The essence of effective leadership hinges upon a delicate balance - a harmonious blend of science and art. Like a skilled conductor weaving a tapestry of sound, managers orchestrate a team's efforts through the application of established principles and theories (the science), while simultaneously employing intuition, creativity, and personal prowess (the art).

The Science of Management:

Management draws upon a rich reservoir of knowledge, offering a foundation of universal truths and principles. These principles, meticulously documented over time, provide valuable insights into cause-and-effect relationships within organizations. From motivational theories to strategic planning frameworks, this codified knowledge empowers managers to make informed decisions and navigate complex situations.

The Art of Management:

However, management transcends the realm of theory. Like any art form, it demands practice and refinement. Honing personal skills and cultivating creativity are crucial for effective leadership. The art lies in adapting these established principles to unique situations and diverse personalities. It's about reading the room, inspiring individuals, and nurturing a collaborative spirit.

The Conductor's Baton:

Successful managers wield the baton of both science and art. They leverage the scientific framework as a sturdy foundation while embracing the artistic flexibility to navigate the dynamic nuances of human interaction. This delicate equilibrium allows them to adapt to unforeseen challenges, motivate individuals, and foster a thriving team environment.

Conclusion:

Therefore, viewing management as solely science or solely art paints an incomplete picture. It is the synergy of these seemingly disparate elements that unlocks true leadership potential. By embracing both the analytical and the intuitive, managers can orchestrate a symphony of success, leading their teams toward shared goals

Dear Saulosi

Interesting question.

Management is, in my opinion, the intrerest in looking for ways to do things better backed up by science.

Ford, inventor of the moving assembly line is a typical example. It requires a lot of engineering effort in developing mathematical models

The result is a consequence of a symbiosis between applying mathematial methodologies and the thinking of manasgers, based on common sense, knwoledge, expertise, humility to learn from others, etc. Of course the decision must always be a human output, the method is on nly a tool.

Until the 50s, management was reduced to selecting projects based on the C/B relations.

At that time, managers realized that a new technique known as AHP would be useful in helping them, because they also were following a hierarchcal lineal procedure, and it could help them in validate what they were doing, and the decistion was right.

However, there were profound social an environmental pressure, that after that date started judging the old procedure, and demanded more participation. This lead to different schemes of industrial organization, being the matrix form apparently the adequate and still used, and opposite to the lineal scheme.

Consequently, managers detected that the AHP procedure, because its rigid structure was no longer useful, and this provoked the appearence of new techniques, pioneered by Kantorovich in 1940 and later made accedsible by Dantzig (The Simplex method), Roy (ELECTRE),and Saaty (ANP), the creator of the AHP. in developing techniques adequate to the new structure.

As can be seen, in this case management promoted the necessity of having new techniques, which made scientists to produce them, in a clear example of symbiosis between management and mathematics.