Is Management an Art or a Science?

Management is the oldest of arts and the youngest of sciences. This explains the changing nature of management.

As a science,

1. Management is a systematized body of knowledge and its principles have evolved on the basis of observation.

2. The kind of experimentation (as in natural sciences) cannot be accompanied in the area of management since management deals with the human element.

3. In management, it is not possible to define, analyse and measure phenomena by repeating the same conditions over and over again to obtain a proof.

As an Art, management has the following characteristics,

1. Management while performing the activities of getting things done by others is required to apply the knowledge of certain underlying principles which are necessary for every art.

2. Management gets perfection in the art of managing only through continuous practice.

3. Management implies capacity to apply accurately the knowledge to solve the problems, to face the situation and to realize the objectives fully and timely.

The science of management provides certain general principles which can guide the managers in their professional effort. The art of management consists in tackling every situation in an effective manner.

Hi everyone!

In my opinion management is both science and art.

Science works on principles and which can be applied universally. As in management we follow the principles like ""one man, one boss" and this is applicable to all the organisations. These principles require observations and experimentation to obtain the certainty in science. Management also require observations and experimentation to get the satisfied work force.

Science establishes cause and effect relationship. Management principles also has a cause and effect relationship. For example good bonding between the employees with their boss at workplace results in good increased productivity and if they do not have good relationship with their boss it will result in bad performance and reduced productivity.

Now coming to management as art.

Every art requires practical knowledge therefore learning of theory is not sufficient. In management also a manager can not deal with difficult situations based on his theory knowledge he must have known how to apply the principles in that situation.

An artist must be creative to get the unique beautiful piece of art. Manager also need that creativity to get the best out of everything and which cam beat the other products in the market. He should always come up with new and creative ideas.

Personal skill is very important for every artist to make them different from others. They have their own way to create things. In management also you should have personal skill to manage the work in your style and make your organisation or business different from others and become the best eventually.

From above points it is clear that management is both the mixture of art and science.

Management in an art and a know-how. It consists in doing things in light of a situation.

It is both science and art. Management knowledge, which comprises theories, principles, studies, is a science. Management practice is an art. They improve each other, they're complementary.

Management knowledge can result 'empty' and inexact, because summarizes generally situations studied in the past, giving the task to managers to fill the so many variables.

In my concern management is an art of getting things done through others. So it is both science and art because science have some knowledge of universal practicable and art have have some personal skill. So both characters shows in management.

#Justus Muia Your interpretation of science is incorrect. Yes, management applies principles of statistics but it does not use biological methods for data collection. The statistical methods (data collection is part of this) used are tailored to those of social research - more in line with economics or sociology.

The difference between this type of application v.s.a science based statistical application is the emphasis on causality. In social research, establishing causality is extremely difficult as we often do not have the luxury of a well controlled experiment. Even when there is a well controlled experiment, humans act in inconsistent and irrational ways that make some research results difficult to replicate.

To account for these biases and variables, the statistical methods and treatment of data used is very different and often more complex than those used by science. You will see that many scientists formulate causality based on less than 10 sample observations whereas in social science, the number of sample used are often in excess of 1000 (provides more statistical power).

Furthermore, many universities have their department of statistics in the faculty of arts (along with mathematics) as this is a concept that is entirely man made. In many ways, it is like a language that is used to communicate information. Finally about management - this is an entirely man made concept. Managers often apply scientific methods (just like all Arts disciplines) but is studying human behaviour (or a collection of human behaviour -> company) so it is still considered an art.

Nowadays, neuro-scientists are attempting to bring "science" into management by looking into the brain and its neurotransmitters. However, much of the experiments are done in a laboratory setting and cannot be applied to someone in a normal social setting. This is why social science places less emphasis on the molecular level and more on the human level.

As to what differentiates between Science and Arts, it really is the what is being studied? 'Scientific methods' are applied to both disciplines but the specific methods vary because the challenges facing each are very different.

Fun fact: Philosophy is the highest level of academic thinking. Everything evolved from it including 'science' and the scientific methods. This is why regardless of which discipline you pursue, you end up with a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).

Hai,

It is an art in the sense that he/she requires to handle it with the employees socially and a science because the manager has to apply some science fields like statistics and biology in terms of data collection and the application of knowledge.

Management is the art of leading people in order to achieve goals with maximum efficiency. How can dealing with human-beings ever be scientific? The so called social sciences have great difficulty in establishing causal relationships in their field and their predictive power is usually not better than mere chance. To even call them sciences is already a stretch of the concept. If management is a science it falls in the category of the social sciences therefore not very useful due to a serious lack of experimentally derived data coupled with reliable, logically derived explanations.

IMO management is to the economy what generalship is to the army: an art form informed by the technical aspects of the respective activities. How to be successful in both depends more on innate abilities and experience than theoretical study and research.

Today the great majority of managers still adhere to the 'business as warfare' maximum therefore trying to establish as great a share of the market as possible, economics has already proven this is the wrong approach yet the business world keeps persisting in its folly. If management was even remotely scientific surely everyone would see reason and abandon proven defective business strategies?

I don't get the whole 'organised body of knowledge' argument: if this is all that is needed to call something science theology and almost anything that is studied is a science too, regardless of whether it actually explains anything or merely fantasizes about possibilities.

Management as science relates when making observation of experimental as well as making monitoring evaluation and management as arts when deciding to choose suitable conceptual during decision making.

Management takes a dual process of both art and science, when PLANNING, he/she need some statistical data to enhance him/her project in to the future, procuring data has to do with science.

When COORDINATING his/her work force (employees) , he/she needs that human relation skills, to be able to achieve the planned goals and objectives, and this has to do with art.

Conducting a feasibility study or market research need science technique and the ability to implement and sustained this result, the management needs art techniques.

I think management has elements of both art and science. It may not be proper to term it as pure science or pure art. In fact, it is a science as well as an art because science and art are both complementary to each other. As cossa has said, "science requires art, art requires science, each being complementary to each other". It may be concluded that there is no hard and fast line between art and science of management.

The former(science) will have to solve problems and establish principles which might be applied with benefit to the latter(art). The present ratio is about 90% art and 10% science. Though a very great deal of developments are presently increasing that proportion which can properly be called science. I am willing to venture a guess that by the end of another generation the ratio will be 80% art and perhaps 20% science. ".