The History of Management: Directions for Improvement - Essay Example

 MANAGEMENT Management is the coordination and organization of business activities to attain defined goals. Management is a production factor together with machines, money and materials. The basic role of management encompasses both innovation and marketing. Modern management practice emanates from the 16th era study of failures and low-efficiency of various enterprises, carried out by Sir Thomas More, an English diplomat (1478-1535). Management comprise of interconnecting functions of formulating corporate policy as well as planning, organizing, directing and controlling a company’s resources to attain the goals of that corporate policy. Reading, discussing and exploring history can afford students with prospects of acquiring understanding of their field as well as its practices, acquire wisdom, develop, and employ judgment. The past is a powerful teacher and resource. It could afford a safe workshop for experimenting, ruminate, as well as mirror upon what could have been if another course of action was pursued or the time setting was different (Wren 1987). Students, via exploration, enrich their fathoming of what they already know, upsurge their academic comprehension of their subject field as well as learn to syndicate these to generate better and informed decisions through wiser judgments. History affords a channel for increasing as well as attaining obtaining added wisdom as well as experience since it affords students depictions of realism against principles (scenarios and decisions) that can be experienced and tested vicariously. History increases the ability to generate sound judgments. Judgment is the aptitude to judge, to formulate a decision, form an outlook objectively, wisely, and authoritatively and can encompass the creation of an outlook, estimate, conclusion and notion from the circumstances offered to the mind. History awards students with insights into how others handled the new, unclear, and imprecise like professionals. It aids teach individuals to assent indistinctness, to be at ease with it as well as reject formulations. A comprehension of the past enables people to understand a literature since people already have a context for incorporating knowledge, expand research skills as one has a historical perception for devising research questions and prime one to meet impending glitches (Wren 1987). A historical methodology widens the prospect to learn human nature, learn about people as groups or individuals, and learn their behaviors, learn their relations and learn about how they may be organized or governed. Therefore, History teaches tolerance for human shortcomings as well as inadequacies as it provides a fuller comprehension of humanity. The study of the history management may overcome the disintegration of the knowledge body, expedite research as well as enable learners to better comprehend the field where they operate. The history of management is a way of probing the flimsy scent of the past, of placing the knowledge body into a sound context as well as sharing it with others. Management practice is dated to civilization whereby people worked together to attain a common objective. The formal management studying is somewhat recent. The early managers learned from jobs and through examples afforded to them. Early writers on management history dwelt upon evolving developments within work methods, employee relations, wage plans and productivity. A good example of writer was L.P. Alford (1922, ‘32) in his articles. Another writer, George Filipetti (1946, ‘53) writings reflected upon the broadening trends within management following the Second World War through examining scientific management influence upon managerial management, touching upon Hawthorne research, as well as expanding history of management to encompass international developments. George Claude (1968, ‘72) picked up Fililetti tradition to add data on quantitative developments and ancient management filling up a long-lasting gap within the management history literature. Daniel Wren expanded (1972, ‘79, and ‘87) George and Filipetti’s tradition through encompassing political, economic and social aspects of culture, which influenced the thought of management development. Some approaches to history of management include Trent’s (1972) identification of various techniques of regarding historical subjects such as schools, stages, bibliographical, evolutional and institutional approaches. In the study of stages, historians carve out a period to be analyzed (Crainer2003) (Giannantonio& Hurley-Hanson 2011). For instance, the scientific management phase could be utilized as a sequential artifact for historical discussion and analysis. Harold Koontz popularized another methodology, ‘schools of thought’ in 1961. In cataloging the jungle of management concept, Koontz categorized management thought in terms of management process, human behavior, empirical, decision theory, social system as well as mathematical schools (Waddell 2011). Institutional approach dwells upon events as they are utilized in an organization, business firm, and groups of enterprises. Through probing for extensive periods and establishing commonalities amid organizations, sequence of events can be generalized to determine or even influence certain conducts, for instance, the effect of mass production as well as mass distribution upon management hierarchical growth. Biography approach is utilized to depict a person’s contributions to thought of management. A good example is the studying of Chester Barnard by Wolf’s (1974). The history of concepts or ideas could be joined with biography or could stand-alone (Waddell 2011). The writing of thesis or developing a hypothetical base for a project are instances where previous works upon a given concept or idea is ferreted out. Published historical analyses of certain notions afford a prospect to summarize, contrast and indicate forthcoming research needs. The evolutionary methodology defines the unfolding thinking of management along a scale of time. The approach seeks connections amid eras or stages, and utilizes biography, institutions and ideas to state a story. It affords a background for more study as well as a framework that traces evolving ideas (Crainer2003) (Giannantonio& Hurley-Hanson 2011). The rationale for studying the history of management is that it creates a speculative baseline for change recognition. The study will assist in edging questions for practice and research. The study can afford a background for integrating and building knowledge. For management to be an arena of studying, it needs a history that needs management thinkers. Management history should be embraced to function against being delimited by what others have termed as historical concords, therefore, enable students to reason differently concerning management (Smith 2007). Students must learn that history is questionable as well as malleable and can aid them to realize that unquestioned historical conventions and foundations should not bind the future needs of their subject field. The management history is a continuing and vigorous process that can shape and change. Understanding of history can enable academics and students to participate in more propagative discussions concerning novel organizational forms in a better comprehension of extensive continuity as well variance over time (Crainer2003) (Giannantonio& Hurley-Hanson 2011). The one lesson to be acquired from studying the history of the thought of management is that concepts are a product of their individual place and time. The creation and elaboration of knowledge of management and management practice are accordingly a human effort where queries and solutions are conceived in a unique as well time-bound setting. As times shift, management concepts must change too to retain their significance (Smith 2007). Through evaluating this shift, management academics (aspiring as well as seasoned alike) unacquainted with the history of management all fall prey to the historian’s pitiful misconception, where ideas and events are removed from their historic context as well as arbitrated with direct respect to the present with no awareness of their values, metaphysical pathos, and feelings, which shaped their development. Another lesson that students will acquire from the study of the history of management of thinking is that of being an educated consumer of ‘received knowledge’. Students will also learn how to seek out original sources (Crainer 2003). Those who study history of management are aware of the myths and inaccuracies that emerge when modern academics fail to employ primary sources within their research analyses for past knowledge. Such sources are inaccurate in the description of classic studies, and aid to prolong historic illiteracy as falsifications are passed down from one generation to another, and eventually become acknowledged as fact (Smith 2007). Historic illiteracy can explain the fourth lesson of historic scholarship that widely acknowledged facts are habitually wrong. Factual errors ensue for various reasons. Possibly the most worrying is the modern writers’ failure to integrate novel discoveries into manuals. Learners, through the study of history of management, are exposed to superior minds. No single university can incorporate at one single moment four scholars of management of Max Weber, Marry P. Follet, Chester I. Bernard and Henri Fayol’s quality. In looking into scientific management, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s introduction into the ‘Principles of Scientific Management’ illustrate that the principles of scientific management are pertinent to all forms of human undertakings, from the simplest personal deeds to the operations of big organizations. According to Taylor, scientific management is all incorporating. Once incorporated, it enclosed the whole enterprise. Through measuring every task, an enterprise could launch a working process, a working system (Crainer2003) (Giannantonio& Hurley-Hanson 2011). The work could be planned since the enterprise knew the time it took to complete a certain task and the number of persons required to complete the task. Management of inventory became possible, thereby; finances could be organized and it introduced the purchasing systems. The lucidity of practices was the basis of a more current managerial approach: re-engineering. The rudimentary notion of re-engineering is that enterprises needed to recognize their core processes, learn them and render them as effective as much as possible. This resulted in eradication of peripheral processes and people. In management, there is a need to define and establish work processes as Taylor suggested. More history about management thinking needs to be taught in schools in separate courses. Lecturers teaching the historic progress of management thought must demonstrate proficiency in this discipline (Cummings& Bridgman 2011). This will aid in leveling out terminology glitches, idyllically realign the historic record, which is transmitted, afford an intellectual model, aid as an incorporating framework for management knowledge, as well as equip students with research tools. In research, the issues concerning interpretation and documentation need to be tackled. This can be achieved through building of source materials, for instance, archival as well as history of theory of management collections. The modern technologies should be utilized to access information that is not available in libraries. Language capabilities should also be acquired to expand management research capabilities (Giannantonio& Hurley-Hanson 2011). Conclusively, the comprehension of the historic development of management is the whole, which binds the different specialties, which compose the current management. The continuing management progress as a science and an art can be viewed through appreciating the common origins and roots of management’s modes of thinking. History teaches numerous relevant lessons. Professional maturity prevails to those persons who have the historical knowledge of their disciplines (Bedeian 2004). Through comprehending the past, students can read and apprehend literature more shrewdly, since they will have a basis for assimilating knowledge, expand research capabilities through the use of a historic perspective of devising research queries. The understanding of the history of management of thinking can aid students to prime themselves to encounter future problems (Cummings& Bridgman 2011). For business to be completely proficient, the past ought to be utilized to inform as well as guide undertakings within the present. To build fruitful business enterprises, the past mistakes ought not to be reiterated because of unfamiliarity of the past. The role of business schools is to teach students the management practice as an occupation as well as develop novel knowledge, which can be relevant to enhancing business operations. Therefore, lack of history in management practices taught in schools, does not offer liberation from history; rather it denotes a state of blind flop into unthinking fate (Crainer2003). Whatever outlook embraced towards the past, the history will continue to wield influence upon human activities. The future can never be shaped from a plane rasa through rational plan from the sketching-board stage. Any endeavor to comprehend as well as change social establishments has to begin from the realization that there exist irrational and rational procedures, traditions and claims, be it of national, political, ideological or religious origin (Cummings& Bridgman 2011). References Bedeian, AG 2004, ‘The Gift of Professional Maturity’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp 92-98. Cummings, S & Bridgman, T 2011, ‘The Relevant Past: Why the History of Management Should Be Critical for Our Future’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp 77-93. Crainer, C 2003, ‘One hundred years of management’, Business Strategy Review, vol. 14, issue 2, pp 41-49. Giannantonio, CM & Hurley-Hanson, AE 2011, ‘Frederick Winslow Taylor: Reflections on the Relevance of The Principles of Scientific Management 100 years later’, Journal of Business and Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp 7-10. Smith, GE 2007, ‘Management History and Historical Context: Potential Benefits of Its Including in the Management Curriculum’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 6, no. 4, pp 522-533. Waddell, D, Jones, GR, George, JM 2011, Contemporary Management, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Limited, Sydney. Wren, DA 1987, ‘Management History: Issues and Ideas for Teaching and Research’, Journal of Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp 339-350. Read More