The Theory and Practice in Management - Essay Example

Scientific management Introduction Fredrick Taylor is associated well with this concept. Scientific management system required that factory management should take a more active approach rather than partial supervision. Only the engineers and salaried supervisors could take great control over entire factory’s production. This approach made that all the skilled artisans as well as supervisors relinquish their power. After a period of monitoring workers while on their duty, Taylor got tired of their sluggish approach towards their work. He felt that employees deliberately slowed the work rate they should exhibit and by this fooling the employers. Taylor termed this as work soldering. An act of go slow within the industry amongst the employees (Montana 2008:210). The challenge to changing this was ‘complete revolution in the mental attitude and habits of all those involved in management, as well of the worksmen’ (p.4).Therefore, with this realization, the concept of scientific management came to birth. He continuously controlled workers engagement using a stopwatch. As this not enough, management shifted into one central planning department with only engineers having the license to execute such duties. Production of instructional cards from this department, reports meant that the whole picture on the flow of the work within the industry came clean. It ultimately turned to what Taylor craved for-a official practice and schedule in the industry. This resulted into scientific management in the industrial sector in the 19th Century. The approach proved ineffective. By the end of 19th century, people craved for alternative. Mechanical revolution industrial machines rendered this approach too rigid in modern times. The world has changed and morals approaches take center stage in today’s management away from Taylor’s rigid approach. Managing and organization brings comprehensive engagement and departmental accessibility in today’s world. This approach is far of Taylors 19th Century Philosophy. Clegg Kornberger says any production institution is solely dependent on human power and capacity. One cannot measure the output of human power neither force it out of his will. To him, labor is internal not physical. The approach by Clegg seems to satirize Taylor’s limited perception of 19th century workers, whom he had reduced into mini-machines. For one to maximize on his workers, Clegg proposes an all-inclusive running of a factory or any organization (Clegg 2008: 230). This openness clears doubt from employees and a sense of togetherness instilled. It creates bonding between the authority and the working staff dealing with emerging issues easily within any given firm. As for workers, they input their labor in relation to the level of motivation within the firm. The theory and practice in management should always revolve around the worker. In page 358, Clegg argues that, “Knowledge management practitioners like to think of themselves…”. Today’s corporate world has even allowed workers access to departmental zones not to mention the respect of labor laws. Taylor’s restrictive approach only serves to limit down the work rate of employees. Clegg advocates for reasoning when an output in a firm is below the expected. The management should incorporate everyone to raise an issue and this comes as the only way to pushing any organization to its production zenith. He calls for a different treat of workers’ from away from equating them to machines as Taylor did. Today’s world of management has brought aesthetics in the work place. This comes when firm owners understand the taste of their institutions. This explains how important it is to work within the context of the organization. Aesthetic knowledge gives boost in an organizational practice, as it becomes the integral part of people do. It is the flexibility of an organization to create a space and open up to allow questioning of what exist. For example, when a human resource manager comes up with refresher programs for his busy staff, or an engineer creates a short cut towards a process, it is aesthetics of work. When looking at Taylor’s approach, his inventions or any initiative aimed towards taking more out of the worker without any personal input. His exploitative tactics do not conform to today’s changes. Taylor could not inject flexibility to his work when his sole mandate was to increase the work rate. His aim was to act economically by ‘…subdivision of labor…’ (p.9). The approach is what prompts writers like Robert J. to come up with more relative approach in the labor market, hence the only way for better management. The experience any manager or resource personnel have in the work of his employees is what initiates the injecting of aesthetics (Robert 1984: 250). A relationship that aims at providing the possible ways to making the work rate doubled. For example, in an organization where the management department is in continual research to provide alternative procedures to its workers is likely to witness the growth. The reason is that there exist general willingness for the advancements from the management, and workers know exactly that it is for ease of their job. On looking on Taylor’s philosophy, one can conclude that phobia characterized his workers. He wanted his laborers’ to act like machines through strict programs. There was no flexibility. It is indeed an archaic way of dealing with modern industrial practices. Moreover, unlike the dictatorial management portrayed by Taylor, Martin Kornberger gives out the adopted modern approach that mangers execute. He chronological attaches the influence of a manager’s choice in the output of any organization. Management should involve ‘…planning, decision-making, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling…’ (Clegg 2008:76) As a manager, one is involved in selecting objectives of a firm and brings out the intended goals. This should go hand in hand with the factual situation of the organization and the desired future of that organization. Planning should incorporate human power not from the management alone. In the modern times, industries reach a consensus with their workers on relevant decisions. Organizing remains the key part of any industry. How work goes on is dependent on the organization policies in place. The industry should assign roles, specify authority channel for this create co-ordination. At this level, organizational charts help the human power to know their position in any industry. Taylor’s approach in organization dependent on his will. This creates a compromise since laborers’ may not end up specializing properly. Buchanan stresses, today’s industries have engaged in professional hiring, training of its own staff. This has helped in specialization and bringing out the best of its human power. This is the trend is the modern industry. The management provides logical direction to stimulate a goal oriented approach to its work. In order to capitalize on maximum production of, controlling of any industry is required. Unlike Taylor’s stopwatch control mechanism, in today’s organizations, it involves mutual understanding. The management provides the environment for maximum production of good away from coaxing the workers. This understanding between the two parties is important for advancement of any industry. It is always important to create an internal and external rapport in an organization to create effective working environment. Furthermore, manager or leaders in today’s organizations observe the equity theory. It is a theory of motivation that lacked in the 19th Century. According to Andrzej A, the theory believes that ‘…payments are not enough to motivate an employee…’ (Andrzej 2010: 87). He raises the concern of the external, factors surrounding an employee that may affect his motivation towards his mandate. One should see his workers beyond the virtue that he pays them. For example, if you observe the situation in Taylor’s industry, the skilled laborers’ relinquished off their position felt discouraged. What Taylor did know was that he was creating an inferiority complex within the working level and this erodes the morale of work in employees. Theorists of modern times like Andrzej agree that if a worker compares himself and feel junior to his colleagues, then automatically that affect his output. That is when the theory of Equity comes in. the current era in management has seen a crop of certified managers who would want to put the needs of the employees first. In 19th century, the neglect towards employees cannot work in today’s industry. Equity theory aims at creating fairness among employees of the same institution. That is when individual motivation comes in and work output shoots up. If a worker inputs the qualities of loyalty, praise, skill, and commitment, to his work, then financial rewards, appraisals, and additional responsibility should serve as accolades. That is how the principal of equity theory works. If Taylor’s theory operated in merit, and reward experience and output then the theory would have prevailed. There are underlying benefits, which modern industries have realized. It assesses the level of contentment. There should a balance between employee’s motivation and productivity. This basis of these measures is to reach industry’s target and stay put its objectives. In addition, rhetoric and moral characters comes as another way that a new era managers have implemented. The mode of expression any manager will portray to employees has a direct impact to company’s production. One’s character as a leader should address maturity and sense. When you reflect on scientific management approach, Taylor’s character depicts little empathy to his employees. His desires had driven him away from the welfare of his workers. His abrupt shift of workers, demotion, and stringent supervision tells you how little he listened to them (Montana 2008: 213). Majority of the employees are learned today hence are versatile to the job market. The managers and leaders create an environment for working. The manager moves away from representing the owner’s interests into understanding the best relationship within the system to achieve the company’s goals. They cease from being boss’s agent into integral personnel and daily presiding over the organization. Morality cannot operate away from management. As a manager, one should understand that these two principal are inseparable. Taylor should have reasoned the impact of his decisions on his workers. In today’s corporate world, managers merge the two and that is how they get the best players in the industry. On the other hand, in today’s service market, scientific management is not practicable. During Fredrick’s era, workers exercised freedom of creativity but today fewer industries employ that. Industrial revolution, pushed human beings away from machines. Since there was plenty to work, and apply skills on your jurisdiction, scientific management could work as monitoring of work out put. This was the traditional methods of management on human power. Introduction of machines in today’s industries only leave as facilitators. The skills and experience is now in machines and this renders Fredrick’s theory very much unreliable today. One needs to understand the reasoning behind Taylor’s philosophy. To him, he aimed at ‘…dividing labor into small manageable bits…’ (P.6), for his jurisdiction and for his workers. All this was a push to demand perfection and quantity from his workers (Kumar 2001: 158). If workers could repetitively perform simple tasks, they would execute their best. He also wanted to cut off the continual training and create conducive time optimization for each activity. The industrial growth today is complex and multi-purpose. Majority have diverse branches in which one man operating is not possible at all. The work force today is enlightened unlike during Fredrick’s times. Their intelligence has sharply risen. As workers, they understand their right and subjecting them to diminutive activities will only create repulsion. The current human power is against self-depreciating engagements making Taylor’s not much practicable. People do not only need rewards for their well-performed duties. It is more than this. They require self-actualization and being part of the large industry. Only through contributing to the social well-being of the employees motivates them toward better performance to their tasks. The quick rise of technology has created an upsurge of workers toiling to stay aloft. As the world advances to computing era, every human duty requires computation. This again presents a challenge as to why scientific management is not applicable. In conclusion, it is though relevant to accept that part of scientific management skills are still within our organization. The roots of its foundations have greatly been the reason why the world innovation is still growing in 21st century (Clegg 2008:134). Bibliography Andrzej A. Huczynski and David A.Buchanan. 2010. Organizational Behaviour. sixth edition Clegg, S. et al 2008. Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Kumar, A and Sharma, C. 2001. Personnel Management Theory and Practice, 3 Vols. Set. Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. Montana P, and Charnov B., 2008. Management, 4th Ed. New York: Barron’s Educational Series. Roberts J. 1984. The Moral Character of Management Practice. Journal of Management Studies,21, (3), pp287-302. Read More