Is Management an Art or a Science?

Management is "the art of getting things done through people". This definition throws light on the fact that managers achieve organizational goals by.

Enabling others to perform rather than performing the tasks themselves. On the other hand, management is a science in the sense it is a body of knowledge developed.

In a systematic approach as a transformation process where input and output system exist.

This is a result of observation, measurement and study over time.

Managment is a skill to be learned and a knowledge to be accuierd so management is both science and art.

Management is a science and art of getting things done through group of people with the satisfaction of employer, employees and the public.

In my point of view, the management is an art because in any company middle level people and top level people they have a knowledge about management but there is only one manager he knows the tactics and art. So management is an art.

Hi, in my opinion, the best response to the question is that it is both. Definition of art and science would be helpful in understanding this. Louis A. Allen defines an art as '' a skills exercised in terms the individual personality of the practitioner''. By this we can say that management has certain artistic components.

Management is both science and art. Science because it uses figures, graphs and other statistical methods in order to solve organisational problems. Art because it uses skills, experiences, and attitudes, not hard and fast rules, to solve organisational goals.

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.

Guys,

Management is an art because art is the expression of feeling and emotion, therefore, management needs a person whose manage company and influence by feeling and emotions.

According to me, management cannot be said as complete science but it is a complete art because management includes human resources and therefore management cannot be said as complete science but it is a complete art because it has a systematized body of knowledge and it requires special skill, creativity, and practice to get perfection.

Management is only an art through which you convey your massage to the people and convene them to your opinion and with a high attitude you accept with other.