The Theory of Management Fashion - Essay Example

The Theory of Management Fashion Introduction The supposition of organization trends in the business arena as well as in management text indicate that in irresolute conditions, businesses and organizations duplicate creativity models endorsed by the trend setting organizations such as management sages, mass media, books and magazines in the business world. As a result, the flow rate and the ultimate levels of embracing of any particular management creativity cannot be totally clarified through coherent resourceful arguments. Social and emotional factors, techno-economic influence among other factors manipulate the choices to take on and fit into place so as to exploit the management creativity. In view of this, the theory of management fashion states that management fashion is in principal a cultural happening structured by the rule of rationality. This means that the management must be perceived to be always looking for perfection. The primary belief in management is that over a given span of time, a particular management fashion will be out of trend, and a newer one will replace it. Based on this school of thought, certain management fashions last for a short time while other stay for a long period and attain widespread acceptance. In various management segments, several successions of management creativity are seen whereby as one goes out of trend and declines in popularity, the trendsetter initiates a novel innovation, thus resulting into a graphical representation of the trend as a rising and declining curve. Management fashion has been studied over the years through an examination of two comparable life patterns. The first parallel is the discourse life pattern, which is an approach employed to study the volume as well as the natural world of disclosure concerning a particular trend over time. It employs bibliographic and subject matter breakdown, separating the assorted forms of discourse such as the Internet, business book, journal and magazines as well as the mass media. The dissemination life cycle is the second parallel. This strategy is employed to determine the level to which management creativity is taken up by organizations, which follow fashion and the extent of use over a given period. Based on the innovation form and type, the analysis can be executed through case study surveys or the scrutiny of secondary facts such a sales figures and services supplies among other market indicators. Literature review Across generations, social science scholars have been captivated by fashion and fads. However, it is only recently that theories and schools studying these two aspects in management emerged with scholars like Abrahamson (1996) pioneering in the field of study in addition to other scholars like Fairchild (1999) following suit. These scholars and their studies among others attend to the hype centered on organizational management models and tools namely knowledge management and quality circles among others (Herzhoff 2010). In view of this, four themes have been identified which are applicable to the study of management fashion. Fads and fashion in academic research There has been a divergence in view points concerning management fashion with scholars like Cole (1999) observing management fashion studies as an expensive pastime while Abrahamson (1996) acknowledges the importance of examining fashion, claiming that publicized themes of management should not just be disregarded. In view of this, other scholars like Collins (2000), support Abrahamson’s viewpoint. Abrahamson, who is a supporter of the management fashion theory, contends that philosophers and academicians ought not to be indifferent to trends, since they are not only restricted to aesthetics. Abrahamson (1996), further states that there exist two clear differences between trends and aesthetics. Trends in aesthetics necessitate only to be recent and attractive, whereas trends in management need to be not only logic but also progressive. Secondly, the demand for aesthetic fashion is influenced by social psychological aspects in contrast to management fashion, which is influenced by a joined force of techniques and economic aspects. The difference between fashion and fad in management The past twenty to thirty years have witnessed an exponential increase of novel as well as reinventions of management models, which have had a tangible impact on the managerial field. As a result, many businesses and organizations have adopted and applied these management models but later abandoned them. Hence, the phenomenon has been dubbed management fashion. Due to this, some scholars have taken upon themselves to separate fad from fashion in management. Most scholars try to separate fashion and fad based of aspects like duration, extent and social approval of the concept proposed by the innovators. Abrahamson (1996) theorized that both fashion and fad in management concern replication of ideas, and that the difference between the two is based on the extent of the replication process. That is, if a concept is limited to a small group of adopters it is a fad, while if the replication of the concept affects a large diverse group it can be termed as a fashion (Abrahamson 1996). Other scholars contend that the difference between the two is unclear and that the differences can be based on and fit a process perspective. Dale et al. (2001) formulated a model that explains the process perspective of the difference between fashion and fads. Their model proposed that fads represent the initial stages of a multi-stage paradigm and have the rationale to convey a concept to the interest of a huge audience. The second stage is represented by fashion where the concept is put into practice and adopted. Fit represents the final stage where that concept of the management innovation translates into performance improvements and is put in practice on a daily basis at the work place. In view of this, they concluded that not all fads proceed to become fashions and not all fashions proceed to become fits in the management concepts. Ephemeral characteristic of management fashion Market consultant became very popular in last several decades because they promise managers the conveyance of exceptional knowledge to take control of their organizations, but also increased their uncertainties of loosing the same control promised (Kieser 2001). Academic studies in management indicate an ephemeral nature of management fashion. Abrahamson, (1996) postulates that when a management trend emerges, one organization adopts it and others follow in applying the same concept. With time therefore, it becomes difficult for an organization to differentiate itself from the others applying a similar concept. Consequently, organizations look for ways to invent newer concepts. This phenomenon has been described as turning the wheel repeatedly instead of re-inventing the wheel, leading to a repetition of topics with a divergent interpretation of the same themes of management (Parush 2008). The temporary nature of management concepts is also supported through the idea that fashion wears down in the course of use. In view of this Benders & van Veen, (2001) hypothesize that in most cases, management trends are not evidently defined thus they can be taken to mean different things to different people, an aspect of fashion referred to as interpretive viability. This aspect is attributed to the success or failure of a management concept, as it diverges into singular forms. The fleeting nature of fashion also introduces an argument as to the difference between management fashion and management ideology. Scholars argue that the hype created by the publication and adoption of management fashion alienates the theory of management principles in modern sociology and management knowledge. For instance, the topics being discussed in management fashion are similar to those that constituted management ideologies in the past. These two themes in management have their similarities and differences. Some scholars may tell the differences in permanence between them, although the concept of management fashion text symbolizes a new twist in the sociology of administration studies and knowledge (Parush 2008). Management fashion and technology The concepts key to management fashion can also apply to information technology. The theoretical research and practices can be swayed by the same management fashions present in broad management such as in business. This is becomes methodical users act under the control of techno economic compels as well as social psychological influence. However, in comparison to fashion, technology is long lasting and it is perceived as an extension to fashion. In view of this, Wynn and Whitley (2002) argue that technologies, which are entrenched in daily management practices, may be overlooked in management studies but they still have implications in management. Management fashion criticism The success of a management concept into becoming a fashion is largely attributable to the publicity in which the innovator and the mass media put into it. In view of this, Kieser (2001) states that several ingredients have to go into making a management fashion. They include the buzzword to arouse the curiosity of the would-be users, embodiment and dramatization. The innovator also needs to put forward a novel management idea as an innovation of a group of philosophers but as a strong blue print of an exceptional manager. The third ingredient should comprise of a balanced mixture of ambiguity and simplicity as it increases the attractiveness of the concept, in that the audience would wish to consult the innovator for help on the vague aspects of the management concept. Following this school of thought, critics argue that the management concepts, which turn into fashions, are engineered by their innovator with a specific business predicament which only they can resolve (Kieser 2001). Furthermore, the solutions presented only fit what the innovators point out. As such, these management concepts are not based on sound pragmatic theories but conceive realities. Clark (2004) ascertains that the proponents of management fashion argue that their research is mainly centered on the dissemination process. It also examines the level to which concepts become adopted and implemented into an organization, and that their research helps managers to detect techniques that are potentially ephemeral and toxic. However, the outcomes do not usually offer direct empirical proof of organizational achievements. Most of the researches, which support management fashion diffusion, are based on citation analysis. Some researchers have argued that since the technique is limited to the counts of references to a concept in selective mass media channels, such a technique cannot verify the level of a concept adoption by organization. The influence of the mass media is evident in the publicity of management innovation, hence the inherent characteristics of the mass media influence the level at which an innovation is received by the audience. This is particularly so through their positioning at the progressive of management creations. At the end of the day, citation analysis, which influences the management fashion text, is not apprehensive of the organizational repercussion of management styles, but the outcomes of a sequence of spirited and societal developments within the mass media (Clark 2004). Secondly, the text apprehensive to management fashion is largely centered on the diffusion stage within the management fashion life phase. The management fashion theory focuses on the response given to the concepts following their publication. The insight drawn from the researches that support management fashion is that the managers are observed to being the only judges of the taste, in the opinion that they are shown as choosing the concepts. Such concepts have the potential for mass demand, hence they settle on the concepts that become management trends and which do not pass the test. However, this is not true according to Clark (2004). The development of a management concept, which then turns into a management fashion, entails a series of collaborations involving gurus, editors and best selling authors who carefully select the ideas and formulate them into a blockbuster management fashion. The evidence to this claim lies in the acknowledgement segment of any best selling management book or manuscript. The popularity of management fashion as portrayed in the mass media does not represent an exact and complete image of the life span of diverse management ideas. This is because despite the decline in the popularity of certain management fashions, some innovators organizations still hold up the continued promotion of their innovation. This is despite some ideas becoming obsolete in the management realms; some administration quotas still value the innovations (Clark 2004). Management fashion concept: Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Business Process Reengineering commenced as a private sector concept to facilitate organizations to reorganize how they run their operations, so as to considerably boost their output in customer service and lessen the operating costs. This would enable the organizations to become first rate competitors. The basic idea presented by this model was the introduction and the implementation of modern technology in organizational processes to build products and services, which meet the requirement of a singular client. Some of the innovators behind the concept methodology were Hammer/Champy, Kodak, Davenport, Manganelli and Klein (Radhakrishnan & Balasubramanian 2008). This management concept represents a classical example of management fashion, which followed the management fashion theory. In the early 1990s, many organizations adopted and implemented it with the aim of revitalizing their competitive advantage, which they had lost with liberalization of business operations especially in the Unites States of America. In the subsequent years to its launch, endorsement tools such as books, magazines and the mass media were fanatical about BPR. It was a fashionable management concept until critics highlighted its flaws. In the mid 1990s, some organizations, which had previously adopted it with zeal, lost interest as it become unfashionable. Afterwards, the Business Process Management (BPM) concept came into fashion replacing BPR. Case study: Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (M&M) This company was one of the zenith industrial giants in India. It is an automotive company started by two brothers, K.C and J.C Mahindra in the post World War II era. Over time, the company came to realize that some of its business operations were not aligned to the core business objectives of the company. In the mid nineties, the company instituted one of the major reorganization exercises in its history, which involved adopting, and rolling out BPR. The exercise involved regrouping the business operations into six different segments of related businesses each under the leadership of a president. For instance, tractor and automotive sections which were its core business activities became independent business units. In the subsequent years, M&M implemented BPR to test its benefits in Igatpuri plant, but the decision was met with displeasure by the labor union. Both parties failed to reach an accord; hence doubts were cast by the observers on the impressive prospects for M&M garnering the gains of BPR (Radhakrishnan & Balasubramanian 2008). Criticism to business process reengineering BPR never transformed management thinking, which has been perceived as the major cause of organizational failure. In addition, it underestimated opposition to revolutionize within the organization, while it over-trusted technology for solutions. Furthermore, it disregarded the status quo in existence within an organization in addition to assuming that the factors which bound an organization’s functioning is the futility of its processes, which is debatable. However, BPR presented no suggestions to confirm the hypothesis (Hayden 2010). Conclusion The management fashion theory has its flaws and its advantages; hence it has its fair share of critics and supporters. This is particularly so due to interpretive viability, meaning that what may seem fashionable to one organization may be an obsolete idea in another organization. What emerges clearly is that the making of a management fashion concept entails a detailed process of selection of ideas through the utilization of expert. Most of the fashions are tailor made to the innovators advantages, so that the innovators are perceived to be the sole solution to the proposed concept vagueness. Nevertheless, the concept of change and being perceived as different explains the popularity, and beg offs concerning specific thoughts corresponding to management fashion theories. Human beings are susceptible to change, thus management fashion will always be part of the modern day organizational culture. The aspects which are likely to change are the theories associated with organizational management. References Abrahamson, E 1996, ‘Management Fashion’, Academy of Management Review, vol.21, no.1, 254-285. Abrahamson, E, & Fairchild, G 1999, ‘Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, 708-740. Benders, J, & van Veen, K 2001, ‘What's in a fashion? Interpretative Viability and Management Fashion’, Organization, vol. 8. no.1, 33-53. Clark, T 2004, ‘The Fashion Management Fashion: A Surge Too Far?’, Organization, vol. 11. no. 2, 297-306. Cole, RE 1999, Managing quality fads: how American business learned to play the quality game, Oxford University Press, New York. Collins, D 2000, Management fads and buzzwords: critical-practical perspectives, Routledge, London. Dale, BG, Elkjaer, MB, van der Wiele, A, & Williams, AR 2001, ‘Fad, fashion and Fit: An examination of quality circles, business process re-engineering and statistical process control’, International Journal of Production Economics, vol.73. no. 2, 137-152. Hayden, L 2010, IT security metrics: a practical framework for measuring security & protecting data, McGraw-Hill, New York [u.a.]. Herzhoff, J 2010, Convergence and Mobility-Just another Fad or Fashion? A Systems-Theoretical Analysis, 18th European Conference on Information Systems, Scholar one Manuscript central, London, pp. 1-13. Kieser, A 2001, ‘Applying Theories of Fashion to Management Consulting: How Consultants Turn Concepts Into Fashions and Sell Them To Managers’, Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. MH, A1-A6. Parush, T 2008, ‘From “Management Ideology” to “Management Fashion” A Comparative Analysis of Two Key Concepts in the Sociology of Management Knowledge’, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 38. no. 1, 48-70. Radhakrishnan, R, & Balasubramanian, S 2008, Business Process Reengineering Text and Cases, Prentice-Hall, New Delhi. Wynn, EH, & Whitley, E A 2002, Global and organizational discourse about information technology: IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology, December 12-14, 2002, Barcelona, Spain, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, Boston, Mass. Read More