Is Management a Science or an Art?

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 719.

Science has a body of theory, operational definitions, systematic data collection, and objective analysis. Scientists attempt to leave a clear record of their progress and methodology so that others can “climb on their shoulders” to probe still farther into the unknown. Art, on the other hand, is more subjective than science: artists rely more on impulse, intuition than do scientists.

The question here is, does the practice of management demand the objective rationality of the scientist or the subjective feelings of the artist?

Management as a science. There are those who firmly believe that management is a science. In fact, the word science has been in the management vocabulary for a long time. Briefly, scientific management was an early twentieth-century school of management thought based in part on systematic time and motion studies. Early proponents of scientific management boasted that their approach replaced subjectivity, intuition, and seat-of-the-pants management with objectivity and scientific methodology. In defense of the scientific position, one writer said, “Management is already a field of knowledge, and is becoming a science because the interrelationships involved are being explained systematically and the emerging theories are being tested and improved by logic and the facts of life.”

Management as an art. Those who practise management on a daily basis often claim that management is an art. Advocates of this position contend that good management is based on common sense and intuitive “gut” feelings. One manager argued: Without that clear vision that underlies all good art, the manager's components are merely isolated bits and pieces. As with the other arts, there are no objective criteria by which the manager can judge whether one arrangement is superior to another. The criteria he uses to select a configuration are subjective.

A compromise view. Both sides present convincing arguments. Managers can learn from both scientists and artists. A continuum with pure art on one end and pure science on the other end helps underscore the value of a compromise. In regard to the day-to-day practice of management, each extreme has its shortcomings. Visionaries may lose touch with practical considerations while pursuing ideals; technicians may become so preoccupied with detail and methodology that they fail to put things in the proper perspective. Recognizing that the practice of management is both an art and a science, the successful manager strikes a workable balance by relying on subjective feelings or on objective scientific techniques and data as the situation warrants. For example, all the management science techniques available today may prove useless in the face of a personality conflict. In contrast, guesswork is no match for statistical quality control techniques. Only through experience can effective managers learn when to use scientific objectivity and when to rely on their judgement or intuition.