There is free will?

The world is a complex place, human relationships are complexes, our head is a complex place. Of course much of what we do, we do because we choose to do so, but note: we make choices within a narrow range of limitations. Our own limitations, our social context and the laws of a physical universe where we are.

Thus, although the questions of the choices made by individuals are extremely important from the standpoint of morality, from the standpoint of business manager is very important to remember that human choices occur within narrow limits imposed by physical, social and biological factors.

To forget this and make connections between the power and significance of personal choices are rooted for misunderstandings and frustrated effort. These are almost verbatim words from Chester Barnard, surprisingly addressing the topic in Chapter 2 of his book The Functions of the Executive.

This should not be a source of discouragement or despair, but a sign of attention to the point that, even if your choice is higher limited at any given time, the persistence of repeated choices in a certain direction can change greatly and ultimately the same physical, biological and social aspects of human life.

It is up to managers to ensure their persistence. So the planning, organization, direction and control - processes expected for an administrator's role are so important. And it is this persistence which can ensure the success of collective actions, leading to the satisfaction of the collective interest and the satisfaction of the individuals who compose the collective.

I like administration a lot

Difference between effectiveness and efficiency - II

When Chester Barnard separated the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency, sought more than simply evaluate the effects of human actions in the corporate world. His model aims to understand why most people work together and understand how these cooperative actions work.

So he makes a point on making this distinction between these apparently synonymous words. In order to separate the result of cooperation for collective concern from the result of cooperation for individual concern.

Thus, the effectiveness of cooperative action is the realization of the recognized objectives of this action. The degree to which indicates the degree of effectiveness. "Effectiveness is related to the achievement of the cooperative purpose, which is impersonal."

The efficiency is related to the satisfaction of individual motives. If people who are part of a cooperative effort not feel gratified, they will halt the effort or will strive less. "Efficiency is related to the satisfaction of individual motives and is personal."

I like administration a lot

Difference between effectiveness and efficiency - I

An action is effective when it serves a specific desired purpose and that specific purpose is achieved.

An action is efficient when the results are good, even if they do not achieve the specific purpose originally desired.

Thus, effective actions can be efficient or not. And ineffective actions can be efficient or not. We can therefore be:

1. Effective and efficient;

2. Effective and inefficient;

3. Ineffective and efficient; and

4. Ineffective and inefficient.

How so? - Simple: when we do something, we do to a goal. By doing so, there are always side effects. These side effects can be small or trivial, and can be large to the point of harming the major goals of the corporation. Suppose a seller who aims to sell one hundred objects in ten days, spending up to five hundred dollars. If he sells the objects on time and costs expected, was effective. However, there may be consequences. Consider: 

If he sells everything in a record time or if he pleases the customers in an exceptional manner, was effective and also efficient (1).

If he sells only half of the objects and blows deadline and budget, was not effective, nor was efficient (4).

If he sells only half of the objects, blowing deadline and budget, but bring twenty new clients or be able to receive a large debt during the journey, was not effective, but was efficient (3).

Finally, if he can sell one hundred objects on time and within budget, but leave customers dissatisfied, was effective but was not efficient (2).

Why this difference is relevant in the corporate world? Because managers need to know the tolerance with the results that are not effective if they are efficient - and very often this happens in cooperative processes: we shoot at what we see and hit what we dont. In the examples above, the good manager is interested in the results 1 and 3 and not in 2 and 4.

The relevance of this distinction is just be prepared to accept the result 3 and not to become obsessed with the goal to the point of giving the result 2 as acceptable.

Who built this first deffinitions was a Business Administration named Chester Barnard in an very important book, "The Functions of the Executive."

I like administration a lot