Recent orders
Discuss Key differences between General Management and Project Management
Discuss Key differences between General Management and Project Management.
Insert Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Project management can be defined as a short-term undertaking carried out with the aim of fulfilling a specific objective such as creation of a distinct product or service. This definition brings project management as an undertaking that has a clearly marked beginning and end. As divorced from this, general management can be defined as the continuous process of performing all the core management and leadership functions for achievement of a long term organizational objective. While the distinction between project management and general management has caused a rift within the scholarly literature with some scholars seeing no difference between and others discerning a difference, this paper attempts to identify the various factors that make the two aspects of management different.
Operates in environment with structures based on going concern platform vs operates in short-lived environment
As already mentioned in the introductory section, project management is based on the promise that it is supposed to ensure successful completion of an undertaking that has a definite time of existing and this implies that it is conceived based on a clearly marked timeline with a definite beginning and definite end. Project management is as effective and in effect as long as the project for which it is conceived continues to exist.
On another hand, general management exists with the beginning of the organization’s existence and operates within the organization’s structures that are relatively permanent. Every project that comes to existence does so with specific structures set up with the sole purpose of ensuring that the particular project is successful. When the project is completed, the structures that supported are no longer relevant and can be disbanded. General management is opposed to this as it is hinged on structures that ar5e permanent and are so maintained to ensure stability of the entire organization.
Consistent set tasks vs. ever-changing set of tasks
Project management differs from general management from the perspective that project management deals with ever-changing set of tasks while general management is characterized with dealing with tasks that are comparatively consistent. First, projects differ from one project to another as opposed to general management tasks that are generally routine and expected to be predictable in terms of task requirements. Given the unique nature of each project, every project conceived by the organization requires the project manager to be an individual possessing specialized skills that can handle high levels of conflict that project environments are likely to face. The project manager also needs to be an individual possessing other unique abilities and skills specific to the project unlike general management where general management skills are required. This difference also implies that it is highly likely that every project will have a unique project manager based on skills and abilities needed for the project’s completion. The consistency of tasks in general management thus makes it necessary to have an individual permanently placed in the position to improve through routine among other aspects. Since this difference in consistency of the set tasks makes projects to highly differ from organizational activities that are considered non-projects, a project manager needs to highly creative and flexible to effectively deal with the changing nature of the set tasks in projects.
Tasks described as ‘maintenance’ vs. predominantly concerned with innovation
This difference is almost closely linked to the one immediately above. As already mentioned, every project is always unique and distinct from other projects. This implies that every project will require unique ways of accomplishing it and this basically brings in the aspect of innovation in project management. A project manager needs to be highly creative and innovative with respective to underlying factors specific to the project at hand since the project has a limited time of existence and specific measurable objectives to be achieved.
Moreover, general management involves repetitive or every day activities and operations meant to maintain the successful existence of overall organizations together with its operations (Hales 2005). These repetitive operations include aspects such as accounting and financial controls that ensure the organization’s financial health is sound all the time and the activities financed are sustainable financially. It is also easy to notice here that while general management involves activities that can be seen as mere maintenance of the organization for its going concern objective, it is also without doubt that these activities are easily handled by the subordinates such that the general manager only manages them through exception. In the project management side, the project manager is actively involved in the tasks and directly ensures control of the tasks.
Responsible for management of the status quo vs. overseeing change
Organizations develop a specific culture, which they invest in and work to maintain it so that it is past from generation to generation of stakeholders. General management works to ensure that this culture is maintained and strengthened so that individuals can have a common cultural point of reference in terms of established beliefs, shared values and way of doing things in the organizations such as the way people carry out their daily activities. The fact that it is not uncommon for people in organizations to resist change makes the established status quo be the better option as well. Culture is an organisational perspective which must stand to ensure that transformation in the organisation suits the environmental changes but at the same time is well and technically designed to accomplish the objectives for which it exists. Even though Shafritz and Ott (2001) reiterate that organizations have traditionally resisted change and are now beginning to embrace change slowly, Smircich, (2006) and Paulson, (2002) indicate that organizations with their stakeholders work to maintain status quo in terms of culture in order to build identity and this can also be seen as a form brand image positioning that has to be maintained through general management aspects.
When looked from the perspective of project management, it divorces from the daily activities of the organization that work to maintain status quo since projects are an exemplification of change in the organization. Since projects represent a change from normal way of doing things so that a specific objective is achieved within a specified time span, this change will be resisted and therefore the project manager must work to ensure resistance to change is well managed and overcome.
Main task is optimization vs. Main task is conflict resolution
The general manager has an important function of ensuring that the resources availed to him are used optimally to generate the maximum benefit to the stakeholders. Since this understanding is generally integrated early in the various operations of the organization so that every activity works to ensure optimal use of resources to generate maximum benefit, there is a sense of “standardization” that has to be adhered to and the main task of general management is to ensure the outcomes are measured against the established norms of optimization (Hitt et al 2007).
Conversely, projects arise as a detour from the normally established ways of operating and doing things. As such, many conflicts are likely to arise. Without solving these conflicts continually, the project manager cannot achieve the set objectives of the project (Carlopio et al 2005). This means that the project manager will continually be involved in resolving conflicts.
Conclusion
The analysis has shown that while project management is a set within the bigger set of management, it is divorced from general management in the way in which each of them view time, handle change and their respective objectives. General management has long term broad objectives while project management has specific objectives that have to be achieved in the short term. While project management deals with conflict resolution to handle the effect of change, general management is mainly tasked with resource optimization.
Reference
Carlopio, J, Andrewartha, G, Armstrong, H, (2005) Developing Management Skills: A Comprehensive Guide for Leaders, 3rd ed., Pearson Education Australia,
Hales, C, (2005) Rooted in Supervision, Branching into Management: Continuity and Change in the Role of First-Line Manager, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 42, Issue 3, pages 471–506,
Hitt, M, Black, J, Porter, L, Hanson, D. (2007) Management, Pearson Education Australia,
Mantel, S, Meredith, J, Shafer, S, Sutton, M, (2011) Project Management in Practice, 4th Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Kerzner, H, (2013) Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, John Wiley and Sons,
Paulson, C., J. 2002. ‘On the “organizational identity” metaphor’, British Journal of Management, 13: 259–268.
Shafritz, J., and Ott, S., (eds.) 2001. “Classics of Organization Theory” Harcourt College Publishers.
Smircich, L., 2006. “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis” Sage Publishing
Terry, J., and Hogg 2001. “Social identity processes in organizational context,” Psychology Press, New York.
Discuss how the measurements derived from questionnaires differ from measures used in the pure sciences. Do these differences
Discuss how the measurements derived from questionnaires differ from measures used in the pure sciences. Do these differences undermine psychology’s claim to be a science?
Questionnaires have become a popular measure of all kinds of phenomena; social attitudes, personality, and employment. They have come along way since the early theoretical work of Catell, and Spearman. However they are not without their critics and many have argued against the validity questionnaires cast doubt on the scientific validity. (Michell, 2000). It is measurement in psychology that will be the focus of this essay and the scientific validity of the measurements used in psychology.
Eysenck (1986) stated that if psychology is to ‘prosper’ it has to follow the scientific method that is used in the physical science, which is hypothetico-deductive method (Eysenck, 1986). To connect theory to real world observations the hypothetico-deductive method is used in both psychology and pure science. It is the primary method of scientific enquiry in the natural sciences and psychology (Whewell, 1866.)The method is usually as follows; the researcher formulates a testable hypothesis, this is then either accepted or falsified on the results of the test/experiment (Popper 1959). The point is that theories that are tested repeatedly and survive without being falsified are confirmed, until if ever, the time they do not hold up to tests (Whewell, 1866; Popper, 1959). It is easy to see natural physical phenomena as quantitative amenable to measurement, for instance, length measured with the standardized measurement unit, meter. Measurements enable scientists to make statements about quantities of an object with a view to developing a theory about the object and its properties and behavior.psychology also a range of methods from brain imaging techniques, to recording reaction times, to the using questionnaires to measure intelligence. (Haig & Borsboom, 2008). The discussion will now turn to the issue of measurement in psychology. In order to do this a brief description of the use of measurement in the pure sciences and an introduction to the world of psychometrics will be presented.
Unfortunately measurement is not quite as straightforward as in the physical sciences. Measurement works with quantities and it is this that presents the challenges for psychology. Psychology has unobservable mental phenomena that are not observable intelligence, personality, mood is how to quantify the unobservable and what measurements would be appropriate? Indeed it has been an issue of much controversy in the area of quantitative psychology (Michell, 1997). Cronbach (1990) refers to psychometrics, ‘Psychometric testing sums up performance in numbers. Its ideal is expressed in two famous old pronouncements: If a thing exists, it exists in some amount, and, if it exists in some amount, it can be measured” Cronbach, 1990
The foundations of quantitative psychology were based largely on work and theories from psychophysics. Dating back to1888, Fechner linked, theoretically quantitative psychology to quantitative physics, via his psychophysical law, he supplemented his law with a range of measurement methods (Michell, 1997, 2000). Fechner posited these measurements as being the same as those in physics. Fechner believed that reality is and experience is quantitative, ‘both the physical and mental realms, in common, were subordinate, he believed, ‘‘to the principle of mathematical determination’’ (Fechner, 1887, in Michell, 1997). In this way Fechner really introduced the quantitative approach in psychology. Psychologists, following Fechner’s lead then began ‘constructing number-generating procedures which, they thought, measured psychological attributes’, (Michell, 1997)
Spearman inspired by Fechner put forward a quantitative theory in an attempt to explain intellectual performance and individual differences in on test performance of intelligence. He tested this theory by presenting problem solving tests he thought represented intelligence. Michell (1997) pointed out that ‘these were to do with the number of abilities involved in solving tasks of specific kinds and were not sensitive to the issue of whether or not the postulated abilities were quantitative in structure’. Like Fechner, Spearman adopted the belief that psychological attributes had to be quantitative and the primary problem was to develop procedures and instruments for their measurement. The acceptance of psychological attributes was accepted by psychologists in the fervent belief that the discipline should aspire to be a science as any other. This is known as the scientific or quantitative imperative, (Michell, 1990, 1997)
Spearman (1904, 1923) in his investigations of intelligence also devised a statistical technique called factor analysis. This technique is used in psychometrics and reduces variability among variables down to lower factors (variables). Using factor analysis Spearman discovered a general (g) factor of human intelligence (1904). This general factor ‘g’ brings together cognitive test scores across a range of questions (seemingly unrelated), as representing one underlying construct or factor. is a construct that is responsible for individuals performance on tests of intelligence tests. As Michell points out however variations and individual differences in performance on these tests are not just due to intelligence but could involve factors such as motivation (Kline, 1998).
Spearman’s work outlined above assumes the quantifiable nature of psychology and adhered to the view of Stevens, originally a psychophysicist, turned his attention to quantitative psychology. He made the now well known statement, ‘measurement, is defined as the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules’, (Stevens 1946). This view, that psychological attributes are quantifiable by being represented by numerical values, was widely accepted by psychologist and according to Michell, 1997 it ‘blinded the majority of psychologists to the scientific necessity of testing via experiment that psychological attributes are quantitative was dramatically revealed over the subsequent four decades’. (Michell, 1997).
How do researchers know what they are measuring is ‘real’ and if the tool they are using is measuring the phenomena at all? Mental life and human behavior are complex but one can see that the use of well tested, reliable scales and questionnaires have aided psychologists understanding of human behavior. People such as Spearman (1923) and Cattell’s (1943, 1990) many measures of personality, intelligence and motivation have contributed a great deal to the study of psychology, (Kline, 1998). Researche rshought that personality can be seen as having an underlying construct that gives rise to the patterns and consistence of behaviors , feelings and thoughts over time and across varying situations. Personality is something that is unique to each of us but it is a dynamic complex interplay of underlying constructs or traits, probably with a biological origins and neurobiological correlates that are common to many people across time, (Kline, 2000). Psychologists now widely use psychometric tools including questionnaires (responses on a number of items) to measure hypothesised psychological attributes such as intelligence, personality traits and social attitudes (Michell, 2000). Undoubtedly scientific psychology has made some important contributions to describing mental life and behavior in humans, and with the emergence of more seemingly scientific imaging methods researchers are discovering more and more about the human mind.
Researchers such as Joel Michell (1997, 2000) has been scathing of what he sees as the failure of psychologists to ‘make any serious attempts within psychometrics’ to address the fundamental question of whether psychological attributes such as above, are quantitative and as such do psychometric measures have any construct validity (Kline, 1998). The hypothesis upon which it is premised, that psychological attributes are quantitative For Michell it is this false assumption that underlies the fallacy in viewing psychometrics and psychology as a science. He, and others (Haig & Borsboom, 1998; Barrett, 2002) goes further to say there has been very little attention paid to the actual evidence for that premise and that has been hugely detrimental to the study of psychology. Michelle suggests (2000, 2001) that ideological and economic concerns which have benefited from presenting psychology as a quantitative science. For example the abundant use of questionnaires in education and mental health services is testament to their economic value.
The idea that the act of measuring can change that which is measured, is worthy of discussion in psychological research, and is also an issue in the pure sciences (Kline, 1998). For example, a participant may want respond differently depending on their experience of questionnaire, motivations for taking part in the study and the presence or absence of the researcher. Even what the researcher decides to research is not objective but in line with the current scientific paradigms and theories (Russell, 1938), and economic and social norms.
In conclusion it can be said that questionnaires and psychometrics are not of same as science, more efforts need to be made in psychology to understand the fundamental concepts of measurement in psychology. However, perhaps the future of psychology lies in conceiving new techniques that are suitable just for psychological science rather than following slavishly the doctrines of the natural sciences Psychology is legitimate in its own right. Perhaps as some have thought there will always be aspects of psychology those are non-quantifiable. Perhaps as, back as far as 1990, Aiken and colleagues stated that there is not enough emphasis on concepts underlying measurement in psychology in the education of psychology students. Perhaps as some have thought there will always be aspects of psychology that are non-quantifiable. As Paul Kline (1998) stated ‘it may be that some psychological variables are measurable and others are not.’
‘The psychometric tradition has been good at classification but weak at understanding, explanation, or description of the phenomena that most interest psychologists’ (Michell, 1990). Hopefully psychology will now turn its attention to inwards rather than aspiring to the other sciences.
Reference:
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Sechrest, L. & Reno, R. R. (1990). Graduate training in statistics, methodology, and measurement in psychology… American Psychologist, 45, 721-734.
Barrett, P.T. (2002) Measurement cannot occur in a theoretical vacuum. AERA Annual Educational
Measurement Conference, Rasch Measurement SIG. New Orleans, April. Available from:
www.liverpool.ac.uk/~pbarrett/present.htm
Cattell, J. McK. (1904). The conceptions and methods of psychology. Popular Science Monthly, pp.
176-186.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 153-193
Cattell, R. B. (1990). Advances in Cattellian personality theory. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 101-110). New York: Guildford.
Cronbach, L.J. (1990) Essentials of Psychological Testing 5th Edition. New York: Harper Collins.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
Fechner, G. T. (1887). Uber die psychischen Massprincipien und das Weber’sche Gesetz. Philosophische
Studien, 4, 161-230. (English translation of pp. 178-198 by S. Scheerer (1987).
HYPERLINK “http://sites.google.com/site/borsboomdenny/1EditorsIntro.pdf?attredirects=0” Haig, B.D., & Borsboom, D. (2008). On the conceptual foundations of psychological measurement: Editors introduction. Measurement, 6, 1-5.
Kline, P. (1998) The New Psychometrics. London:Routledge.
Kline, P. (2000) A Psychometrics Primer. London, UK: Free Association Books
Michell, J. (1997) Quantitative science and the defination of measurment in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355-383
Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory & Psychology,
10, 639–667.
Michell, J. (2001). Teaching and misteaching measurement in psychology. Australian Psychologist,
36, 211–217.
Popper, K. (1959). HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery” o “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal
of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Spearman, C. (1923). “The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition”. London: Macmillan.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook
of Experimental Psychology, pp. 1-49. New York: Wiley
Whelwen, W. (1866) Comte and Positivism. HYPERLINK “http://www.archive.org/details/macmillansmagazi13macmuoft” Macmillan’s Magazine 13:353-62.
Discuss how Wal-Mart’s compensation and benefits package is a key component of its strategy
Discuss how Wal-Mart’s compensation and benefits package is a key component of its strategy ?
ANSWER:
Wal-Mart’s compensation or pay systems are programmed and are formalized to attain organization motives and common motives according to which lead growth of company objectives. Initially, designing a compensation which will helps in managing and recognizing employee’s contribution and its need. Equity pay system is the basic pay method which portrays equal fair pay for a day work. This pay system ensures equal pay to the employees.
As organization adopts different policies for compensating, attracting and retaining employees so the organization has to be leader in pay than competing firms. It should designate an employer’s ability to pay and provide benefits to employees. The relative worth of jobs is determined and jobs with higher worth are paid more so organizations need to base their pay levels on the worth of the job rely and evaluation. Individual compensation and reward is linked according to its performance so appraisal data provides the input for determining employee pay levels.