Hamid
Reza Alavią, Mohammad Hossein Nekui˛, Nematollah Musa Pourą,
ABSTRACT:
The goal of this research was to assess the relationship between the
awareness (knowledge) of the managers from the management functions and their
performances in the governmental organizations. The statistical population of
the research was 41 managers of governmental organizations of
Keywords: management functions, management performances, decision making, planning, control and supervision, communications, organizing, leadership
Introduction
Knowledge is the key resource of the information age. Today, the importance of managing knowledge and know-how is a categorical organizational imperative. Without understanding their own processes of knowledge creation organizations are unlikely to continue as functioning enterprises. Organizational performance is not like that. Instead, it should be seen as offering an important insight into the organizational condition. Intelligent exploitation of organizational knowledge has always had a major impact on the fortunes of business, and has always been a critical success factor for any organization (Sallis & Jones, 2002).
A professional training program should provide opportunities for
intellectual growth along several dimensions that are only loosing tied to
immediately usable administrative skills. Administration is a job, and it calls
for talents. Some of those talents are learnable. One of the persistent
difficulties with programs for reform in the training of administrators is the
tendency to try to improve managerial behave in ways that are far removed from
the ordinary organization of managerial life. Unless we start from an awareness
of what administrators do and some idea of why they organize their lives in the
way that they do, we are likely to generate recommendations that are naďve.
From his analysis, Mitntzberg (quoted in Bush et al, 1986) deduced eight basic sets of managerial skills that would improve managerial performance in doing better what they now do, some of which are: Peer skill, i.e. the ability to establish and maintain a network of contacts with equals; leadership skills; skills in unstructured decision-making; resource-allocation skills, entrepreneurial skills, i.e. the ability to take sensible risks and implement innovations; skills of introspection, i.e. the ability to understand the position of manager and its impact on the organizations.
If we are going to use universities effectively in the development and dissemination of critical administrative skills, we need to the analysis of expertise, i.e. the management of knowledge. In this field, we attempt to access the competence of an expert by sampling from his knowledge (Bush et al, 1986).
Performance improvement is linked to organizational learning. It consists of regularly reviewing experience to do better. A manager should take responsibility for his own learning. Manager in charge of their own learning processes usually learn more than those who are taught (Everard, 1986). On the other hand those who assume such learning, knowledge or theory will improve practice (Bennett et al, 1994). That’s the reason why we can speak of linking school effectiveness to knowledge and school improvement to practice (Harris et al, 1997). Robbins and Alvy (1995) suggest that a characteristic of the successful leader is the ability to install in others the desire to learn what is necessary to help the organization reach its mission. Therefore, such a leader should himself try to increase his learning in different fields of his work.
None of the ‘schools’ of competence deny the importance of knowledge and understanding in managing organizations (Kydd, et al, 1997). In most schools, there will be many changes that managers do not have the information to foresee. These changes will be imposed from above or created by changes in technology or in the market place. In these circumstances, to cling to the traditional way of doing things might be understandable but will ultimately result in the person or even the whole school being bypassed (McCallion, 1998).
The stated aims of all the proposals for training of some managers has included the intention to help improve participants’ managerial performance in their school, an improvement which ultimately can only by judged in terms of its effect on the quality of educational experience offered to pupils (Bailey, 1987), therefore indeed, management training could have been useful (Hoyle & McMahon, 1986).
Successful school leadership is associated with skilled leadership in providing a structural institutional pattern in which teachers can function effectively, and strong instructional leadership, and effective school management is related to a emphasis on academic success, with individual achievement and improvement rewarded (quoted from Reid et al, 1990).
Management is a complex and difficult process; therefore, the manager should possess the necessary knowledge, insight and skills to confront and solve the problems and challenges and to accomplish the organizational goals (Alavi, 1997). Many researches have shown that waste and destruction of resources have been due to undesirable management and unawareness. The aware and knowledgeable managers do their best in the worst conditions and create good opportunities (Farhangi, 1995). The success in leadership and management of a system involves three kinds of qualifications: 1. knowledge and expertise 2. skill 3. ethics. Therefore, a successful and effective manager needs acquiring information and knowledge by which he will be able to unify culturally the manpower under his supervision, and lead them to reach the organizational goals (Mami Zadeh, 1995).
Thus, it is quite impossible to deny the necessity of basic knowledge and awareness for the managers. No one can claim that decision-making in management for example, is possible without an accurate and precise knowledge. Therefore, naturally those managers who have mastered the current management principles and modern technology, in addition to their inherent aptitude, and manage their organizations dynamically will certainly have more chances for success as compared with the managers who want to manage without educational possibilities (A group of writers, 1991). Thus, it can be said that a capable manager has had the necessary trainings and education and has become aware of the points of the scientific and effective success, and so he can prepare a good background for the social and economic development (Farhangi, 1995).
Vaezi zadeh (1992) in his research entitled “ the investigation of Iranian organizations from the viewpoint of management ” concluded that in the research population, i.e. the Ministry of development and Housing, management functions, that is, decision making, planning, etc. were badly used. Banuthi (1993) in a research regarding the comparison of the managers who have pent the in- service training with those who have not spent these periods (courses), concluded that the first group had a better performance in the ( city) Ahvaz schools.
Gamar (1994) in his research entitled “the comparison of the performance of the managers educated in the educational management course with other managers from the viewpoint of Shiraz teachers” concluded that there was a significant and meaningful difference between the performance of the two groups of managers in the functions coordination, organizing, decision making and control, that is to say those managers who were educated in the educational management course had a better performance.
Since most of the above researches were performed in educational institutions, and their statistical populations were similar, so it is perhaps impossible to generalize the results of these researches to other organizations, thus, the goal of the current (present) research, is the study and investigate the relationship between awareness (information and knowledge) of the governmental managers about the management functions (decision making, planning, organizing, supervision and control, communications and leadership) with their performances in these cases. In order to accomplish this goal, the following principal and secondary hypotheses were designed:
Principal hypothesis:
¨ There is a meaningful relationship (correlation) between the knowledge (awareness) of the managers from management functions and their performances.
Secondary hypotheses:
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from decision-making and their manner of decision making.
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from planning and their manner of planning.
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from organizing and their manner of organizing.
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from communications and their manner of communications.
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from the control and supervision and their manner of control and supervision.
¨ There is a relationship between the knowledge of managers from leadership and their manner of leadership.
Method
The method used in this research has been correlation, since two kinds of
information about one group were gathered and the analysis of their relationship
was intended. Two groups form the statistical population of the research, the
first consists of the managers of the governmental organizations, and the
second consists of the personnel (staff) of those organizations and offices.
There were 71 governmental organizations in
The confidence level (95%) test for the determining the significant level (0.5) and T test for dual comparison of the factors, F test, HSD test (Tokey) and Spearman and Pearson correlation tests for determining correlation between the variables were used for the analysis of the data.
Results
1. The correlation between the knowledge of the managers from management
functions and their managerial performance (manner of management) was obtained
r=0.49, p=0.00 (table 2) by Pearson correlation coefficient, and r=0.61, p=0.00
(table 3) by Spearman correlation test. Considering these correlation
coefficients, it was first found out that there was a positive and meaningful
relationship between the knowledge of managers from management functions and
their managerial performances in the governmental organizations of
2. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from planning and their manner of planning (r=0.51, p=0.00) (table 2); (r=0.53, p=0.00) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
3. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from decision-making and their manner of decision-making (r=0.31, p=0.03) (table 2); (r=0.29, p=0.04) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
4. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of the managers from organizing and their manner of organizing (r=0.48, p= 0.00) (table 2); (r=0.47, p=0.00) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
5. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from communications and their manner of communications (r=0.32, p=0.02) (table 2); (r=0.30, p=0.03) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
6. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from supervision, control and their manner of supervision, control (r=0.48, p=0.00) (table 2); (r=0.51, p=0.00) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
7. There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from leadership and their manner of leadership (r=0.47, p=0.00) (table 2); (r=0.44, p=0.00) (table 3) by Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients respectively.
8. The total mean of marks (scores) of the managers knowledge who have spent in – services Periods (courses) from the management functions was obtained 11.58, and the total mean of the marks (scores)of the managers knowledge who have not spent these periods was obtained 8.93 . The statistical calculations showed a positive and meaningful relationship between these variables. That is to say in-service training periods had a positive effect on the knowledge of the managers from management functions.
9. The total mean of marks (scores) of managers educated in management or relevant to management was obtained 11.00, and the total mean of the marks (scores) of the managers whose their academic records were irrelevant to the management was obtained 10.27.The statistical calculations in the significant level 0.05 showed no significant difference between the knowledge of the managers educated in management and other managers.
10. The statistical calculations regarding the knowledge of the managers with different academic ranks, showed that there was a significant difference in the significant level 0.05 between the knowledge of the managers whose academic records were M.Sc. (or M.A.) and B.Sc (or B.A.) as compared with the managers who had Houzavi (religious) studies and education. The total mean of the marks (scores) of the ((M.A., M.Sc.)) managers knowledge from management functions was obtained 11.31 the ((B.Sc , B.A.)) 11.34 and those educated in Houzah 5.65 (from the total number (scores) 20).
11. There was no significant difference between the knowledge of the managers from management functions considering their ages, in the significant level 0.05.
12. There was no significant difference between the knowledge of the managers from management functions considering their services of record in the significant level0.05.
13. The total mean of the marks (scores) of the managerial performance of those managers who had spent in-service periods was obtained 12.11, and the total mean of the marks of those managers who had not spent these periods was obtained 11.18.The statistical calculations showed no significant difference between these two groups of managers regarding their managerial performances.
14. The total mean of the marks (scores) of the managerial performance of the managers educated in management or relevant to management was obtained 12.19 and other managers 11.35. Considering the results of T test, there was no significant difference between the managerial performances of these two groups.
15. There was no significant difference between the managers performances with different academic ranks, in the significant level 0.05 therefore, the academic rank had no effect on the managerial performances of the managers (or had no relationship with those performances).
16. There was no significant difference between the managers’ performances with different ages, and is to say the variable age caused no statistical difference in the managers’ performances, in the statistical level 0.05.
17. There was no significant difference between the managers performances regarding the management functions and processes with different services of record, in the significant level 0.05, and the variable service of record had no effect on (no relationship with) the managers’ performances.
Table
1. Summary Of The Research Results
|
Investigated variables |
The amount of correlation |
Significant level |
Controlled variables |
|
|
R |
rs |
|||
|
Knowledge of management function with managerial performance |
P=0.00 R=0.49 |
P=0.00 R=0.61 |
0.01 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of planning with planning |
P=0.00 R=0.51 |
P=0.00 R=0.53 |
0.01 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of decision making With decision making |
P=0.03 R=0.31 |
P=0.04 R=0.29 |
0.05 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of organizing with organizing |
P=0.00 R=0.43 |
P=0.00 R=0.47 |
0.01 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of communications With communications |
P=0.02 R=0.32 |
P=0.03 R=0.30 |
0.05 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of control and supervision with control and
supervision |
P=0.00 R=0.48 |
P=0.00 R=0.51 |
0.01 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
|
Knowledge of leadership with leadership |
P=0.00 R=0.47 |
P=0.00 R=0.44 |
0.01 |
1-training courses 2-academic record 3-academic rank 4-service of record 5-age |
Table
2. Pearson Correlation Coefficient Between
Research Hypotheses
|
Item |
knowledge |
Managerial performances |
Planning performance |
Decision-making performance |
Organizing performance |
Communications performance |
Control and supervision performance |
Leadership performance |
knowledge |
|
1 |
Management Functions |
0.49** |
0.63** |
0.59** |
0.55** |
0.34* |
0.63** |
0.62** |
management functions |
|
2 |
Planning |
0.41** |
0.51** |
0.53** |
0.45** |
0.29* |
0.53** |
0.64** |
Planning |
|
3 |
Decision- making |
0.28* |
0.46** |
0.31* |
0.40** |
0.15* |
0.41** |
0.48** |
Decision- making |
|
4 |
Organizing |
0.33* |
0.49** |
0.51** |
0.43** |
0.38** |
0.51** |
0.40** |
Organizing |
|
5 |
Communications |
0.28* |
0.34* |
0.39** |
0.35* |
0.32* |
0.44** |
0.38** |
Communications |
|
6 |
Control and supervision |
0.42** |
0.55** |
0.46** |
0.40** |
0.23* |
0.48** |
0.48** |
Control and supervision |
|
7 |
Leadership |
0.50** |
0.53** |
0.44** |
0.53** |
0.25* |
0.54** |
0.47** |
leadership |
* identifying
significant level 0.05
** identifying significant level 0.01
Table 3. Spearman Correlation Coefficient Between
Research Hypotheses
|
Item |
knowledge |
Managerial performances |
Planning performance |
Decision-making performance |
Organizing performance |
Communications performance |
Control and supervision performance |
Leadership performance |
|
1 |
Management functions |
0.61** |
0.63** |
0.59** |
0.59** |
0.38** |
0.62** |
0.64** |
|
2 |
Planning |
0.51** |
0.53** |
0.55** |
0.48** |
0.32* |
0.51** |
0.65** |
|
3 |
Decision- making |
0.39** |
0.48** |
0.29* |
0.41** |
0.16* |
0.40** |
0.51** |
|
4 |
Organizing |
0.51** |
0.51** |
0.62** |
0.47** |
0.43** |
0.54** |
0.43** |
|
5 |
Communications |
0.31** |
0.29** |
0.37** |
0.33* |
0.30* |
0.40** |
0.36** |
|
6 |
Control and supervision |
0.54** |
0.60** |
0.51** |
0.44** |
0.26* |
0.51** |
0.55** |
|
7 |
Leadership |
0.55** |
0.46** |
0.39** |
0.52** |
0.26* |
0.53** |
0.44** |
* identifying
significant level 0.05
** identifying significant level 0.01
Table 4. The Results Of Coefficient Of Determination
Test For Identifying The Meaningfulness Of The Pearson And Spearman Correlation
Coefficients
Hypothesis Calculated t Rp2 Rp Calculated t rs2 rs Management functions hypothesis 3.96 0.24 0.49 5.43 0.37 0.61 Planning hypothesis 4.19 0.26 0.51 4.41 0.28 0.53 Decision-making hypothesis 2.30 0.09 0.31 2.14 0.08 0.29 Organizing hypothesis 3.43 0.18 0.43 3.76 0.22 0.47 Communications hypothesis 2.40 0.11 0.32 2.23 0.09 0.30 Control and supervision hypothesis 3.86 0.23 0.48 4.19 0.26 0.51 Leadership hypothesis 3.76 0.22 0.47 3.46 0.19 0.44
* the t of the table with
degree of freedom 50 is 2
Discussion
The result of the principal hypothesis “there was a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from management functions and their managerial performances” showed that the managers’ performances regarding management functions had relationship with their knowledge and awareness about those functions (tables 1 & 4).
The results of other theories and researches confirm the result of this research. Farhangi (1995) stated that unawareness of the managers causes the resources of organizations to be wasted and destructed.
Mami Zadeh (1995) explained that knowledge and expertise is one of the capabilities a manager and leader should possess to be successful in his duties and responsibilities, that’s to say an effective and successful manager needs to acquire necessary information and knowledge to be able to lead organization and its personnel and staff towards nobler goals.
Alavi (1997) said that managers should possess the necessary knowledge to accomplish the organizational goals. Therefore, Bush et al (1986) admitted that we can assess the competence of a manager by sampling from his knowledge, and Everard (1986) concluded that performance improvement is linked to organizational learning, and Reid et al (1990) reported that successful leadership is associated with skilled leadership. Kydd et al (1997) mentioned the importance of knowledge on managing organization, and Sallis and Jones (2002) believed that without knowledge no functions of the managers will be possible, and a group of writers (1991) concluded that those managers who have mastered the current management principles have more chances for success.
We concluded in the current research that knowledge of managers from each of management functions (decision-making, planning, organizing, communications, control & supervision and leadership) had a meaningful relationship with their managerial performances (tables 1 & 4). Mitnzberg (cited in Bush et al, 1986) concluded that leadership skills and skills in unstructured decision-making, resource allocation skills, interpersonal skills, to take. A group of writers (1991) reported that decision-making is impossible without an accurate and precise knowledge. Those manager who know different methods for making a good decision, from what phases they should pass, what criteria they must consider, have necessary information about decision making approaches (certainty, risk and uncertainty) and decision making instruments ( research in operations, decision tree, etc ) and decision making limitations, their decisions and their manner of decision making will be better than others. Planning is one of the management functions and processes that is the essence and basis of the managers activities. A manager who has knowledge about planning, its phases, techniques, importance, etc, his planning will be certainly better than those managers whose knowledge is little regarding these cases. A manager who has knowledge concerning labor division, span of control, delegation of authority, the effective factors on span of control and choosing the best span, methods of delegation of authority, his organizing will be surely better than those who do not have this information. Those managers who have a good knowledge about communications, its elements, symbols or signals, kinds of obstacles, etc, will be able to use it more effectively. A manager who is aware of the stages and phases of control and supervision, determining suitable criteria for it, desirable comparison between behaviors and those criteria, and discovering the probable deviations and methods of removing them, the kinds of standards and their use, kinds of control, characteristics of an effective control and supervision system, such a manager’s control and supervision will be better as compared with those managers who have not knowledge about these cases. A manager whose knowledge is good regarding leadership, how to influence the followers and staff, how to motivate them to act in coordinated groups to accomplish the organizational goals, and uses best of the motivation theories according to his cognition of the personnel, such a manager’s leadership will be better than those managers who do not know these cases.
We concluded in the present research that training had a positive effect on the knowledge of the managers from management functions. Bailey (1987) reported that managers training had impact on improvement of managerial performances. Hoyle & McMahon (1986) concluded that training was useful for the managers. Banuthi (1993) reported that the managers who had spent in-service training had a better performance in management, and Gamar (1994) concluded that those managers who were educated in the educational management course had a better performance.
Conclusion And Implications
It can be concluded from this research that:
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between the knowledge of the managers from management functions and their managerial performances, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from management functions, the better will be their managerial performances.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from decision-making and their decision making, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from decision-making, the better will be their decision-making.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from planning and their manner of planning, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from planning, the better will be their planning.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from organizing and their manner of organizing, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from organizing, the better will be their organizing.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from communications and their manner of communications, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from communications, the better will be their communications.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from control and supervision and their manner of control and supervision, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from control and supervision, the better will be their control and supervision.
¨ There is a positive and meaningful relationship between knowledge of managers from leadership and their manner of leadership, i.e. the more is the knowledge of managers from leadership, the better will be their leadership.
¨ Training has a positive effect on the knowledge of the managers from management functions, i.e. the more is the training of the managers, the better will be the knowledge of managers from management functions.
According to the results of this research it is suggested and recommended that much more attention to be paid on increasing the knowledge of managers regarding management functions (decision-making, planning, organizing, communications, control & supervision and leadership) if we want them to have better managerial performances. We can choose more knowledgeable managers in this regard, or we can increase the managers’ knowledge especially through in-service training.
It is also suggested for the future researchers to do investigations concerning the study of the other factors which might have impact on increasing the knowledge of the managers, and improving the managerial performances of the managers, and also to do investigations concerning measurement of the managers’ “attitudes” and its impact on their managerial performances.
References
A group of writers (1991), Essays On Management,
Alavi, A. (1997), The
Psychology Of Management And Organization, Governmental
Bailey, A.J. (1987), Support For School Managements, Library Of Cataloging - In Publication,
Banuthi, J. (1993), Comparison of the teachers views about the performance of the managers who
have spent the in-service courses (periods) with those who haven’t,
M.A. thesis,
Bennett, N., Glatter, R. and Levccic,
R. (1994), Improving educational managements
though research and consultancy, Paul Chapman publishing Ltd & The open
university,
Bush, T., Glatter, R., Goodey,
J. and Riches, C. (1986), Approaches To School Management, Harper &
Everard, K. B. (1986), Developing management in
schools, Basil Blackwell,
Farhangi, A. A. (1995), “Learning the managerial skills and economic development”, Tadbir Journal, Vol. 15, No. 70
Gamar, K. (1994), Comparison of the performances educated in educational management course with the managers educated in other courses from the viewpoint of Shiraz teachers, M.A thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz
Harris, A., Bennett, N. and Preedy, M. (1997), Organizational
Effectiveness And Improvement In Education, Open
University Press,
Hoyle, E. & McMchon, A. (1986).
The management of schools.
Kydd,
L., Crawford, M. and Riches. C. (1997), Development For Educational Management, Open University
Mami Zadeh, J. (1995), “Management Ethics”, Tadbir Journal, Vol. 51, No. 19
McCallion, P. (1998), The
Competent School Manager, The Stationary Office,
Reid, K., Hopkins, D. and Holly, P. (1990), Towards The
Robbines, P. and Alvy,
H.B. (1995), The principal’s
companion, Library of congress cataloging-in-publication,
Sallis, E. and Jones, G. (2002), Knowledge
Managements In Education, Kogan
Page,
Vaezi Zadeh, R. (1992), Study
of the Iranian governmental organizations from the viewpoint of management elements, M.A
thesis,