Team Management: Balancing Conformity against Deviance and the Scientific Management Theory
Abstract
Team management refers to the process of administering, overseeing, and coordinating the decisions over inputs and outputs of a given group of people working together. For an organization to efficiently achieve it’s set objectives and goals, teamwork is crucial. Such teams also need excellent management to excel. The technique of balancing conformity and deviance presents one of the methods. The two ideas, that is, conformity and deviance, are two opposites that a manager would need to ensure the use of each moderately. A balance of the two gives the employees space to express themselves, and go beyond what the company expects while thinking outside the box. This case should also consider doing so within the set organizational framework considering the norms and beliefs. The second concept of scientific management aims at enhancing productivity and efficiency in a job through the use of the best way of handling a situation. Fredrick Taylor, the person who put forward the theory, believed that there was a natural and universal law, independent of human judgment that enhanced and improved the way employees did their jobs. Thus, the technique also makes use of engineering and mathematical analyses to improve work completion systematically.
Introduction
A team refers to a group of individuals working together to achieve specific goals (Jones & George 2019). The team enhances their chances for success through cooperative associations considering each member’s vital input and say in decisions concerning their goals. However, because of the diversity in opinions way of doing things, and general view, such teams, need an excellent management approach in place. This paper shall cover the concepts of balancing conformity and deviance and the scientific management theory. They all acknowledge the vital role that teams play in getting the job done, ensuring everyone’s satisfaction. It shall highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both techniques. The work shall use scholarly articles and biblical principles in elaborating both techniques. It shall then conclude with an overview of new insights and recommendations that arise from studying the topic of team management.
Balancing conformity and deviance
Description of the concept
Conformity denotes tendencies towards abiding by and living within set standards. In an organization, a conformist works within acceptable organizational standards and frameworks. If the organization has a policy against making friendships with people in a competing company, such employees ensure that they abide by such expectations. While conformity may be ideal because it showcases a united and obedient front, it may become counterproductive in an organization. According to Hewlin, Kim & Song (2016), employees in a company may create facades of conformity by suppressing their personal and pretending to accept the organizational values as a means of coping with job insecurity. Conformity puts one in a box and dictates what they can and cannot do. It also means that an employee must commit to what they deem acceptable to the organization. Colossians 3:22 (NIV) encourages obedience and following the instructions of those in charge. A conformist, therefore, not only understands but also listens to and upholds the company guidelines. The results of a research that Ellinas, Allan & Johansson (2017) carried out showed that most people conform to the organizational culture and ideals because of peer pressure and social ranks. Although most people view conformists as weak, one who abides by such values as integrity and honesty does so for the good of the company.
In the same line, a aberrant move away from actions that a group may deem unacceptable and outside their scope of work. Some organizations encourage such personalities and promote thinking outside the box through such practices as brainstorming sessions. Deviants, therefore, curve their paths away from what everyone else expects or prefers. In society, most people view deviance as an extreme of conformity and equate such people as delinquents and criminals as deviating from the norm and breaking the law. While conformity may show obedience, a deviation may be crucial in certain instances where disobedience is necessary. In an organization where the corporate culture bends towards laziness and disservice to the clients, deviance may prove essential to the business (Voliotis, 2017). Romans 12:2 advises Christians not to conform to the teachings but instead follow and commit to the will of God to do his desires. In all these instances, there are good and bad instances that can arise from either conformity or deviance. As a result, an excellent team is one that incorporates both instances in equal measure. It should not demand too much conformity at the expense of the success of the team or allow a lot of deviance as to lose the meaning of their work. A balance of the two may cancel out the weaknesses of each, thus ensuring higher performance among the members. Merida (2015) looks at the storyline of different kings and how they interacted with their subjects. King Ahab was one such king who demanded conformity from all his subjects. When Naboth did not bulge to his demands, Queen Jezebel had the king’s men execute him. The servants, like the rest of the people, conformed to the king and queen despite their individual opinions about the occurrences.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The use of the conformity and deviance approach is an excellent strategy for the organization. One of its strengths is that it gives the employees room and the freedom to view different situations and come up with solutions. When employees know that they should uphold what the organization stands for but also have room to go beyond it, it encourages them to do more (Déprez, Batisttelli & Antino, 2019). They also feel encouraged to be themselves and that the team accepts what they bring to the table. Without such a balance, the employees may feel inadequate or too tied down. In an instance where there too much conformity, the organization may end up being like aristocratic and employees being mere implementors of decisions. In a team, conformity reduces the range and scope of ideas that one may bring up. On the other hand, to much deviance may also take the team off its course. As a result, a balance of both creates an excellent room for the existence of all types of workers and team members. Exodus 23:2 instructs against following the masses, especially when they are going on the wrong path. In a team, the majority of the members may agree to a specific course of action that one may not accept. Being a deviant in such an instance with no backing would only water down one’s point. Being a deviant in a team where the majority are conformist would also make one earn the branding of not working in the team spirit. As a result, balancing the two gives all the team members a voice and the ability to do their best.
The use of conformity and deviance as a technique also has a weakness. It may be time-consuming and hard to achieve. It may become a difficult task for a group to gauge when there is a balance of the two ideas or when one surpasses the other (Heerdink, Kleef, Homan &Fischer, 2015). As a team attempts to give deviants their way while also appreciating the conformists, it is a challenge to know when the team has allowed the right amount of each. This case is because it is hard to keep tabs on instances where each occurs. The team would have to decide if it shall be on the basis of meetings held and how each decision-making took place, that is, the number of people who went outside the box and the ones who stuck to the organizational requirements. In all these instances, there would be high chances of one concept prevailing over another in most instances.
Scientific management theory
Description of the concept
According to Sue (2017), Fredrick Winslow Taylor came up with the theory as a means of improving the effectiveness and labor productivity of a workforce. He carried out several experiments and analyses before bringing science to management. This instance presented a move away from the traditional management techniques that relied on personal experience. The theory’s primary goal was to come up with the best way of doing something (Holden, 2016). For teams that take up and make use of the scientific management theory, it would mean working around the central themes incorporating scientific and engineering processes (Khorasani & Almasifard, 2017). These include such areas as logic, empiricism, rationality, standardization of best practices, work ethics, and knowledge transfer. It also looked at means of reducing wastes while growing the employees’ wages, and methods of production and distribution of goods. Taylorism, as some scholars referred to the theory, also doubled as a motivational approach that believed that workers were primarily driven by money to become more productive. Ecclesiastes 5:10 sheds light on the shallow satisfaction that comes from gaining money. The theory also includes such principles as, a focus on science and not the rule of thumb, capitalizing on the most efficient methods and training the workforce, division of work and labor between managers and workers, cooperation and harmony, and eventual payment based on the outcomes and results.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Despite the criticisms that Taylor got from scholars and other areas such as the approach creating monotonous jobs with no autonomy, the theory also had its strengths. Its primary aim was to increase productivity while also bringing about efficiency. The theory realized this through its focus on scientific methods. It allows managers to plan out, enforce, and control processes within an organization. This case, therefore, leads to an increase in output as there are close supervision and a clear direction for the workers to follow. The theory was very successful that it is still in use today. Companies such as Amazon have implemented the specifics of the theory to remain competitive in an ever-growing industry. It uses a piece-rate to pay its warehouse staff, depending on how productive they are each day (Schein, 2017). The company also developed a wrist-based tracking system to keep watch on the workers, thus increasing their productivity rates. Another company, McDonald’s, maintains an efficient process that it implements in all its businesses across the globe. Any change that occurs in one branch takes effect in all the others in the same measure. When they change their burger size or cleaning methods, it picks up and implements the same in all the other branches across the world. Taylorism, in this instance, allows the breakage of a job into simpler, more efficient sizes and then enforcing the best way of achieving their goals to all the concerned places.
Despite all these, one of the looming weaknesses of this theory is its mechanization and focus on the wellbeing of the company only. It does so at the expense of its workers. The theory ends up presenting the people as indifferent and economical with the sole concern of making their money. It failed to factor in the human needs of the people. Philippians 2:4 acknowledges the worldly tendency to only focus on oneself or one’s benefit while neglecting the needs of others. It advises against such focus and encourages considering the welfare of other people. As a result of the focus of the theory, it received criticisms such as its belief that workers do not enjoy their work hence the need for close monitoring. The theory, therefore, thought that it was creating a win-win situation for both the workers and the company where incentivized people work hard to earn more while the business production soars. According to Oberoi (2016), the impersonal nature of the theory presents a critical disadvantage. His research highlights Mayo’s Hawthorne experiment that saw the denial of the ‘social human’ hypothesis. The work points out that workers are human and have various needs at different times. The focus on monetary gains is misguided as it does not factor in other instances such as passion and commitment but only focuses on output. Oberoi concludes by suggesting more focus on human needs, coming up with corresponding incentives, and allow the people to maximize their potential. Ephesians 6:9 states that one who has charge over another should be fair and just as all are servants of one divine master in heaven. Luke 6:31 also encourages doing to others what one would also love done to them.
New Thoughts and Insights
The Bible encourages both conformity and deviance, depending on the circumstances of each person. In Leviticus 20:23, God advises the Israelites against conforming to the practices of the nations that he had driven out of the land for them. Deuteronomy 18:9 resounds the same message. The book of Daniels also offers an excellent illustration of non-conformity. In Daniel 1:8, the bible states that he would not defile himself by eating the food or drinking the wine that the king had set forth. However, there are also instances where the bible seeks conformity and obedience from the people. In Hebrews 13:17, the bible asks obedience and confidence in one’s masters and heeding their instructions. Ephesians 6:5 also encourage obedience to one’s master or, in this case, their manager and following all their instructions. Groupthink is a phenomenon describing instances where a group makes poor decisions in a bid to enforce harmony and cohesion. In the bible, an excellent example was the persecution and crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews all agreed to persecute Jesus and release Barabbas in agreement with their leaders’ directives. No one wanted to fall outside the group and give a different opinion. The result was the death of God’s son, while Barabbas, a murderer, went free.
Conclusion
Team management is not an easy task for anyone. It requires a lot of decision-making and criticisms of the options at hand. Depending on one’s choices, there is bound to be different opinions and views. The two concepts, that is, balancing conformity and deviance, and scientific management theory, both put forth ideas for managing a group. While balancing conformity and deviance is ideal for allowing employees a broader thinking and expressive forum, it is hard to achieve, and, in most instances, organizations will always bend towards one or the other. The scientific management theory is crucial to enforcing and increasing worker’s productivity. It focuses on the use of scientific and mathematical strategies to ensure efficiency. However, the approach has received a lot of criticisms, especially because of its lack of empathy towards the workforce. It treats the employees as economic entities with the purpose of financial gain only. Team managers should, therefore, analyze and come up with the best strategy agreeable and enforceable by the members.
References
Déprez, G. R. M., Battistelli, A., & Antino, M. (2019). Norm and Deviance-Seeking Personal Orientation Scale (NDPOS) Adapted to the Organisational Context. Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), 393.
Ellinas, C., Allan, N., & Johansson, A. (2017). Dynamics of organizational culture: Individual beliefs vs. social conformity. PloS one, 12(6).
Heerdink, M. W., Kleef, G. A. V., Homan, A. C., & Fischer, A. H. (2015). Emotional reactions to deviance in groups: the relation between number of angry reactions, felt rejection, and conformity. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 830.
Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. (2016). Creating facades of conformity in the face of job insecurity: A study of consequences and conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 539-567.
Holden, D. W. (2016). Managing Men and Machines: US Military Officers and the Intellectual Origins of Scientific Management in the Early Twentieth Century (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
Jones, G., & George, J. (2019). Essentials of Contemporary Management (8th ed.). New York:
Khorasani, S. T., & Almasifard, M. (2017). Evolution of management theory within 20 century: A systemic overview of paradigm shifts in management. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3), 134-137.
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Oberoi, R. (2016). Frederick Wilson Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory.
Schein, A. (2017, September). Taylorism and amazon: scientific management at the world’s most successful retail company. In the 10th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business.
Su, Y. (2017). Taylor’s scientific management theory carding and significance of organization management. Social Sciences, 6(4), 102-107.
Voliotis, S. (2017). Establishing the normative standards that determine deviance in organizational corruption: Is corruption within organizations antisocial or unethical?. Journal of business ethics, 140(1), 147-160.