User talk:Sixbert SANGWA

The current paper attempts to evaluate the application of  leadership  and management theories  to  a contemporary  organisation. The study criticizes different research data that focus on the transformational leadership theories, characteristics and strategies as they are adopted by different organizations, including the contemporary firms. According to researches, both the transformative management and transitional leadership are evidenced in different organizations as innovative approaches for an efficient management system. Although the contemporary organizations seem to be in a more democratic world, the classical management theories are still paramount and seen as the basis for the today’s innovative contemporary approach. The complexity and dynamic nature of today’s business environments bring necessity on the consideration of strategic management that allows managers to position their firms accordingly. Our study focuses on the application of different management and leadership theories and their outcomes in today’s organizations, especially Save the Children International which is a giant and world leading organization for children.

Introduction
1.1	Background This paper criticizes the classical leadership and management theories as defined by different authors, researchers and thinkers and as these theories evolved from classical to modern theories. The study focuses on Save the Children International’s management and leadership style. Save the children in a world leading UK organization for children which continuously inspires and motivates it employees to fight for children’s rights and help them reach their full potentials. Its management style keeps workers motivated and allows them do their job independently and as a team to jointly achieve its common goal. Save the children treats all employees with equal opportunity policy such that no one has a superior voice over others. Classical Management Approaches is a general term that combines Scientific Management, Administrative management and Bureaucracy. These classical management approaches originated from two groups in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Many years after, these theories can be observed in organisations today and, in particular, within Save the children international. As it will be discussed in the second chapter of this paper work, Scientific Management is basically the analysis, modification and standardization of workflows in pursuit of efficiency and productivity. This was proposed by Winslow Taylor (1911). Henri Fayol (1916) focused on Administrative Management which refers to key managerial activities such as forecasting, planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling which can be observed as central in contemporary organizations manifested in different ways. The more we advance with the theories, the more we move to the most democratic approaches of management and leadership. Although the contemporary theories tend to focus on human behaviour and motivation on workplace, there is no best strategy.

1.2 Methods
As mentioned above, the intent of this report is to criticize the classical management theories and its evolution into a contemporary management style, focusing on Save the children International which became a World Leading Company for children. In order to understand the theories, we will try to highlight the role of strategic management in implementing these theories. The paper will refer to different authors, researchers and thinkers to criticize and appreciate the leadership and management theories as they are applied to Save the Children. From classical to modern theories, there is a big interrelationship. Discussing on the current theories, Kotter (1988) published the 8-step change model which focuses on transformational leadership. Among other things, Kotter (1988) talks of the ability of an individual leader to encourage change within him/herself and to others, to develop, lead and empower other teammates. He adds the intellectual vitality and the quality of being team player as well as availability in case of needs. On the other hand, through his model Goleman (2000) wants us to identify possible challenges associated with changing our approaches towards our leadership strategy. To complement the two authors, Fullan M. (2005) has made observation on various changes in both business and education systems and brought in different aspects of personality which, according to him, contribute to organizational management. Therefore there is a necessity to understand all those variables such as individual moral purposes, cultural norms and / or backgrounds for effective management. There is also need to encourage relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing in order to learn from each other’s past experience to improve work efficiency. Additionally, coherence, which is an ability of individual leaders to apply logical or common sense, is a leadership treat that should characterize our workplaces. As it will be discussed in the below chapters, there is need to understand how all of these leadership traits are acquired but compulsorily, leaders should be energetic and enthusiastic.

CHAPTER II: CLASSICAL AND CONTEMPORARY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT THEORIES
The classical management approach emerged in the 19th Century, focusing on increasing workers’ productivity during industrial revolution. As developed by Tailor, Fayol and Weber respectively, the approach comprises of scientific management, Administrative Management and Bureaucracy Management. Since then, the classical management theories are all important in one way or another in building an effective organization and are still evident and influencing contemporary organizations where a very good example is Save the Children International, the author’s employer.

In humanitarian organization, different traits of classical theories are observed, especially the administrative management theories. The standardized methods of doing different things, the planning of work and provision of wage incentives are some of the evidences. However, looking at the social system as well as the knowledge management and interdependency of all parts during the projects implementation and within the organization, contemporary management style is predominant, as discussed below.

2.1	Classical management theories

The classical management, known also as scientific management, approach emerged from the industrial revolution, focusing on improving the efficiency and productivity of workers. Cole and Kelly (2016) adds that “classical approach to management was primarily concerned with structure and activities of formal organizations” which means an emphasize on how efficient the work is done. In humanitarian organizations, Classical management is evident in terms of division of labor which increases employees' performance and hierarchical structure which defines responsibility and job of employees at different levels. Scientific management approach can be identified in organization as the rational approach to organizational work enables task and procedures to be measured. The employees that can accomplish the desired results are selected through the recruitment process, trained and developed. A set of fixed steps like rules and procedures that needs to be strictly followed are provided and this enables a more efficient and standardized workflow that leads to increased productivity and high efficiency and also motivating them with some monetary incentives. Furthermore, according to Vincent (2014), Fayol (1916) developed 14 principles of management which include division of work, authority, discipline, unity of command, centralization, order, scalar chain, equity, initiative and teamwork. Until today, these principles of classical approach can be seen in contemporary organizations and play a central role in their management approaches. Despite the controversy surrounding the scientific management approach it has changed the way work is done and some parts of it are still in use today so I believe it is appropriate in the development context.

2.1.1	Scientific management approach

The scientific management approach focuses on scientific studies and tools, work methods and performance standards in order to improve efficiency of work. Taylor (1903) assumes that work is very rational (done in order to make money) and that given the behaviour of people are very correctable and easy to understand. He (Taylor) concluded that the poor productivity was due to lack of attention to workers (Management doesn’t know how much work to be done, etc.) according to him, the role of management is criticized below: a)	Development of the work to be done As defined by Taylor (1903), the scientific management emphasizes on the development of the planning of work to achieve efficiency. This is commonly true in so many organizations implementing different projects for children, in either humanitarian and development arena. A good example is where Save the children’s project managers sit to develop work plans and assign tasks to projects staffs on a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly basis. This trait evidence the presence of scientific management approach and has a very good importance in keeping staffs organized. However, to be more efficient and effective, work plans should consider individual interest, expertise and social freedom. Steve (2015) argues that managers should have individual conversation with staffs to discuss individual interest and career goal in order to identify development activities. Contrary, the approach creates a negative impact when workers are given tasks that are beyond their ability, scope of expertise and /or of interest.

b)	Scientifically select, teach and develop each worker

This principle gives responsibility to managers to scientifically select, train their workers instead of leaving them to train themselves. The same approach applies to our contemporary organization where selection of workers is done through a series of tests, ending in the appointment of highly competent workers, who are mostly and/ or regularly trained to effectively and efficiently contribute to their projects. The approach is admired by the today’s workplace and reported of its ability to hire qualified staffs based on their skills and aptitude. This is also confirmed by Dennis (2017) who adds that the process increases the employee retention and becomes time saving on the side of Human resources department.

c)	Intimate and friendly cooperation between the management and the men (Vincenzo, 2017)

This principle encourages collaboration between managers and workers and gives managers a responsibility to provide an incentive to ensure that the work is done on one based way. This collaboration is an important management aspect which is still encouraged on today’s workplace. Vincenzo (2017) agrees that “Taylor’s concept of motivation left something to be desired when compared to later ideas”. An annual cash voucher provided by Save the children to its individual workers, represent a real example of monetary incentives on today’s workplace. However, employees tend to be motivated by different things depending on individual motives, hence managers should study employee motivations. Some organizations provide out of job opportunities such as scholarships, international trainings or workshops, etc.

d)	Divide work and responsibility equally between management and labor

Taylor focuses on breaking task into smaller and smaller tasks to allow the determination of the optimum solution to the task. Feyol also recognizes that people specialize in different areas and hence have different skills (Vincent, 2014). The author highlights the understanding of Feyol that “specialization promotes efficiency of the workforce and increases productivity”. The major critic on Taylor’s approach is its dehumanizing aspect, where people tend to be overworked due to responsibilities assigned to them within standardized minimum time. Overall, contrary to Taylor’s understanding, work is more than that means of making money. While workers need to be engaged in the planning and decision making process, employers should also provide incentives to motivate them. Since what makes our workplace more complex is our differences in preferences, behaviour, motives, backgrounds etc., there is a huge need to study and understand human behaviour. Taylor’s approach is inflexible and thinks that there is only one way of doing things to maximize efficiency (Vincent, 2014).

2.1.2  Bureaucratic approach

Apart from the theories developed by Taylor, Max Weber based his Bureaucracy to a fact that employees usually tend to firmly obey the supervisors and submit to authority over them, which he describes as lack of human aspect of the workplace experience (Weber, 1978). Cole and Kelly (2016) describes the Weber’s three forms of power which are: rational authority where authority rely on the established laws; the charismatic authority relying upon an exemplary character of an individual leader and the traditional authority relying on the created theories or traditions.

According to Cole and Keller (2016), the bureaucratic organization allows the management to abide by the published rules and practices, hence the legitimacy is more based on hierarchical structure. Other authors criticize the Bureaucracy on its inadaptive nature. Mullin (2000), argues that this type of management promotes lack of adaptability and restricts psychological freedom by emphasizing on “rules, record keeping and paperwork rather than what administration was meant to serve”. Santrock(2007) also criticizes of its ineffective nature for flexible organizations that encourage creativity and / or innovations. However, as confirmed by Kotter and Keller (2003), different management policies have been developed based on these forms of management theories and so many of them are still evidenced in contemporary organizations.

On the other hand, Rose, Gloria and Prince (2015) argue that “This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks”. According to Shaefer (2005), “the Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where employees do routine tasks”. To complement their point, Leonidas S. (2017), points out that the “Bureaucracy thrives best in government institutions where there’s need to obey the authority more than anything else”. Nevertheless, many of today’s large and reputable organizations still practice the bureaucratic form where some trait of such type of management are evident on our workplace. To understand how bureaucracy traits are apparent in today’s organizations, a good example is a specialization where experts in different disciples are kept in organizational database and deployed in different countries for short-term technical assistance. Another example would be a clear hierarchical structure within the organization where project personnel submit to their line-managers up to the senior management team. However, not all management theories are evident to most of contemporary organizations, there have been some modifications to adapt to the working environment. It’s always the responsibility of managers to choose which approach work for their organizations.

2.1.2	Administrative theory

After Taylor, Henry Fayol (1916) came up with Administrative management theories which define management as a function that can be applied at any size of organization. In his book “Administration Industrielle et Générale “, Fayol developed 14 principles of management where he highlighted a list of 6 primary management functions. His administrative theories focused on the coordination of the work at an entire organization with the 6 key management practices which are forecasting, planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. Even if contemporary organizations wouldn’t refer to his 14 principles, his theory looks more comprehensive and contributed a major part in developing today’s management concept.

Through his 14 Principles of management, Fayol (1916) calls for a formalized structure of an organization with clear hierarchical structure and division of labor and/or authority according to each structural level and responsibilities. This mode is the most dominant in different contemporary organizations, including government bodies where the hierarchical structure is made of different levels of management. An example is the hierarchical order of Save the children whose structure consists of the Country director on the top, then the board of directors, then program managers and so on. This example indicates how this administrative principle is so evident in the contemporary organization of our reference.

Apart from the structural aspect of management, Save the children operates with a specialized code of conduct that every employee should abide by. A set of disciplinary procedures in workplace and behavior is so paramount in Save the children code of conduct and child safeguarding policy. The organization itself (Save the children, 2016), strongly re-emphasizes on its ethics and business conduct: “Code of conduct provides clear guidance on what we expect of our staff and volunteers and other representatives, as well as providing examples of conduct that will always be unacceptable.” However, in all cases, a range of employees are involved in policy development and policies are effectively communicated to all employees and those working alongside them (Richard E, 2014). As per the above statement, both the code of conduct together with other internal policies are so important to clarify the organization’s mission, values and principles, linking them with professional standards in humanitarian context.

Apart from the discipline and structural aspect, these theories are so predominant in many ways vis-à-vis Save the children as a giant corporate. The organization provides managers with authority to coordinate program activities, command and guide the team towards the common objectives. Program management always uses the primary functions of management as defined by Fayol (2016). Management functions are evidenced in every program and unit where program managers work with their team to develop the detailed implementation plans, budget forecast, procurement plans etc. Management positions involves the organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling people and activities. On my point of view and with regards to humanitarian context where different interventions are implemented to improve people’s lives, these functions of management are needed and should be applied in order to help a group of people achieve their common goal. In all cases, top managers tend to spend time on the planning, organizing and coordination of field activities, executed by lower-level staffs or field team. 2.2	Contemporary management theories

The classical management theories have been criticized of their shares in drawbacks, especially the dehumanization aspect. The case of Sports Direct which used to mistreat its workers, is a relevant example of the badness of classical approach. It indicates how workers need to be motivated instead of being put on pressure or under heavy punishments. This was subsequently re-emphasized by Hofstede ( 2011) who argues that an organization must offer what makes the employee eager to  work.

Besides the classical theories, the contemporary management theories tend to focus more on both the behavior of people and the dependency of elements in a system, where “an organization is defined as a structured process in which individuals interact for objectives” (Hicks and Gullet, 1975). Leonidas (2017) agrees that “Contemporary approaches to management focus on the behavior of people at work solely”. Complementary to this, Bernard (1938) argues that these approaches were developed by scientists in a way that they emphasize on the dynamic nature of communication and importance of integration of individual and organizational interests. To complement his ideas, Leonidas (2017) adds that classical management theories have been used in formulating the contemporary approach to management. According to him (Leonidas, 2017), today’s management theories focus on “information sharing, non-linear system of management and formulation of strategies where everyone’s opinion is heard, considered, and if well thought out, adopted by the organization.” Three of the contemporary management theories will be discussed below as they relate to one of the contemporary organization.

2.2.1	Systems approach

This approach views management as a set of interrelated parts to the managers with purpose of achieving a common goal. Organizations consist of inputs, transformation processes, outputs and feedback. According to Marshall (2016), the business is very dependent. Each system depends on the next part in the system which requires everybody to work together.

2.2.2	Socio-technical approach

According to Pasmore (1988), this new approach states that organizations consist of “their people, the technical system and environment”. With this view, people are referred to as social systems that use tools and knowledge, which is herein referred to as technical systems. It’s through knowledge that goods and services are produced and delivered to customers. Therefore, this approach attempts to achieve an equilibrium among its three components: the social system (people), technical system (knowledge) and the external business environment, all of which are essential to make an organization more effective (Berde, 2011).

2.2.3 Contingency or Situational approach

Being considered as an outgrowth of the systems approach, this approach consists of understanding the key variables in the situation, understand the relationship among variables to guide managerial decisions. According to authors: Burns and Stalker(1961) the approach “is based on the belief that there cannot be universal guidelines which are suitable for all situations”, therefore business environment should be analyzed taking into account different factors such as economic, social, technical, etc. Commonly on the current workplace, a baseline assessment is conducted before the implementation of any program / project to identify possible situations and variables in order to develop responses. It’s of valuable importance for Save the children’s projects implementation by indicating the children needs and informing the policy making, especially planning the remedial action. Through assessing the business environment, the organization is able to plan different interventions that fit every situation.

CHAPTER 3:  APPROACHES  USED  IN  IMPLEMENTING  MANAGEMENT THEORIES
This chapter discusses how different management theories are applied into different organizations and appreciate the overall impact created on the organization.

Given the multifaceted, complexity and dynamic nature of today’s business environment, managers are forced to restructure and / or develop policies that help to position their firms in the industry based on fitting the strategy to the current business environment. This dynamism and influence of external forces, increase the willingness for companies to find out new and cheaper ways of production. Contrary to the situation in the past centuries, knowledge is currently considered a very important aspect of any company. Competition for skilled and knowledgeable workers increases the production costs where workers are highly demanding than ever. However, in order to be more productive, there has also been a necessity to keep workers motivated, and hence a humanistic management approach was adopted.

.As discussed in the previous chapter, the scientific management approach doesn’t engage workers in policy formulation and the planning of the work to be done, which is different from most of contemporary approaches where employees are engaged in both policy formulation and execution. Strong and creative companies are currently encouraging and adopting new ideas to cope with new challenges. In most of contemporary organizations, the administrative management approach is partially adopted. Its six (6) management functions are so evident in different industries but a human aspect was added where employees are constantly motivated in different ways. The current workplace tries to reduce strong chains of commands but encourages workers to contribute ideas, which gives the management a task to decide on which idea contributes better to the company.

Looking at the bureaucracy management approach, it is important to note that people are currently wanting to psychologically free themselves and use their individuality. Contrary to the bureaucracy form of management, the contemporary management approach tends to put people first. Being forced to adopt a human-centered management approach, companies are urged to only use what works with their companies from the classical management theory.

Briefly as Finkle, (2012) agrees, todays management approach tends to be more democratic and personalized to fit in companies’ competitive strategies. Finkle, (2012) argues that “Teams nowadays manage themselves with a team leader who informs the top management whatever they need relaying to them. In simple terms, the manager’s roles  are  slowly  going  instinct” 3.1 Contemporary  approach  to  management

The classical management approaches have been arguably regarded as more dictatorial than democratic and criticized on their share of drawbacks. However, these theories are practiced in many businesses/ organizations and were used to formulate the contemporary management theories, which focus on free expression of opinions, information sharing and development of strategies. Ellinas & Johansson ( 2017) describe the contemporary theories as democratic management approaches where human aspects are more fundamental. From an example of how the Sports Direct used to mistreat its employees, one could conclude that their management style should not be adopted in the contemporary world. While human behavior should be studied and considered, workers should be kept motivated at their workplaces. Hofstede (2011) argues that: “organization must offer what makes the employee eager to  work “

3.2 Motivation  approach  to  management

According to Leonidas S. (2017): “every person is always under control of what makes them motivated, and make them do what they do at work”. This gives a responsibility to managers to make their employees work harder by providing suitable motivations. Motivation is what makes people behave in a certain way to achieve a goal (Mitchel, 1982). Currently there are many ways managers can motivate the workers depending on the nature of work as well as the individual personalities, hence there is always a need to study human motivation to discover that thing that makes them motivated. (Mitchell, 1982). However motivation should in no way compromise the overall objective of the firm. We also note that, even if managers provide motivation to workers, working better depends on each individual person (Mitchell, 1982). It’s personal needs that make people motivated and, as discussed above, people are under control of what make them motivated and make them do what they do at work (Mitchell, 1982). Since motivation has many faces, it entails personal motivations and the ability of people to work towards a particular goal (Leonidas, 2017).

Though motivation is an important management technique, it can’t achieve anything without any direction or predefined goal. In all cases, as argued by Buchanan & Huczynski (2010), managers should try to satisfy the workers’ basic needs since these are the innate determinants of human motivation. For example, if a person is in need of his family’s health insurance, he may be motivated by this desire to get his family insured. In this example, the person will do his possible best to get a response, by working harder to get money, even to the extent that he can steal. In no way this person will be satisfied by just a mobile top-up or any different motivation. This gives an urge to managers to find out what can best motivate their employees since, according to Leonidas (2017), there are the most immediate things that motivate them. Apart from satisfying the very basic needs of employees, Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) add personal motives as an important element that can inform motivation. Sometime human behavior is influenced by a certain set of unconscious activities relative to social culture, values and / or a lifestyle a person is willing to live. An example given by Buchanan and Huczynski (2010), a person’s motive may be the one of taking his kids to the best school or of affording a house in a particular place. All of such things would drive a person until he is able to live such lifestyle. This is also linked with different goals that people are willing to achieve. Outside the workplace, people have different purposes and desires in their lives. However, at the workplace, their desires are mainly “rising in the management ranks, salary increment or a paid vacation” (Buchanan &  Huczynski,  2010).

My view focuses on financial reward which is most important on today's workplace. Mitchel (1982) agrees with it that most employees would claim financial bonus, for them to do better on their jobs. A real example is when Save the Children decided to provide a voucher of 200,000 Frw as individual bonus to all employees. As discussed with colleagues, especially with program managers, after such financial reward (in form of voucher used for shopping in a super market), employees worked harder than before but for a certain period of time. This confirms that financial rewards can lead to better performance. However, at the end of the next year, the organization decided not to provide any further bonus to employees who kept claiming the rewards. This indicates how people want additional financial bonus at their workplace but as experience, the bonus increases employees performance for a short period of time. Financial reward can motivate for simple task, but for task that involves cognitive thinking, it may not.

Briefly, compared to the classical management theories, the contemporary management approach focuses on having employees motivated. To do so, organizations have to find out that thing that triggers employee into working, consider the organization’s goals and personal desires and motives. In all cases the “aims of any employee are important to them as the goals of a company are also important” (Leonidas, 2017). The contemporary approach is more human centered, where employees are believed to have motivations and supported to achieve what motivate them, being either social or basic needs (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2001).

3.3 Human  relation  approach to management

The human relation approach states that workers are more important than the work they do. It focuses more on the interaction between employees and their work behavior. Hawthorne experiment attempted to explore the importance of human relations on workplace by finding out what keep employees enjoyed by working in different conditions (Hassard, 2012). Cole &  Kelly ( 2016) explained how the experiment tried to establish human relations by outstepping the physical contribution and going further to include human communication, emotional and how free expression of opinion and suggestions increases workers’ satisfaction as well as productivity. People are social beings and hence, they always seek to belong to social groups whether on or outside their workplace. Being social beings, person would enjoy being in a group rather than single individually. The above Hawthorne experiment has concluded that human relationships is a motivating factor that helps employees to feel as part of a group rather than being individuals and therefore, managers should value and foster human interaction (Hassard, 2012).

Although the incompatibility among the team members is due to difference in background, perception and preferences, social activities have had remarkable importance and considered key for employee satisfaction at Save the children. This is proved by an increased number of social events such as retreats, social funds, contribution to worker’s ceremonies, etc. Such examples would be enough to appraise the consideration of human relation approach in contemporary organizations.

3.4 Social  psychological  school  of  motivation

Apart from fulfilling social and physical needs for a person, Maslow (1954) introduced a so called “self-actualization” as an influential proponent of his theory. When developing the hierarchy of needs, Maslow (1954) ranked different sets of human needs which, according to him, respectively include the physiological needs, safety & security needs, belonging needs, self-esteem needs and eventually self-actualization. The idea behind ranking was to explain that once employees are motivated, they fulfil some of their basic needs until the so called “self-actualization” which is considered the highest need. On the other hand, Douglas M (1966) developed a theory named x versus y. Douglas McGregor (1966) brings us to rethink on the two variables x and y. The first variable (x) represents a situation where managers consider their employees as lazy people who should be firmly controlled and threatened. This assumption reminds us of the case of Sport Direct which used to threaten its workers, and hence reflects a scientific management approach. Cherry (2014) describes the situation as a lack of psychological freedom in the workplace. Despite its criticism on its dehumanization aspect, this theory is still evidenced in so many contemporary organizations today such as in the construction and mining copmanies. The other variable represents a contrary situation to the previous one:

The theory y, represents an assumption where managers enjoy the work and never threaten employees. This situation works better with Maslow’s hierarchical needs where employees are motivated by fulfilling their individual needs according to their ranks. This is a situation that fits best in today’s knowledge management economy. The success of Save the children and its attractiveness to qualified and experienced workers, is based on the organization’s approach to encourage creativity and ambition i.e. psychological freedom.

3.5  Treats approach vs Behaviour approach

According to Madsen (2001) the behavior approach focusses on the behaviour displayed by leaders. According to Bass (1990), the traits approach concentrates “on important individual traits that differentiated leaders from non-leaders”. Contrary, the behavioral approach defines leadership as a style and not focusing on individual traits. In this context, managerial work, practices as well as roles and the classification of the different functions are given consideration. In the traits approach theory, leaders tend to be born, while the behavior approach states that behavior can be learned and changed through practice (Madsen, 2001). Bass (1990) argues that the behavioral approach resulted in training leaders and determining the kind of behavior was more efficient. On the point, Lewin (1939) defines three participatory leadership styles depending on the differences in leaders’ behaviour: Autocratic approach: where managers are decision-makers and not challenged in their decisions. Leaders make decisions, divide and assign duties without consulting workers. With this approach whose power is more centralized, autocratic leaders assume full authority and responsibility. Although this type of leadership is more common in military functions, it can also be evidenced in some contemporary organizations but not more common as such.

Laissez-faire is another leadership style where managers provide little or no direction at all. Contrary to autocratic approach, in this new approach, decision-making is for managers’ subordinates who are fully responsible for all administrative initiatives and problem solving depending on their understanding. Though this approach presents some disadvantages, especially on working towards the common goals and lack of ability to bring workers on the same page, it seems to promote individual initiatives and free expression of ideas. Though not experienced such style of leadership with Save the Children, Laissez-faire is, according to my view, a challenging but experience-giving for only proactive individuals.

Democratic approach is now a de-centralized authority where managers engage their subordinates and employees in decision making process. Workers are consulted during policy development and the planning process (Tannerbaum and Schmidt, 1958). On my point of view, this style of management promotes mutual respect and encourages ideas exchange among the team. It’s the most common in Save the children’s program teams, where people sit to review the project components and plan the implementation together; an approach that appraise for its ability to increase employees’ satisfaction and motivation. Shawn G. (2017) agrees that this approach facilitates the group’s decision-making, fosters participation, leads to greater innovations and creates solutions to real problems.

CONCLUSION
Leadership and management are key functions to drive any business towards its goals. It’s very indispensable to understand management theories and their relation to employee performance and organizational efficiency. From the literature review, we can confirm that workplace has evolved from manual to the current predominantly knowledge-based workplace. This shift has yielded an enhanced employee’s satisfaction on workplace through the more participatory leadership and democratic management approaches. Contrary to the classical management approaches, the contemporary approach motivates employees and considers their behavior on workplace to preserve their commitments towards maximum productivity. Through motivating its workers Save the children has been able to attract, retain and enhance employees’ productivity until it turned into a giant and global leading organization for children. This success is based on the organizational ability to adopt the newly human-centered management approach which is still the organization’s core value to encourage ambition and creativity. The contemporary approaches put workers first and put responsibility to managers to create an environment that works for their subordinates. As a project officer working in a humanitarian camp situation where the organization is trying to save lives of refugees, especially promoting children’s rights, I can testify a human-centered management approach of Save the children international with some evidence of classical management approaches but predominance of transformational approaches.