fields where administration is requi- site.12 11 Pierce Butler, An Introduction to L ibrary Science (Chicago : University of Chicago Press , 1961) , p. xi- xii. 12 Ernest J. Reece, "Introduction," Library Trends, VII (Janua ry 1959) , 335. .. ..... . ' ·· BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris, C. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Barnard, C. I. The Functions of the Exec- utive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Cyert, R. M ., and J. G. March. A Be- havioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Davis, R. C. The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: Harper, 1951. Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961. Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Man- agement. New York: Pitman, 1949. Gouldner, A. W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954. Gulick, L. and L. Urwick, eds. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Haire, Mason, ed. Modern Organization Theory. New York: Wiley, 1959. Mooney, J. D. and A. C. Reiley. Onward Industry. New York: Harper, 1931. Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1957. - Simon, H. A. Administrative Behavior. 2d ed. New York: Free Press, 1965. . - Taylor, Frederick W. The Principles of Sci- entific Management. New York: Harper, 1911. Weber, Max. Theory of Social and Econom- ic Organization. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1947. • •