The History of Theory of Management - Assignment Example

? Carson’s Viewpoint on history of theory of management and McGregor’s Theories relevance in contemporary organisations AFFILIATION: COURSE TITLE: DATE OF SUBMISSION: Introduction to theories of management In every organisation, it is vital to have a well-set management team that is aware of the particularities of its functioning and also has an adequate understanding about the ways of managing the workforce. Almost all the studies in the field of management have emphasised the need of developing an effective workforce that can help a corporation in achieving its key organisational goals (Andersson, Eriksson & Torstensson, 2006). Human resources are a valuable asset for any organisation and for organisations to become successful; they need to value their human resources to the optimum level. Valuing employees boosts confidence in employees to work harder than prior performance. An effective workforce allows the organisation to earn success and profitability in the long run as well. All future strategic planning of the organisation can be successfully accomplished via an effective workforce performance. All talented and skilled employees need to be retained by the organisation; they need to ensure that employees are satisfied with the organisation (Guest, 2011). The organisation should work towards developing loyal employees for the firm. In the last couple of years, various researchers have studied the implications of management gurus’ works in contemporary organisations and have realised that firms are using them either as a fashion or fad; they are not utilising them properly within their work context (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; McLean, 2009). Implementing the strategies within the work context can allows the organisation to accomplish desired results of success. The management gurus or theory developers such as Taylor, Maslow, McGregor, Herzberg, Vroom and others have developed their concepts to provide guidance to the organisations in creating a work environment that is supportive for their employees and will help them in achieving their targeted goals (Denhardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2009). These theory developers have concentrated on the workforce behaviour in a broad perspective and accordingly developed management theories for managing workforce. Majority of the researchers including Carson et al. (2002), Gallos (2005), Park and Ritson (2005), Tay and Diener (2011) and Wren, Bedeian and Breeze (2002) emphasised the need of modifying the applicable management theory according to the culture of a firm so that it can successfully design a work culture that will be supportive for its business operations. With changing times, the employee mindset and the ways of performing job roles have changed; hence the management theories developed by the earlier management gurus may require some modification in the present work culture. Carson’s viewpoint about history of theory of management According to Carson et al. (2002) who developed a theory known as ‘theory of management fashion’ concluded from their studies that now-a-days the organisations are relying on the models of management that are developed by newly skilled experts commonly referred to as management gurus, consulting firms, business schools and business publications in mass media in events of uncertainty. These management gurus are discussed as examples in many of the business schools so that the new generation is well aware of both the prior and new developments in management theories. These models of management have variations from the prior management theories developed in the field of management studies. This theory has been developed keeping in view the variables considered in the management models and how these have been applied in present business scenarios. Carson et al. (1999), cited by Mohr, Young and Burgees (2011), stated that under situations of ambiguity, the corporations who are classified as management fashion followers emulate the innovation models which are promoted by the fashion-setting companies like management gurus and consulting firms. These new innovation models allow the new fashion companies to develop their strategies accordingly and promote their companies according to the latest requirements (Torstensson, 2006). These fashion conscious organisations face severe problems when evaluating the ‘diffusion rates’ and ‘adoption levels’ of the specific management innovation as these terms cannot be explained by technically efficient arguments such as ‘the efficient alternative’ perspective (Carson, 2005). Besides the technological and economic factors, the psychological and sociological elements have significant impact on the final decision of adopting and engaging the new management progression. It is challenging for any particular management to retain the fashion customers through innovative products and services. The psychological and sociological elements need to be studied carefully for desired results. Hence these factors need to be given careful consideration while developing their strategies and making decisions. The management process prevailing in an organisation is largely shaped by the culture of the firm and it is determined by the behaviours of its employees and all the stakeholders; the primary aim of the innovative management process is to improve the functioning of work within the business premises by providing the employees the right set of tools and materials along with addressing all their needs properly and efficiently (Carson & Carson, 1998; Guest, 2011). The organisational culture should be having a comfortable environment for employees to give in their best performance. When employees are satisfied with the work environment, they are in a position to deliver their services well and also can deliver enhanced services if empowered for certain other tasks for the organisation. Every management body within a firm has certain underlying expectations which is stated as ‘with the passage of time, a particular fashion of management will decline and new and unique fashions will emerge eventually’ (Carson et al., 2008; Tay & Diener, 2011); the fashions that decline at a fast pace are known as fads and they are present within the organisation for only limited time period. The short time period of the trends in fashion is challenging for organisations to manage latest fashion at a constant mode. The fashion that remains in the organisation for long-time tends to evolve as requirements of the employees’ change and they need to be incorporated with innovation in the product so that the motivation level of workforce is boosted which will enhance their performance level (Cummings & Worley, 2007). McGregor’s Theories Douglas McGregor has been the pioneer of management theories who introduced the two management styles concept commonly known as ‘Theory X and Theory Y’. McGregor analysed the types of people working in the organisation and classified them into two broader categories and highlighted the importance of understanding the working behaviours of employees so that the management can develop the right course of action for them. Both types of workers are present in almost all organisations. According to Theory X, the managers have authoritative style of leadership and they believe that the only way of getting the work done is to force the employees to complete their tasks on time because otherwise they will be penalized for being disobedient (McLean, 2009). Theory X workers need to be controlled and monitored and should be told how to proceed with their work. These workers are least interested in work and would look for all possible ways to avoid work. Such types of employees may prove to be consequential for the organisations in the long run as with time the business competition is becoming fiercer. However, Theory Y stresses that the employees are willing to work if the environment is friendly and supportive and they are rewarded for their contributions and efforts (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). The managers of Theory Y have participative style of management and they can achieve the targets effectively by enhancing the morale of employees. In the contemporary organisations, Theory Y has been successfully implemented and has allowed the organisations to develop healthy and strong relationships between management and the entire workforce (David, 2010). If employees are equipped with proper resources and are allowed to enhance their creativity skills at work then the employees would prove to be highly productive for the organisation. Implications of McGregor’s Theories McGregor has a distinctive place in the history of management as he was among those people who stressed the requirements of following behavioural approach in organisations in addition to the cognitive approach (Mohr, Young & Burgees, 2011). He was among those scholars who initiated the programs for increasing awareness about employee-employer relations; he identified that the only way of motivating the employees and making them loyal to the corporation is to treat them like a valuable asset and address all their needs effectively. He highlighted this fact that the most important things for human being are the feeling of being valued. If employees are given value by their employer, then this boosts their morale and they are determined to work much harder for the organisation. Although McGregor just highlighted the crucial aspects of management but he emphasised that the process should be altered according to the culture of an entity so that everything is properly aligned. According to Carson (2005), McGregor theory Y has helped many organisations in revamping their structures by doing critical thinking of the management theories. The contemporary organisations are implementing the management theories in accordance with their industry standards and business environment requirements so that they can have an effective and motivated workforce that will help them in moving in the right direction and enhance their performance in the market. Mc Gregor’s theory Y has also allowed the employees to be categorised in to two forms, this allows organisations to deal with the employees accordingly. The management can devise their motivational plans accordingly while keeping in view the management theories. Conclusion Hence, after analysis of Carson’s view on history of theory of management and McGregor’s Theories, it can be concluded that all organisations have to do some analytical and critical thinking about various management processes. Through critical thinking, all dimensions can be reviewed for any particular situation or any decision that needs to be taken for the organisation. Although the consultants and management gurus are experts of the field of management but it does not mean that a firm follows their business model without its proper evaluation. In order to have a good management structure, an organisation should first evaluate its own working culture along with the requirements of its business environment so that it can develop an effective and competent working environment for its business operations. All dependent and independent variable and conditions need to be monitored and evaluated before implementing the theory in its entirety. Some business practices are considered benchmark practices and to follow them the organisation needs to consider many elements so that the desired results can be achieved. Carson has stated the views based on the observations of the management model and while implementing any management model, the organisations need to conduct a proper evaluation. References Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H., 2006. Similarities and differences between TQM, six sigma and lean. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), pp. 282-296. Carson, K.D., Carson, P.P., Lanier, P.A. and Judice, R.D., 2002. Management Fad Adoption: An Exploration of Three Psychogenic Influences. The Journal of Applied and Behavioural Management, 3(2), pp. 174-189. Carson, C.M., 2005.A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), pp. 450-460. Carson, P. and Carson, K., 1998. Theoretically grounding management history as a relevant and valuable form of knowledge. Journal of Management History, 4(1), pp. 29-42. David, F.R., 2010. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. 13th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Cennamo, L. and Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), pp. 891-906. Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2007. Essentials of Organizational Development and Change. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. Denhardt, R.B., Denhardt, J.V., and Aristigueta, M.P., 2009. Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gallos, J.V., 2005. Organization development: a Jossey-Bass reader. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Guest, D.E., 2011. Human resource management and performance: still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), pp. 3-13. McLean, G.N., 2009. Organization Development: Principles, Processes and Performance. New York: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Mohr, D.C., Young, G.J. and Burgees, J.F., 2011.Employee turnover and operational performance: the moderating effect of group-oriented organisational culture. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), pp. 216-233. Parker, L.D. and Ritson, P., 2005. Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today. Management Decision, 43(10), pp. 1335-1357. Tay, L. and Diener, E., 2011. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), pp. 354-365. Wren, D.A., Bedeian, A.G. and Breeze, J.D., 2002. The foundations of Henri Fayol’s administrative theory. Management Decision, 40(9), pp. 906-918. Read More