Management Theory and Practice - Report Example

Management Theory and Practice Inserts His/her Inserts Grade Inserts (02, November, Introduction The study of management has evolved greatly in the 20th century. Different school of thoughts emerges at different times and each has its own importance. The process of industrialization in the early 20th century gave birth to the classical perspective of management which involved the scientific management perspective. Scientific perspective of management relied on scientific techniques in order to increase the efficiency of the organization. Later on humanistic perspective of management became famous that emphasized more on human beings and their feelings. There are many reasons why humanistic perspective was required. Scientific management perspective involved only scientific aspects and ignored other important considerations. In this paper we will discuss why there was a need for humanistic perspective. We will also shed light on the weaknesses of scientific management perspective. Scientific Management Perspective Scientific management perspective, a sub school of classical management, was given by Frederick Taylor and it mainly involves improving performance of workers by incorporating scientific techniques. This perspective was based on the idea that there is one best possible way to performing a task and all workers should be told to adopt that best possible way in order to maximize their production (Griffin, R. 2006). Human Relations Movement Human relation movement came after scientific management perspective. Human relation movement is based on human beings. It involves use of motivation and incentive to improve the productivity of the workers in the organization. As the name suggest the focus is on the human beings and it is thought that feelings of the workers should be taken care of and only then their productivity increase. Why there was a need for Human Relation Movement? It is important to understand one thing that in management there is no one way solution to a problem. In different situations different techniques may work so one cannot argue that one approach is the best approach. Moreover as time passes and industry evolves new and better suited management perspectives and school of thought come to surface. Every management perspective and theory can have strengths and weaknesses but it cannot be termed totally right or wrong. Being said all this we will have to consider the weaknesses in the scientific management perspective in order to understand why there was a need for the human relations movement. The work of Taylor mainly involved scientific tools in order to find the shortest and quickest way to perform a task. After observing different methods of performing a task one method was found to be productive and it was made the standard. All workers performing that task were forced to follow the same standard. One important thing that scientific management missed was that human beings are not efficient machines. Actually scientific management perspective came when the mechanical age started. So human beings were also treated as machines in those days and the same thinking is behind the scientific management. Human beings cannot be made to function in a standard procedure because they have emotions and feelings, and they want some innovation and creativity in life. Scientific management ignored all this and focused only on increasing productivity through scientific techniques. When scientific management perspective was given science was also becoming popular and its role was increasing in the lives of common people. This is another reason why the emphasis of this management perspective was on science and not on human beings. Science as a subject did not endorsed human emotions but logic and reason and evidence so therefore scientific management also focused on efficiency and productivity. Scientific management talked a little bit about workers as well. For example they were asked to take breaks in order to increase their productivity and gaps were taken after a certain time (Taylor, 1911). But this was also not catering to the internal needs of the workers. This was done only to increase the productivity of the workers. Again the mechanical mentality of the people at that time is shown in this. A serious issue of lack of innovation is also closely related to the scientific management perspective. Because one standard was set and everyone had to follow that same standard there was no room for innovation in the jobs of the workers. They were not inspired to come up with neither new ideas nor do they were allowed because a standard procedure existed for all the work. This is one main reason of the failure of scientific management. Another problem was that scientific management perspective failed to recognize the differences in people. All people were thought off as a similar and it was assumed that one generalize way of performing a job can be followed by all the workers (Hartness, J. 1912). This was also not right as individuals were different and this also proved a major obstacle in the success of scientific management perspective. Because of all these above mentioned factors a new management school of thought was needed that was different from the classical management approach. This change came in the form of human relations movement. This management view was very different from the classical school of thought and included a humanistic approach towards management. Human relation movement was mainly interested in studying the behaviour of the people and satisfying their internal needs and in turn increasing their productivity. This approach called for employee satisfaction and reward in order to improve labour productivity. Workers were also considered cooperative entities and not machines (Rosenfeld & Wilson, 2000). Basically the whole view regarding the labour force changed. Previously workers were thought of as inherently against work and therefore coercion was required to illicit work from these workers. Human relation movement took an entirely different opinion of workers and believed that like to work and of given proper rewards their performance can be enhanced greatly. These are the main points of human relations movement and it was needed in order to fill a gap which scientific management failed to fill. Human beings are important tools and scientific management ignored their individuality and emotions and therefore human relations movement cam about which took care of human feelings and worker needs. Influence of Classical and Scientific Management in Industry Today As discussed earlier no theory in management is either right or wrong. It only has strengths and weaknesses. Although classical school of thought in management had many weaknesses it has some strength as well. In a few small industries and small businesses, classical management has to be followed in order to make workers perform in an efficient manner. The use of classical school of management can be seen in the construction business where employees are paid on a daily basis. These employees cannot be internally motivated to work and they can also not come up with innovative ideas. Therefore a fixed schedule of work and proper surveillance is required to make them work. But the influence of classical school of management and scientific management has been lowering in most industries today. This is because the lack of innovation classical management approach offers. In today’s diverse culture innovation is extremely important to survive and if employees are only controlled like programmed machines then little should be expected from them. Leadership also plays an important role in organizational success and scientific management does not offer any important insight on leadership. Also vertical structures are being replaced by horizontal and flatter structure and this is another reason why classical approach cannot work. Employee empowerment is the new theme of today’s work place and this can only be achieved if employees are allowed to use their individual capabilities. Less control and more empowerment is being targeted today. Conclusion In management there is no one best solution. There are many solutions and each solution has its own pros and cons. Scientific management did not work because ignored the human side of workers. On the other hand it is important to use standardize methods in some industry in order to increase productivity of the workers. Human relation movement became famous because it emphasized on human beings and considered them as cooperative units. Both of these approaches are used today, but the influence of scientific management is decreasing. Bibliography Griffin, R., 2006. Management. Texas: Cengage Learning. Hartness, J., 1912. The Human Factor in Works Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenfeld, R. & Wilson, D., 1990. Managing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, F., 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. London: Harper & Brothers. Read More