Development of Management Theories - Coursework Example

Development of Management Theories Introduction Recently, it is unquestionable that managementhas become the most vital factor, which effect the company whether will be successful or not. Efficient management not only can help company deal with inner affair of company more effective, but also can help company gain more profit in the competition. Now more and more companies have thus far taught management to gain benefits in what will become the strategy of business in future Understanding management theories is vital to managers who are concerned with practical issues such as efficiency and productivity. They provide managers with a theoretical perspective at the nature and responsibilities of management within a changing environment. Current management theories and practice do not just suddenly appear. They are the outcome of an evolutionary process. It could be said their origins can be traced as far back as biblical times through to the Greek and Roman civilizations and to the management practices used by Frederick he Great of Prussia in the 15th century. This was known as the pre-industrial period of management thought. But it would be more accurate to say that contemporary management theories have their foundations in the late 18th, 19th and mid-20th centuries. Known as the modernist period, it is the time of the industrial revolution, a period of significant economic, social and technological change. These changes challenged the existing pre-industrial order of how business was conducted. (Cole, 102-109) Previously, businesses were small craft or cottage industries producing products by skilled and semi-skilled artisans who had inherited their skills from previous generations. Consequently, labor productivity was generally low and quality of goods produced varied significantly. The industrial revolution challenged and changed this way of producing goods forever. The emergence and use of mass production techniques and a revolution in transport changed how goods could be produced, sourced and marketed within a country. These changes were also complemented by the growth of large-scale businesses like the Dutch East India Trading Company. These changes in turn provided business owners with the problem of how to manage such changes knowing that technology could increase the productive efficiency of their business. In other words, there needed to be a change in the organizational structure, processes and practices to take advantage of such technological and economic changes. The writings of the American F. W Taylor, Frenchman Henry Fayol, and German Max Weber began to reflect these changes. Others included Henry Gannt, Frank and Lilian Gilbreth, Elton Mayo, Douglas McGregor and Chester Barnard. (Laurie, 240-253) From the mid to late 20th century, the so-called post modernist management period emerged. These theories were set against a background of rapid Social, economic and technological change. For example, the development and application of microelectronic technology revolutionized how goods and services could be sourced, produced and marketed. From an economic point of view, the process of globalization presented businesses with extensive management problems that required a response. Because these changes have been so strong and their effects so far reaching, it brought into question whether the existing traditional management thoughts, structures and practices were relevant in the light of such external change. (David, 77-82) The reality was that change was needed and it did take place. The writings of David Boje, and Peter Drucke : and others highlight the response to this situation. Modern and post-modern management theories before an analysis of management theories can be undertaken it is important to define the meaning of a management theory: A management theory is concerned with a set of behaviors and thoughts of how a business could achieve its goals and objectives. (Laurie, 240-253) In saying this, every management theory raises issues either directly or indirectly concerning: Management style — the way management communicates with their employees Organizational structure describes the organizations framework. It includes the number of tasks to be performed, how tasks are to be allocated within the business, areas of responsibility and authority and who reports to whom. In particular it refers to: The level of complexity of the business. In other words, the degree of specialization present within the organization. Where there is greater specialization there is a wider span of control. This leads to the creation of layers of management and a hierarchy of authority. Therefore the wider the span of control, the greater is the level of management, and the taller the hierarchy of the organization. This gives rise to a chain of command. It highlights the flow of authority and power from of the top of the organization to its bottom. The level of formalization. In particular, it refers to the rules and regulations used by the organization to direct the behavior of its employees, for example, the way employees communicate with each other. This relates to issues of dress, methods of communication within the organization, gender issues, office design and clerical procedures. The extent of the rules and regulations present will depend on the size of the business, the number of employees and the managements ability to insist and enforce the required behavior. The degree of centralization in decision-making present within an organization. If decision-making is centralized it means all decisions are made by senior management only. Whereas if decision-making is decentralized it means senior and operational supervisors and middle managers have the authority to make decisions. Levels of management, the number of levels of responsibility and degree of specialization present. It reflects differences in the level of power and responsibility present. The theories and thoughts of the modernist period of management are set against a background of great economic, political and technological change. For example, there was great political upheaval caused by the First and Second World Wars and the Great Depression of 1929 where national governments were trying to isolate themselves from any fluctuations and effects of international trade. (Michael, 147-155) Interestingly enough, managers of business then took a similar attitude by trying to isolate their business from outside forces. They treated their business as a closed system of operation. This meant external forces operating outside the business such as competitive forces or government changes, did not influence the owners decision making with regard to the business. There were three major contributors to the so-called scientific and classical school of management. These are: F.W. Taylor ( 1856-1915) Henry Fayol (1841-192) Max Weber (1864-1925) Taylors thoughts, rather than an actual theory, were centered on applying scientific methods to discover the most efficient ways for manual labor to operate in the workplace. Taylor reasoned that by having a systematic and scientific approach towards work and standardizing jobs by finding out the one best way to perform tasks would mean two things. Firstly, the productivity of labor would increase and secondly the business would be more efficient in terms of its costs of production and hence, its profitability would increase. Taylors thoughts were influenced by the inefficiency of workers at the Midvale Steel works in Pennsylvania, USA where he was an engineer. Taylors dismay was the outcome of witnessing steelworkers performing the same work but using different techniques to produce the same type of products. (Laurie, 240-253) After years of conducting experiments with workers, he proposed four major principles of scientific management which were aimed at increasing the businesss productivity: the replacement of rule of thumb methods for determining each element of a workers job with precise scientific determination scientific selection of workers cooperation of workers and management more equal division of responsibility between workers and supervisors. This new system meant owners and managers prescribed the tasks the employees were to perform and how they should approach each of these tasks. This was a distinct change. In pre industrial times, skilled tradesman or craftsmen made the decisions about the number of tasks to be undertaken and who would perform them; now it fell to a new class of decision-makers, the managers. A Frenchman, Henry Fayols, contribution to this school of thought centered on establishing a set of 14 universal principles of management that he said could be taught in universities and schools. Such principles can be paraphrased as planning, organizing and leading, plus the division of labor, unity of command, order, initiative, equity and finally what he termed esprit de corps. Based on these principles, Fayol saw the practice of management as a circular and continuous process that involved four interdependent functions, i.e. planning, organizing, leading and controlling. (Hannagan, 196-205) Max Webers contribution was to propose an ideal type of organizational structure. This structure was known as a bureaucracy characterized by: • division of labor — specialization of activities • detailed rules and regulations • impersonal relations. It should be noted that Webers bureaucratic model became the design prototype for most of todays public and private organizations. In summary, scientific and classical theorists treated organizations as having machine like qualities. Every activity and component of the organization has a specific role that has been scientifically selected to ensure maximum efficiency in terms of labor productivity. The central characteristics of such theories are highlighted by: • management is a process rather than an end in itself • planning, organizing, controlling functions approached scientifically • emphasis on increasing the workers productivity • workers are scientifically selected through time and motion studies • appraisal of workers • rules and regulations outlining who reports to whom • division of labor based on specialization • chain of command with delegation of power from top to bottom of the hierarchical pyramid. (David, 77-82) The principles of the scientific and classical management approach are very much alive in the 21st century and should not be discounted because of its age. For organizations like motor vehicle producers such as Ford Australia or fast food outlets such as McDonalds, this approach to management is appropriate. These principles of producing a standardized product such as a car or a hamburger lead to a more efficient use of resources that is cost effective and achieves high levels of productivity. Human relations theories — Behavioral Coexisting with the scientific and classical management thoughts of the early 20th century was another school of management thought. It was known as the Human Relations or Behaviorialist School and had a different approach to the writings of the scientific and classical school. The background to these theories came from the disciplines of psychology and anthropology. While Taylor and Fayol were concerned with the operational side or nuts and bolts of an organization, the behavioralists centered on the social and work needs of the employee within the workplace. Elton Mayo (1880-1948), Chester Barnard (1886-1961) and Douglas McGregor (1887-1957) argued through their research findings that business owners could achieve their productivity goals if they created and designed their organizations and work environments that were more humane for their workers and reflected their needs. (Michael, 147-155) In other words, management should concentrate on creating a work environment that would recognize the individual and work needs of their employees and not treat them inhumanely or as just a cog in the organization. The central characteristics of such theories are: • Emphasis on increasing workers productivity by considering the workers needs. Work needs to be interesting and rewarding. Training should be provided that allows multi-skilling, career paths and recognition of contribution to business by employees. • Team based. • Management concerned with motivation, communication and leadership. • Workers not rigidly supervised but made to be accountable and responsible for their actions. • The chain of command is shorter. Post-modem theories — systems, contingency and political — an integrative approach to management From the mid- to the late-20th century what has been termed postmodern management theories emerged. The prefix post means after — after hierarchy, after bureaucracy, after the industrial era. This period of management thought was highlighted by the writings of David Boje, Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, Herbert Simon, Peter Drucker, and Charles Handy to name a few. These thoughts recognized that existing organizational structures and management practices could not effectively deal with the new so-called environmental challenges such as emergence of new technologies, globalization, hyper competition, corporate responsibility, customization of products and shorter product life cycles. (Hannagan, 196-205) As a consequence, management theory headed toward an integrative approach that saw the organization as an open system. It was believed that organizations needed to adapt to the changing environment if they were to survive. These theories combined: • Fayols thoughts on management being a process. • Viewing the organization as a system of interrelated and interdependent parts. • Creating an organizational structure, with management practices and procedures that was a reaction or contingent on internal and external pressures. This is known as the situational approach. • Recognition of the role of power and politics in organizations. Conclusion To sum up, management is the process of accomplishing the company objective, and effectively deal with planning, organizing, leading and controlling resources of organization in specifically situation. Management impinges on all aspects of our life. It is know that no matter in any field, we all need effective management to accomplish goal. Along with social and economic development, management theory also will be change. Modern managers use many of the practices, principles, and techniques developed from earlier concepts and experiences. The Industrial Revolution brought about the emergence of large-scale business and its need for professional managers. It is clear that modern organizations are strongly influenced by the theories of Taylor, Mayo, Weber and Fayol. Their precepts have become such a strong part of modern management that it is difficult to believe that these concepts were original and new at some point in history. The modern idea that these concepts are "common sense" is strong tribute to these founders. No one theory provides all the answers, a sensible approach for a practicing manager would be to take the part of the theory that is relevant to the situation. The scientific approach will be useful for a large organization such as local government as many employees express a need for having clear guidelines to work to. The human relations approach shows that is useful to employees when mangers show an interest in them and they are motivated to work hard for there manager. The link between motivation theory and that of a practicing manager is crucial for their management success. If practicing manager’s research management theory it will benefit in their managerial role, they may no longer jump to conclusions but to sit and think about the best way to approach issues. I would agree that it is important for a practicing manager to have an education in management theory as it will encourage managers to identify were the problem may be within the business and how to overcome them to improve performance. New management theory or new management mode will be more consummate. At the same time, managers will face many challenging which how to deal with the problems of management more effectively and correctly now. As a business management student, I think the most important thing is learn how to develop a management thinking, how to make a sensible decision in different situation and how to use management skills to solve the problems. That is what I am lacking. To be an excellent management talent, I still need more time to learn more management knowledge and skill from books and practices. In other words, without management, our activities will be seemed as ineffective. Works Cited Cole, G.A. Management Theory and Practice, Thomson Learning; 6Rev edition, 2003: 102-109 Laurie J. Mullins, Management and Organizational Behavior, FT Prentice Hall; 7Rev edition, 2004: 240-253 David Buchanan, Andrzej Huczynski, Organizational Behavior: An Introductory Text FT Prentice Hall; 5Rev Ed edition 2003: 77-82 Michael Armstrong, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Ltd; 10Rev Ed edition, 2006: 147-155 Hannagan, T.J. Management: Concepts and Practices, FT Prentice Hall, 2004: 196-205 Read More