Professional Thesis Writing Service

People oriented methodology is mainly focused on obtaining the ethical positi

Discuss this statement in relation to whether management could be described as a profession. Is management characterized as an art ,as a science or both? In order to investigate the nature of Management, it would be useful firstly to define it. According to Drucker ” Management is about human beings. Its task is to make people capable of joint performance, to make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. This is what organization is all about, and this is the reason why management is the critical, determining factor” (Drucker,2001, pp.10). Nowadays, practically everyone works for a managed institution, large or not, business or not. Our living actually depends on management. The ability we have to contribute to society, depends firstly on the way, the institute we work for, is managed and furthermore on our own abilities, devotion and effort. For years now, there has been a great debate on whether management can be characterized as a science or as an art. Some of the most important authors that tried to examine if management is an art or a science are Lester et al. (1998), Watkins (1993),Bohn (1994), Calkins (1959), Schiemann and Lingle (1997), and Weick (1996). This essay focuses on the studies that have been conducted on the nature of management, and its purpose is to reveal if management is an art, a science, or a combination of them, in relation to whether management could be described as a profession. We will try to answer that, by discussing the insufficiency of the technical approach to professional knowledge for dealing with real-world situations, but before that it would be interesting to examine the evolution of managerial discourse since 1870.

According to Barley and Kunda ( 1992) even though serious theoretical and political differences existed, scholars have merged on a common theory of how American managerial notion has evolved. During the first stage, which terminated in the late 1800s, managerial discourse sought to legitimate coercive shopfloor practices ( Nelson, 1975). This phase was characterized by abusive control and threats of violence. By the turn of the century, early forms of mass production and a flourish of corporate merging had prepared the ground for a second phase, during which utilitarian rhetorics became increasingly popular (Wren, 1972). Accomplishing the work of Frederick Taylor, rational theories of management conquered managerial discourse by World War I(Bendix, 1956). The manpower was now supposed to be more effectively controlled by contouring production processes and by attracting the worker’s self-interest. According to Bendix (1956) the Depression is widely held to mark the beginning of the third phase. “As the white-collar labor force was gaining more power, managerial discourse began to emphasize normative control : the idea that managers could more effectively regulate workers by attending not only to their behavior but to their thoughts and emotions.” (Barley ,Kunda, 1992,pp.364 ) They believed that by approaching both the mind and the heart of the workers , management could reach the most subtle type of control: moral authority.

The succession of Managerial Ideologies since 1870

Ideology

Era of ascent

Tenor

Industrial Betterment

1870- 1900

Normative

Scientific Management

1900- 1923

Rationale

Welfare capitalism/Human relations

1923- 1955

Normative

Systems rationalism

1955- 1980

Rational

Organizational Culture

1980- present

Normative

(Barley,Kunda,1992, pp.364)

It is a fact that science and art are very different in nature. According to Gao (2008) art is viewed as: the use of imagination to interpret feelings and ideas, particularly in painting, drawing sculpture, or the skill of creating objects such as paintings or drawings, especially when studying art. In reality, art has nothing to do with objectivity. It relates to collective, mostly, individual subjectivity. So can management really be the very antithesis of the use of a body of rigorous professional knowledge? According to Spender ( 2006) many writers, like Mintzberg (1976), point to management as an art form. Although management apparently has imaginative and artistic aspects, this is not really the point .The point here is to contrast rational way of decision making against intuitive creation. to imply that it might be more useful to think of business leadership as something other than cold, objective reasoning (Mintzberg, 1976).

This is why, according to Richardson (2008 ) managers need to study philosophy. Repeatedly, managers have to be able to decide which data they need in order to make a decision, to interpret this theory and even choose what its purpose really is. This is not unexpected, if you take into consideration that many academic books on the topic often lack any practical suggestions. Philosophy is a study that inspires personal choice, and in management choices thrive. So, effective managers should know when a decision has to be based on principle and when it should be made logically , depending on each case. According to Drucker (1998) managers need impact rather than technique, and they prefer to be sound rather than clever; they know the trickiest part is to choose between the right and the wrong compromise , and they have learned to tell the difference from one another. Anyhow, in management, the most time-consuming part of the process is not taking the decision, but making it effective, and this is when the ability to manage through discontinuity, to be able to detect changes but also to recognize patterns and be able to focus on those things that do not change, is needed.(Mintzberg, 2004)

Management as an art is an amazing but natural expression of human behavior (Peroff,1999). According to Bolman and Deal( 1997), managers are both artists and leaders who are able to develop exceptional solutions and fresh ideas about their organizations’ needs. They adjust to people and events around them and learn to expect the chaotic twirls and turns of managerial life. ” 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, ambiguity . An artist reframes the world so that others can see new possibilities”(Boleman and Deal, 1997, pp. 17).

To sum up, a significant group of people think of management as an art. In reality, management personalities, like Microsoft’s William Gates and GE’s Jack Welch, and their top-down managerial strategy, have enhanced this idea (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995 ). Gao (2008) argues that the reasons are not only because these people have supported or have gone over the top about personal intuition and other personal irrational factors such as emotion and intuition in decision-making and management, but also because no management theory or approach can assure successful practical accomplishment of a social or economic organization in practice.

So, as we already mentioned, effective management can be considered as an art – the art of getting things done through people. Thinking of management as an art is possibly more productive, because it identifies management as something more than just a set of unambiguous techniques. “Management as art implies inventiveness rather than conformity, practice rather than mere prescription, wisdom rather than mere knowledge.” ( Evered, Selman, 2001 , pp.17 )

Science, on the other hand, even though there is no commonly agreed definition for it, is viewed as knowledge about the behavior and structure of the world, based on facts. However, according to Gao (2008), even though there is no body with the authority to define science, and there are various discussions about its definition, its nature and its motive in philosophy of science, everybody agrees that science is based on rational assumption and experimental orientation. . Science ” is the organized , systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles”(Wilson, 1998,pp. 53). Polany suggested that post critical philosophy emphasizes the creative subjective aspect of scientists in the process of creating knowledge, but considerable collective subjectivity, objectivity, rationality and logic are necessary in science (Polany, 1958).

According to Wilson(1998b) science involves the expansion of sensory capacity by instruments , the categorization of data, and the analysis of data guided by theory. “Science , is extraordinary . With the aid of science , we can visualize matter across 37 orders of magnitude, from the largest galactic cluster to the smallest known particle.”(Wilson, 1998a, pp.47) As long as science is used properly it can be really useful for everybody’s everyday life.

Management as a science was firstly characterized by Frederick Taylor (1911) and Gulick (1937). Scientific Management considered employees as tools for the achievement of organizational goals. Frederick W. Taylor believed that with the help of time and motion studies he could find out the best way for the accomplishment of a task – and that workers should be very pleased that were imposed to do precisely what they were instructed. The needs of the organization were separated from the needs of the individual. In Peter Drucker’s ( 1998) words, Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study; on Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Frederic W. Taylor, though, placed the main foundation, however, not much has been added to them since – even though Taylor has been dead for over sixty years.

Another important school of taking management as a science comes from the area of systems science. Ever since the 1940s, Churchman and Ackoff, based on Singer’s experimentalist philosophy, have tried to establish an ‘Institute of Experimental Method’ for dealing with societal issues in areas such as city planning and business management (Ulrich, 2004). Churchman’s social systems design and Ackoff’s social systems science can be seen as typical representatives of the scientific school, although Ackoff believes that mess management is an art and a science. (Churchman, 1955, 1971, Ackoff, 1979).

Even though the answer, to if management is an art or a science, could be both, either or neither. Some people think management is indeed a science, because of the scientific principles and rules that exist(like Taylor’s scientific management theories and Weber’s administration of social and economic organization) and that can be applied for improving the productivity and efficiency of organizations, profit or nonprofit, private or public (Taylor, 1911; Weber, 1947).

According to Lester(1998) creative arts and science are very different from one another . Scientific knowledge is useful to us because it provides us with objective, verifiable knowledge about the real world around us. (Wilson, 1998) Art, however is also beneficial but in a different way. According to Lester (1998) art is in tune with our underlying human nature , which Wilson (1998) argues that is an inborn ensemble of instinctive rules that rule our behavior. But do managers today combine art and science at work?

The severity of the management science utilization problem may be a result of an imbalance in the work of management scientists: too much science; not enough engineering ( Gruber, Niles, 1969). With the improvement of science so should also be improved the practical application of science. Even though the turns of organizational life are extremely complex and intangible, the knowledge and the available management theory could certainly contribute to the improvement of managerial practice. Mason Haire (1967, p. 110) in his Douglas McGregor Memorial Lecture observed:

” hen I say the contribution of the behavioral sciences to management has been disappointingly small, I mean this: in the past 15 years there have been perhaps 150 books and 1,500 articles written on the subject. And yet the practice o£ management remains about the same.”

It is obvious that in management, a severe strain exists between the promises of scientific methods and the realities of practice. “At a time when management is becoming more scientific, friction should be expected in the relationship between the practitioners of the art and the advocates of the new scientific knowledge”. (Gruber and Niles,1969, pp. 12)

So it is obvious that management combines both science and art. According to P.F. Drucker “management is thus what tradition used to call a liberal art – “liberal” because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; “art” because it is also concerned with practice and application . Managers draw on all the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences- on psychology and philosophy , on economics and history , on ethics – as well as on the physical sciences. But they have to transform this knowledge on effectiveness and results.” The effective practice of management requires a mixture of science and art; that is, a blend of rational objectivity and intuitive insight.

Both views of management, as a science or as an art, can provide ample evidence to support their viewpoints, and they all seem correct and reasonable from their perspective. However, some people also think management is neither a science nor an art, but a political game. The criterion is in the mind of the speakers ( Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

According to Nelson and Winter (1977), professional knowledge is also, neither fully scientific , nor fully a skill or routine, but a combination. It articulates of science, personal skill and experience and organizational routine. It is the function of the professional to act as an interface between routine and science. It is the professional who employs the heuristics in order to search, judge and choose routine in the path of problem solving. ( Tordoire , 1995)

When it comes to management and the use of professional knowledge in business practice, managers have to do without those guidance facilities and manuals, that are so vital for the management of capital, land, entrepreneurship and labour, simply because such sources do not exist. According to Igor Ackoff (1979), educating managers and experts to use experts is one of the great challenges in modern business. In every day business practice, however, trial and error is still the common way to learn about managing and using professional knowledge (Tordoir,1995). But is management really a profession? Management has a long history of trying to establish itself as a profession and securing similar influence (Lowell, 1923).

In the nineteenth century, professions and professional organizations emerged from a variety of traditionally learned occupations-generally those that required substantial theoretical knowledge and training, such as medicine, law, and science. Professionalization describes the procedure of uniting diverse practitioners under a set of homogeneous norms or rules, including the emergence of standards of certification, ethics, the development of self-governing associations, and the pursuit of legal recognition and protection (Hofstadter, Richard, and C. Dewitt Hardy, 1952). Professionalism and professions are dominant ideas and institutions. Sociologists and economists have recognized professions as an important division of the industry and professionals as an essential part of the labor force. Professions carry not only a financial implication but also a cultural importance. “They often occupy the highest – status positions in an occupational hierarchy. In cultural terms , they are carriers of important societal norms and values concerning such matters as the relationship between knowledge and power and the maintenance of trust” (Khurana , 2007,pp.4 ).

According to Spender (2006) the idea of management as a Profession refers to a group of people whose practice is shaped by training and credentialing against a proven and rigorous body of knowledge (Abbott, 1988 ). In this manner science has a long established a position of epistemic authority that clearly distinguishes its practitioners from amateurs, charlatans, soothsayers and the general public.( Watkins ,2006.)

However, there are some critiques about professionals and professionalism in general. Some of the critiques are about the way the knowledge is delivered; Rakesh Khurana (2007) shows that university-based business schools were founded to educate a professional class of managers, in the style of doctors and lawyers but have effectively moved away from that objective, leaving a gaping moral hole at the center of business education and maybe even in management itself. Other critiques are attacks on the body of knowledge itself. Pfeffer (1993) was far from alone in his plea for increased disciplinary harshness, for some argue there is no rigorous body of managerial knowledge from which to teach and so no argument for management as a profession. According to Tordoir (1995) the professional character of knowledge is of course a matter of degree. Most critiques, however spot the gap between theory and practice, arguing that business school knowledge relates inadequately to the practicing managers’ needs (Weick, 2001) . In what may still be the most significant study of managerial ideology, Bendix (1956) who wrote with great concern about the social-psychological aspects of work, argued that rhetorics of social Darwinism typical of the nineteenth century had gradually but steadily given way to the belief that managers could better secure compliance by shaping workers’ attitudes and sentiments. The practice of managing across governments and organizations overtakes both practical description and theoretical clarification. The business community has been suggesting that academicians should move out of the cut off, insulated world of the university and confront practical problems.

Apparently, professions are defined, apart from a high level of professional skills and qualifications, by a wide variety of characteristics which also contain subjective values relating to ethics and values. Tordoir( 1995), argues that professionals have much in common with managers , they manage the organization of knowledge input in tackling a complex matter. Non-professional managers on the other hand do not employ heuristics based on science, as professionals do , but use experienced routines instead. If line managers do use heuristics based on science ,however ,they are by this definition indeed professionals in the field of management ( Tordoir , 1995). The professional is largely responsible for directing his own activities. Managers must take due account of this by applying rules and procedures on a modest scale and aiming to achieve maximum harmonization of the objectives of the organization and the personal objectives of the people working there. If they can do that then there can be said to be professional management. .( Weggeman, 1989 )

These structures, the relative autonomy of professional work, and the high degree of prestige generally attached to professional activities differentiates professions from other forms of work and worker organization. Nevertheless, to mention the “professional obligations” of management executives is to imply that business management itself is a profession. But is it really? “To the extent that different managers perform one set of basic roles, management satisfies one criterion for becoming a profession”(Mintzberg, 1976), however sociologists who study the professions have engaged a wide range of viewpoints and criteria for determining what represents an occupation as a profession, which gives us the ability to compare management with what we take to be the bona fide professions, in particular law and medicine. ( Khuranha, 2007 )

According to Khurana, Nohria and Penrice (2005) “The criteria for calling an occupation a bona fide profession are as follows:

• a common body of knowledge resting on a well-developed, widely accepted theoretical base;

• a system for certifying that individuals possess such knowledge before being licensed or otherwise allowed to practice;

• a commitment to use specialized knowledge for the public good, and a renunciation of the goal of profit-maximization, in return for professional autonomy and monopoly power;

• a code of ethics, with provisions for monitoring individual compliance with the code and a system of sanctions for enforcing it”.( Khurana, Nohria, and Penrice, 2005, pp.4)

Regarding the first criterion which is concerned with the body of systematized knowledge, there are significant differences between the science of management and the knowledge foundation of the traditional professions (Khurana, Nohria and Penrice, 2008). As far as the second criterion is concerned, according to Pfeffer and Fong (2002), management apart from not developing a body of knowledge comparable to those of the true professions, differs from these other occupations in lacking a set of institutions designed to certify that its practitioners have a basic mastery of a core body of specialized knowledge and can apply it judiciously; although the MBA has been the fastest-growing graduate degree for the past twenty years, it is not a requirement for becoming a manager (Pfeffer and Fong,2002). As far as the privileges that society grants to professions are concerned it should be mentioned that they exist in return for certain social benefits. “The creation of these social benefits, in turn, creates certain restrictions on professionals. Because they own specific knowledge in areas of vital concern to society, genuine professionals are expected to place that knowledge at the disposal of all who require it and to provide services in a way that places the maintenance of professional standards and values ahead of the securing of individual advantage” ( Khurana, Nohria and Penrice , 2008). Once again, not always things work like that in management, as many genuine professional managers seem to rest on the advantages their profession provides them with but forget about their responsibilities towards the public. The fourth and final dimension on which, management differs significantly from the true professions is that its members are not ruled by a communal normative code that is supported by institutions that promote loyalty and obedience to it. Such a normative code, whether known as a code of ethics or a code of conduct, is a vital characteristic of almost any work-related group that its purpose is to be seen as a profession. So we would argue, that management has succeeded in taking for granted many of the appearances and privileges of professionalism while escaping the restraints and responsibilities.

Today, Khurana argues, business schools have largely capitulated in the battle for professionalism and have become merely purveyors of a product, the MBA, with students treated as consumers. Management education is also a huge and successful industry. Pfeffer and Fong’s papers (2002) give us good numbers: Business schools employ thousands of people all over the world; more than 100,000 MBAs are awarded annually in the United States, and tens of thousands are awarded elsewhere; there are more thousands of executive and undergraduate business degrees, diplomas, and certificates being awarded, too (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). Professional and moral ideals that once animated and inspired business schools have been conquered by a perspective that managers are merely agents of shareholders, beholden only to the cause of share profits. According to Khurana, we should not thus be surprised at the rise of corporate malfeasance. The time has come, he concludes, to rejuvenate intellectually and morally the training of our future business leaders.

So finally, is management an art or a science? If Wilson’s (1998) belief in a unified theory of everything is correct, maybe we should be asking a much larger question. Is a consilience of all of our ways of thinking about management possible? ( Peroff, N. ,1999) The famous physicist Louis de Broglie once said “May it not be universally true that the concepts produced by the human mind, when formulated in a slightly vague form, are roughly valid for reality, but that, when extreme precision is aimed at, they become ideal forms whose real content tends to vanish away?” (quoted in Cory, 1942). This suggests that we should use scientific understanding (not knowledge) to guide our decisions, not determine them, as such understanding is only correct in a loose sense.( Richardson ,2008, pp. 22) Management, even though it can be described as a profession, it should not be considered as a real profession because of all the lacks that we identified; however its nature combines both art and science, just like professional knowledge should combine them. There is no doubt that, when properly implemented, scientific management can really increase efficiency, but efficiency should always be tempered with humanity, by all means, as management is ad hoc and instinctive, rather than structured and planned.

 

on of every individual. It emphasizes more on ethics which is a participative approach of human or people who might be the stakeholders or users. It also highlight’s that users are deeply involved in the development process and take control over the stages, it means that the users are also involved in the decision making process and fully committed to the IS development. People oriented methodology can be applied to a system which really involves various types of people. It is normally a difficult task of making the users getting involved in to the development stages, but still the involvement of users from the top level management to the staff level is required in order to avoid some thoughts of the user like, feeling that the job should be more demanding and less secure. On the other hand user involvement may also be used to improvise the human-computer interface. Using this sort of an approach also includes visibility, simplicity, consistency and flexibility.

It is also one to the suitable methodology in the life cycle where its aim is to involve users in the development system; its focus is on ethics, socio technical view and human implementation; in the feasibility phase it identifies current problem, opportunity, system boundaries, existing system, key objectives and task. In the analysis phase diagnosis of efficiency, job satisfaction need and analysis, specifying and weighting efficiency is done. People-oriented methodology focuses on organizational design of new system, technical options and preparation of a detailed work design. In the implementation phase, the implementing process is planned in detail it also checks for whatever it is required to make a smooth changeover and finally in the maintenance phase the system is checked in order to make sure the objective is attained, If not the correction action is taken once again

ETHICS

As it is told already people-oriented methodology mainly focuses on ethics. Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality that is concepts such as good and bad, wrong and right, justice and virtue. On the hand it can also be defined as a moral philosophy involving systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior which is required for an organization. According to Enid Mumford (see Mumford, 1995), ethics is a methodology based on the participative approach to information systems development. Ethics is different from most of the system development methodologies. In ethics the process of change is viewed with the perspective of organizational issue and not as a technical issue.

Ethical Theories

Ethical theories play an important role in optimizing ordinary moral functions and to establish or defend basic moral principles.

Why Ethical Theories?

The need for this is that the emergence of new practices in the business and the basic principles may not be enough for the arising problems and may not cover the new areas that are still uncovered. Therefore it is necessary for a rational and consistent theory to evaluate the morality of actions. There are two possible approaches in order to overcome these problems, firstly there are some general rules and approaches but they may not be enough for some sort of issues. There might be some situation where the generally accepted practice or rules may be challenged. In such cases if there is some ways to decide and proceed on which, rule to follow it would be grateful. The ethical theories help an individual or an organization in choosing the right rule.

Secondly the decision maker may be able to elaborate and decide his moral decisions to others. It’s not a better thought to engage moral reasoning alone with the ethical theory should also be able to interpret it with the moral argumentation. This may help the decision maker to take part in a persuasive and intelligent way.

And search of a completely satisfying ethical theory will never end up. There is no theory designed that satisfy all the people and philosophers, but still there are two theories that seems to be good while considering the other theories. They are the teleological and deontological theories, other than this there are theories like utilitarian and Kantian approach which can help in carrying out decisions in a better way. Ethics can be apportioned into three categories Meta-ethics, normative ethics, Applied Ethics.

Philosophical Ethics

Philosophical ethics carries a different approach to ethics by seeking morality through rational, secular outlook that prioritizes human happiness and well-being. The advantage with this sort of an approach is that it does not subject to religious, cultural or legal perspectives. Modern philosophical ethics can be split in to two categories they are Teleological and Deontological theories.

a. Teleological Theories

This theory has a special mark because pragmatic, common sensed, and knowledge approach to ethics. The claim here in this theory is that moral character of actions depending on how it can help or harm in a simple and realistic way. It also suggests that the actions that produce more benefits are right and that they don’t are wrong.

Jeremy Bentham planned to develop a moral science that is more teleological than other ways to separate right and wrong, and he in his Introduction to principles and moral legislation tells that

“Under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne.”

Aiming to make ethics practical, Bentham even proposed a system for measuring the amount of pleasure and pain that an action produces. Called the hedonistic calculus, Bentham’s system identifies seven aspects of an action’s consequence that can be used to compare the results of different deeds: the intrinsic strength of the pleasurable or painful feelings produced (intensity), how long they last (duration), how likely it is that these sensations will be produced by a given action (certainty or uncertainty), how soon they will be felt (propinquity or remoteness), whether these feelings will lead to future pleasures (fecundity) or pains (purity), and the number of people affected (extent).

Robbery example to be used for weighing happiness and unhappiness in scrum.

Types of pleasure

LEADERSHIP

Leadership can be defined as “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”[1]. It can also be said in other words as “Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen” [2]. A good leader sustains him-self with a never ending process of education, self-study and so on. Leadership is a process where an individual makes his team accomplish a particular task and directs the organization in a logically connected and cohesive ways, for this few attributes like beliefs, character, ethics, values, knowledge and skills is required. Before getting in to concept of leadership in software development lets have an overview on the leadership theories and the concepts of leadership

LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Leadership seemed to take a view from the society only from the twentieth century. Theories in the early period concentrated only on the qualities distinguished between the Leader and the follower. There are lots of theories emerging and most of them can be classified as one among the eight major types.

i. “Great Man” Theories

This theory assumes that leaders are not born but made and a great leader will arise when there is need. Previously the research was on the people who were already leaders and on those days leaders mostly were from aristocracy and only a few were from the lower level, and this indicated that leadership has something to do with family or breeding. This great man theory says that leaders are men with heroism, mythic and should be capable of admitting these attributes whenever it is required.

ii. Trait Theories

This theory assumes that people are born with inherited traits where, some of those traits are particularly suited for to be an effective leader. Early research was on psychological focus of the day but analyzing inherent characteristics of people. A study was often made on great leaders and check whether other people have those traits of those successful leasers. McCall and Lombardo (1983) did a research on both success and failure; they identified four primary traits by which a leader can succeed [2].

Emotional stability and composure

Admitting error

Good interpersonal skills

Intellectual breath

But there arises a question “who possess those qualities but are not leaders?” if we consider traits as key features for leadership. This question is one which makes a difficulty to explain leadership using trait theory.

iii. Behavioral Theory

The perspective of this theory is that Leaders can be made or rather than are born and also assumes that leadership in order to be successful it should be based on definable and learnable behavior. This theory does not focus on the inbuilt traits or capabilities and tries to intensify from what the leaders actually do. According to this theory people can become leaders by teaching and learning

iv. Participative Leadership

This theory assumes that people are more committed towards action and involve themselves in to the game when they are put in to some sort of relevant decision making and it also tells that when people make decisions together the social commitment one another plays a vital role and thus there comes a pure involvement in work. Several persons making decisions together brings about a good result is what the theory tells about. A participative leader rather than taking a decision himself will involve other people in to the process including stakeholders, subordinates and superiors, and involves him-self as well. In this theory the leaders allow others to share their ideas and also try to implement them.

v. Situational Leadership

This theory assumes that best action of a leader is based on the range of situational factors. When a decision is made an effective leader does not fall in to a unique style rather they take different styles based on the situation they work on. Factors that influence situational behavior are the motivation and the capability that the follower carries. A leader’s focus of himself, his follower or the factors such as mood, stress and so on might also determine the behavior of a leader.

Yukl (1989) seeks to combine other approaches and identifies six variables [3]:

Subordinate effort: the motivation and actual effort expended.

Subordinate ability and role clarity: followers knowing what to do and how to do it.

Organization of the work: the structure of the work and utilization of resources.

Cooperation and cohesiveness: of the group in working together.

Resources and support: the availability of tools, materials, people, etc.

External coordination: the need to collaborate with other groups.

From these approaches this theory come to a conclusion that a leaders styles is often variable and it purely demands relationships, resource utilization and managing capabilities.

vi. Contingency Theories:

This states that leadership focus on the particular variables related to the environment that determine which particular style may best suit for a leadership behavior. This it states that leadership doesn’t have a unique style that would be best in all situations. It is a class of behavioral theory where leadership style might be suitable for some theory but may not be successful in some other situation. The main difference between the situational and the contingent theories is that in situational the view is more on the behavior that the leader should adopt in a given situation wherein contingency theory takes an elaborate focus on the capabilities and variables that in a situation.

VI. Management theories

Management theories are also called transactional theories, and the assumptions made by this theory are that Reward and punishment may motivate people in a better way. And this is a system which works best with the clear chain of command. The subordinates are supposed to do the work given by their superiors or managers. In early days transactional leadership is the one where a subordinate is employed he is paid and given with some task, so that the company gets authority towards the subordinate. And when a transactional leader allocates a work for the subordinate he is the only person responsible for completing the task, whether they have the resource or not. If anything goes wrong the subordinate is been punished as like he is rewarded for succeeding. Managerial theories are often uses in the business domains

VII. Relational theories

Relational theories are also called as transformational theories, here the assumptions are “People will follow a person who inspires them” and on the other hand it also states that a person with vision and goal can go to great heights. Working with a transactional leader is an uplifting experience and moreover they care a lot for you and they try their level best to help you succeed, these leaders often follow simple procedures to accomplish their tasks

Developing the vision

Selling the vision

Finding the way forwards

And leading the charge

These leaders often follow a high level of moral values and ethics in the organization with their followers. This type of leaders get frustrates when the organization or the people expect no changes and are happy the way they are living.

Leadership Factors and Keys to Effective Leadership

If a person decides to accept one to be a leader he shouldn’t see the attributes in his leader rather he should focus on how a leader work and should take him to be an inspiration or role model. This may involve various factors

a. Follower and a Leader

These are two main factors where, it’s not a good idea to expect the entire follower may require the same kind of leader for example, a person in the analysis phase might require more assistance in the gathering requirements and a person working in the implementation phase may require a leader who might totally have different traits. So a leader must know his people! Leader is another factor must know answers for three questions in a concrete way, who he is, what he knows, what he can do. He must have the talents of convincing his followers because only because of them a person is leader.

SITUATION

Communication

FOLLOWER

LEADER

Fig 1: Factors of leadership

b. Communication and Situation

A leader should always focus on Two-way communication. It’s always better that the leader informs his follower do’s and don’ts much of it in a non-verbal form. The way you communicate and what you communicate may play a major role in the leader, follower relationship. It also depends on the situation which is another important factor, situations are not always same, and the work done in one situation will not be suitable for other situation. A best judgment should be made in order to select the leadership style.

There are two most important keys for effective leadership

Trust and confidence which brings about employee satisfaction

Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas as follows

Helping employees to understand the company’s business strategies.

Helping employees understand what is their contribution.

Sharing information with employees.

LEADERSHIP IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPEMENT

^ Chemers, M. M. (2002). Meta-cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leadership: Efficacy and Effectiveness. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership.

McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greenboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall