外文翻译---管理风格和公正的薪资制度(编辑修改稿)

外文翻译---管理风格和公正的薪资制度(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

es (and especially other, junior managers) are perceived as people whose actions should influence the entire organization not just their own department or subsystem of, for example, production control or purchasing or marketing, etc. The view held here is that it is no good to have nine tenths of the pany39。 s needs being met and the other tenth ignored. It is a 39。 systems39。 approach and is a model which is apparent in the management philosophy of our larger and more progressive industrial panies. Between these two polar models of organization there is obviously scope for many other concepts. A pluralistic model, for example would allow for different constituent parts of the organization to have their own separate goals. The models that managers hold of men as distinct from the goals of the pany are described in a massive literature of organizational psychology. It is possible in this area also to establish extreme, polar concepts. One extreme would be the assumption that man is a 39。 rationaleconomic39。 animal. Because of this a manager holding such a view might use McGregor39。 s wellknown Theory X approach to his subordinate. McGregor1 points out that 39。 rationaleconomic39。 man assumptions imply that man is lazy by nature and is motivated primarily by financial incentives. The employee is seen to need direction and control so that he will work towards the organization39。 s goals. He is seen to be unambitious and reluctant to take responsibility. The assumptions associated with Theory X are, of course, built into the foundations of the Classical organization theories. The employee, in short, is seen to react to his environment. 齐齐哈尔大学毕业论文 10 The model of man seen to be at the opposite from the reactive, Theory X man is McGregor39。 s Theory Y approach. Assumptions on which Theory Y are based include the fact that most men do not dislike work, they seek a challenge from the work environment and in fact wele the opportunity to achieve a 39。 moral39。 involvement with the organization. Under appropriate conditions the employee, says Theory Y, will seek out responsibility and is capable of imagination, ingenuity and creativity. There have been several attempts to classify the various models of man and organization, a notable example being the typology developed by Etzioni2. For the purpose of this present discussion, however, the simple model constructed by Limerick3 to show the type of management style implied by management39。 s assumptions about men and organization seems appropriate. The model takes the form of the matrix shown in Figure 1 below: Items Reactive Man SelfActive Man Goal Organization Authoritarian Management Consultative Management System Organization Paternalistic Management Participative Management Figure 1 The Limerick Matrix of Management Styles The matrix suggests that if management holds Theory X (reactive man) assumptions and sees the organization as being single goal orientated, the style implied is authoritarian. At the other extreme, should the assumptions be of Theory Y nature and the organization be seen as systems orientated, the model implies that the strategy is participative. It must be borne in mind, of course, that this classification represents pure types of organization which probably do not exist as such in practice. It is meant to be a relative model which shows only the extreme assumptions and implied strategies. It is, however, very important to be able to put the problem of differing styles into some perspective. Equitable Payment The four styles of management proposed in the model can be considered with special reference to problems of equitable payment. Authoritarian management is typified by the proposals of the Classical management theorists (eg Fayol,Urwick, Gulick). The organization is managed along the universal principles of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling and the structure is pyramidal with great emphasis on line authority. There is rigid specialization and departmentalization. Participation by nonmanagement in meeting the organization39。 s goal is severely restricted. In paternalistic management the systems needs of the organization must be met by those employees who are not seen to be reactive. Thus, for example, some large, sophisticated industrial organizations typically perceive themselves to have 39。 systems39。 of needs, the nonmanagers and even junior management are seen as reactive while the senior management 齐齐哈尔大学毕业论文 11 team is often assumed to consist of selfactive men. Here the senior managers assume that they have to meet their subordinates39。 needs for them。 say by providing preferential pension schemes and welfare benefits and cheap canteens, sometimes with little consultation with the employees involved. A paternalistic organization is also typified by a pyramidal structure and an emphasis on line authority. Paternalism is improved over the authoritarian strategy in that employees are often allowed to present alternatives for action in nontask activities. Many British concerns are run on clearly paternalistic lines. There are several wellknown, large organizations (typically the major employers in their respective munities) which adopt a 39。 cradle to grave39。 , protective attitude to their employees. In the past such firms tended to discourage trade union representation believing that a pany union or association could better meet the needs of their workpeople. In a paternalistic pany one would expect the pay level for shop floor and clerical workers to be relatively low, the employees being pensated by superior welfare benefits and greater job security in general. In an authoritarian firm the pay levels in the lower job grades could be expected to be slightly higher (for the same economic and technological conditions) than in the paternalistic pan。