Dale's attack on the universalists was only the opening salvo. Fritz Roethlisberger was less critical: he recognized the shortcoming of behavioral research but felt that a general theory was possible if researchers turned some attention to explaining what had previously been learned through experimentation.
Robert Schlaifer, representing the decision theorist, stated that he was "Convinced that decision thoery is not and never will be a part of a theory of mangement. "
Herbert Simon Disagreed with the Koontz jungle from the onset. Simon maintained that there was no jungle, no semantic confusion, and he was "exhilarated by the progress we have made ... toward creating a viable science of management and an art based on that science."
According to Simon, management theory was far from being a jungle and was becomining a beneficary of and a contributor to sistem theory. the study of complex system required a variety of inputs,from empiricits,decision theorists,behavioralists, and so on, and the future of mangement held forth the promise of a synthesis in mangement science .
From these diverse views, further discussion yielded new insights. In reporting his observations of the discussion, Robert Tannenbaum noted that semantics were a major problem and that people preferred to play it safe by using their own jargon and speaking only from familiar ground. Simopn defended the use of jargon as marking the growth of a discipline that needed a new vocabulary to express new ideas. R.C Davis challenged Dale's description of a classicist; others engaged in extensive attemp to define terms; and Wilfred Brown capsulized much of the conference sentiment when he said, "Frankly, gentlemen,I have not been able to follow much of what's been said in the discussion."
As Koontz concluded, "Semantic confusion was evident throughout the discussions."
As a denouement, Koontz proposed an electic approach that would maintain mangement as a discipline of its own but would enable management to support itself by drawing on relevant findings of many other disciplines. Koontz was still hopeful that the functions of planning,oragnizing,staffing,directing,and controlling would form the core of the mngement discipline and, when buttressed by electicism, that the process approach would lead to a general theory. The UCLA symposium was indicative of the incoherent state of management theory. Perhaps the seminar topic should have been subtitled "Is anybody Listening?" Academicians could understand onlythose from their own specialty, and practitioners could not understand academicians and vice versa.
Some individuals remained optimistic that a general theory could be developed. William Frederick reflected this optimism in 1963 when he said : "Within perhaps five years-certainly not more than ten years hance-a general theory of mangament will be evolved, stated, and generally accepted in mangement circles." One author developed a taxonomic matrix patterned after the periodic table that would classify management concepts in the hope of aiding the development of a genral theory. others, such as George Odiorne, posited that mangement situations were to complex for precise principles and propositions that would yield a sound theory. According to Odiorne: "the successfull manager is too busy succeeding (existing) to spend much time on the ories which would explain his success... this doesn't mean that principles aren't there (but that they).. haven't yet been uncovered nor described." Thus managers had to decide and act, moving from one situation to another. Managers were action oriented, not reflective, and pragmatic , not theoretical, and the numerous and different managerial situations defied theorizing.
