Rational Perspectives on Management - Coursework Example

RATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MANAGEMENT By Location Rational Perspectives on Management Introduction Rational system perspectives are concepts that emerged in the 20th century that considered organizations as instruments with a purposed design targeted to meet specific goals. The focus of rational perspectives was to ensure that organizations could identify effective ways of utilizing resources within an organization in an effort to achieve certain goals. The rational perspectives emerged from the views of different scholars who introduced varying theories that explained how organizations could define and achieve goals. Notably, goals specificity and formalization are the two defining features of rational perspectives. Some of the most influential rational schools include Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, Fayol’s administrative theory, and Weber’s bureaucratic theory. These authors introduced critical aspects and principles that defined rational perspectives. This paper will highlight all the principles under each rational school and offer a criticism of the theories in the contemporary management world. Part 1: Rational Perspective As highlighted above, rational system perspectives were highly prevalent in the 20th century. In accordance with the rational perspectives, organizations needed tailoring so that they could become instruments with the potential of achieving specific goals. Goal specificity had a priority in rational system perspectives. Many theorists opined that the availability of specific goals would promote rational behaviour in an organization and provide the relevant guidelines on the most appropriate structural design of task completion and resource allocation. Therefore, organizations needed to define their goals in a specific manner so that the rationality of the organization can increase. Moreover, rational systems perspectives sought to introduce the aspect of standardizations in many organizations. Before the emergence of theories defining the rational perspectives, no standards existed within workplaces (Merz 2011, p. 61). Therefore, it was difficult to assess the level of performance. The introduction of formalization sought to introduce the expected standards and highlight different forms of regulation. These two aspects received the most attention as the defining characteristics of rational system perspectives. Several theorists such as Taylor, Fayol, and Weber focused on describing theories under rational perspectives. These authors developed schools of thought based on managerial principles that they developed in their theories. Such principles were highly influential in the 20th century and the relevance of some of those principles still exists in the modern day (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). Scientific Management, by Frederick Taylor Frederick Taylor authored an influential book in 1911 titled the principles of scientific management. This book introduced new concepts of management, which remained highly influential throughout the 20th century. His scientific management concepts followed the rational system perspectives. Taylor had been an engineer, a career position that enables him to carry out different types of research, and experiments that determined the performance of employees. The purpose of developing the scientific management theory was to ensure increased productivity levels. Taylor exhibited special concern for the level of efficiency exhibited by employees and sought to ensure that the available resources and machineries resulted to optimum production. He opined that the main objective of management should present maximum benefits to both the employer and the employee (Merz 2011, p. 41). More specifically, Taylor highlighted that an employer needed to gain maximum prosperity from the activities of his employees. This prosperity did not only refer to increased profit margins, but also refer to the success of the business in all senses. On the other hand, prosperity for the employees translated to not only higher wages, but also to personal development. Taylor noted that in the previous years, organizations lacked any form of standardizations. Many managers did not have any direct connection to their employees. In many workplaces, employees worked on their own without any form of support from managers. Moreover, the lack of standardization only meant that there were minimal expectations from each employee. Therefore, employees only exerted themselves in an effort to remain employed. There was practically nothing else to motivate such employees. In the view of Taylor, proper compensation and incentives would contribute to a higher productivity rate from employees. The theory developed by Frederick Taylor reveals the relationship between the adoption of a rational perspective as well as the introduction of labour control methods. Taylor opined that it was possible to design a production system that would register a high productivity rate (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 490). This production system would comprise of both workers and machines. Taylor highlighted four critical principles of management that underlined his scientific management theory. One of these principles was the introduction of scientific methodologies in job design. Adopting a scientific methodology of deigning jobs would serve as an effective replacement to the commonly used rule-of-thumb system used in the previous era. More specifically, Taylor highlighted that the scientific method of designing jobs would include data collection and analysis in an effort to identify the most effective way towards task completion. He opined that employees needed to understand the one single way to perform a given task. The second principle discussed by Taylor focused on ensuring that the skills and qualifications of the employees matched the requirements of the job at hand (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). Therefore, he placed emphasis on scientific selection as well as progressive training programs in an effort to empower employees. This ensured that employees had the required skills to perform tasks related to the job they held. Taylor highlighted that an organization should focus on understanding both the strengths and the weaknesses exhibited by each single employee. Evidently, different employees exhibited a diverse range of skills (Wren 2011, p. 11). Therefore, there was a need for proper matching of an individual’s skill and competencies to the most related tasks. Previously, many managers assigned jobs to employees without proper consideration of their skills and abilities. Many organizations did not have training programs that would empower employees to perform the tasks delegated to them. Taylor highlighted that this served to reduce productivity immensely. This explains why he placed emphasis on the need for proper matching of an employee skill with the job requirements. The third principle of management defined by Taylor highlighted that there was a need for integration of scientifically selected employees as well as the scientifically identified methods of task completion (Wren 2011, p. 14). This placed a heavy responsibility on the management to monitor the performance of the employees by providing the relevant instructions and supervision. Employees needed to understand the reasons for adopting the scientific approach. The fourth principle focused on the division of labour. This meant that both the management and the employees should exhibit a form of interdependence. This allowed managers to participate in planning and training while leaving employees to handle the tasks. In more precise terms, Taylor highlighted that if an employee with the relevant skills was given a certain tasks and presented with the relevant tools, equipment, and resources with proper instruction on how to handle the task, and rewarding wages at the end of the day, then that employee would register a high level of productivity (Wren 2011, p. 17). Fayol’s Administrative Theory Henry Fayol is an additional theorist who contributed to the rational system perspectives. Fayol had the conviction that organizational functions involved technical, financial, commercial, security, accounting, and finally management activities. He also highlighted that the management department had five unique roles, which included coordination, planning, organizing, command, and control. Although other theorists would expand these functions in the years that followed, Fayol relied on such understanding to develop his administrative theory. He highlighted fourteen critical principles of management that would help managers succeed in their responsibilities. Notably, Fayol’s contribution has received recognition over the years as well as thorough criticism. However, it remains evident that Fayol’s contribution was of critical importance to the development of modern approaches of management. Fayol described the fourteen principles in 1916, which defined the most comprehensive management theory of the 20th century. Fayol’s first principle of management was the division of labour. He opined that division of labour would trigger job specialization. He had the conviction that job specialization would result to positive outcomes in terms of efficiency. The basis of this was the fact that specialization presented an employee with advanced skills and knowledge on how to perform a given task. Therefore, productivity would definitely go higher. Job specialization is more effective in work places defined by repetitive tasks. The second principle was authority and responsibility. Evidently, managers had the authority to order employees and it translated into obedience from the employees (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). There were different forms of authority exercised by managers. Whereas some derived their authority from outstanding expertise and technical knowledge, other managers relied on moral worth. Evidently, Fayol highlighted that managers also had to bear in mind that authority translated to responsibility. Therefore, all managers had to take up responsibility and remain highly accountable. Fayol’s third principle was concerned with discipline. He highlighted that there was a salient need for organizations to have disciplinary measures. However, these measures varied from one organization to the other. Discipline would eventually result from effective working relationships between managers and the employees. More specifically, the level of respect existing between employees and managers was a critical determinant of the discipline levels within the organization. The fourth principle was the unity of command. Fayol highlighted that employees only needed to receive orders from a single supervisor. When this was the case, there was no confusion of instruction or orders. However, unity of command was only possible if the subordinate managers had the relevant capacity of interpreting instructions from the supervisor and communicating them to all the employees. The fifth principle was the line of authority. Fayol mentioned that there was a salient need for a clearly defined line of authority from the topmost positions to the lower levels. This was of critical importance in decision-making. The sixth principle described by Fayol was the unity of direction. He opined that an organization must have an identified objective that should be similar across different teams. Moreover, unity of direction meant that all the employees were working towards a similar objective using the same plan of strategy. This facilitated the effective coordination within an organization (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). The seventh principle was the subordination of individual interest to the general interest of the organization. Fayol made it evident that individual interests should not surpass the organizational interests. Therefore, all the employees and supervisors had to consider the organizational goals as their priority. The eighth principle was concerned with remuneration and compensation. Fayol made it clear that the employer should put into consideration factors such as the cost of living, business conditions, profit margins of the organization, as well as the workers qualification while determining the remuneration packages (Wren 2011, p. 19). The ninth principle described by Fayol was centralization, which would ease decision making in an organization. His tenth principle concerned order, which would ensure that the design of jobs was orderly with the relevant materials and resources and the right people on board. Equity was the additional principle of management that Fayol highlighted, and would ensure that the managers considered all the employees. Other principles included the stability of tenure of personnel, which supports the employee retention and the principle of initiative, which places emphasis on the need for managers to motivate employees (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). The final principle was the sprit de corps, which places emphasis on the need for team spirit within an organization. Weber’s Bureaucracy Principles Max Weber was a Germany sociologist who described the major principles of bureaucracy that were evident in public organizations. However, the application of these principles also extended to the private sector. He highlighted that the division of labour was one of the principles, which promoted specialization and clear definition of the task. His second principle was authority, hierarchy, which defined the structure of authority highlighting the higher levels of authority and the lower ones. The higher levels of authority exerted control on the lower ones. Weber also gave attention to formal selection, which involved the hiring of employees in accordance with their technical qualifications. He also described an additional principle that dealt with the formal rules and regulations within an organization, which ensured a measure of uniformity. His other principles were impersonality and career orientation. Impersonality promotes equality within an organization, whereas career orientation makes the employees understand the possible career progression form one position to the other (Merz 2011, p. 89). Part 2: The Prevalence of the Rational Theories in Contemporary Management Base Taylor’s principles of management were highly influential in the 20th century as highlighted above. However, over the years, the principles faced increased criticism, which served to reduce their application in many organizations. Although there are organizations with similar management models with the scientific management theory, none of them applies the exact principles as described by Taylor. A clear example of standardization is evident in the operation of McDonalds. In the fast food industry, McDonalds does not have any option but to establish certain standards in the preparation of its menu items. However, McDonalds does not only rely on the standardization principle, but integrates other management models in an effort to promote the social wellbeing of employees (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). Although the four principles described by Taylor still exert a form of influence in many organizations, managers have learned to integrate several management models in an effort to determine the most efficient for the organization. Therefore, it is impossible to observe the scientific management theory in the exact form described by Taylor. On the other hand, Fayol’s fourteen principles of management were highly influential in the 20th century. In the contemporary world, some of these principles apply in certain industries. However, they are less evident in others. For example, some industries require a higher level of creativity and an interchange of ideas between employees. In such industries, division of labour does not appear anymore. In many modern organizations, managers have focused on decentralization, which is contrary to the centralization emphasized by Fayol. Some of the general principles of management, such as stability of tenure, initiative, subordination of individual interests to the general interests, unity of direction and discipline, form critical aspects of modern management. Although other theories have merged to support these general principles of management, managers still integrate Fayol’s ideas in the contemporary world in an effort to attain efficiency. It is unfortunate that bureaucracy presents adverse effects in an organization, but is still applied in some organizations. Weber’s principles of bureaucracy are still visible in certain parts of the world (Merz 2011, p. 123). Part 3: Relevance of Rational Perspectives in Contemporary Management Evidently, rational perspectives have limited relevance in the contemporary management. This is because the 21st century has altered the responsibility of a manager completely. The business world has become extensively dynamic and management perspectives have changed over the years. In the case of Taylor’s scientific management, it presents limited relevance min the modem organizations. This is because the purpose of the scientific management theory is to promote high levels of division of labour with the sole purpose of maximizing production. In such a setting, employees lack any form of democracy. Moreover, the levels of satisfaction in such a system are minimal. The scientific management theory seems to accord more significance to the machinery than to human capital. In the 21st century, contemporary managers have realized the real value of human capital. Therefore, they seek to increase employee satisfaction, creativity, as well as democracy (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). Moreover, with the emergence of advanced technology and online businesses, the rules of the trade have changed immensely. Therefore, the scientific management theory is slowly losing relevance in the contemporary world. Modern managers are looking beyond the profits. These managers are required to give attention to corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and globalization interests. Such aspects do not appear in the scientific management theory. Moreover, contemporary managers face a compulsion to act ethically (Wren 2011, p. 20). With the increasing ethical expectations, the scientific management theory proves inadequate to address the needs of the 21st century employees. Although some aspects of the scientific management theory, such as the differentiation of management functions and work functions are still evident, the priorities of modern organizations have changed immensely. Competition in the business front depends on a new set of factors not included in the scientific management theory. Therefore, managers have moved on to adopt more effective management theories that can address the 21st century issues (Merz 2011, p. 73). Although Fayol’s general principles of management are influential in the contemporary world, they do not define who wins in the highly competitive business front. This is because these general principles have become common knowledge to many managers. The 21st century business front requires managers to adopt new strategies if they desire to propel their organizations to success. With the presence of advanced technology, the focus of contemporary managers is to highlight how technology can transform organizations to fit the modern models. More businesses are shifting into the virtual space with the new realms of e-business. The virtual space operates under new rules and regulations. Moreover, modern managers need to integrate their business strategies with the corporate social responsibility strategy (Pryor & Taneja 2010, p. 489). Fayol did not highlight any principles of management that can satisfy the needs of the contemporary managers. Moreover, modern businesses need to promote sustainability, a factor that affects their utilization of resources. With the increasing rates of globalization, managers have new lists of priorities. This means that Fayol’s general principles of management cannot help managers overcome the 21st century challenges. On the other hand, bureaucracy principles described by Weber do not exhibit any form of relevance in contemporary management because they promote rigidity and alienation and are more likely to dehumanize people. 21st century managers need to promote flexibility, remain ethical, and promote the interests of all the stakeholders. Therefore, bureaucracy principles are no longer relevant (Merz 2011, p. 55). Part 4: Alternative Ways of Understanding Management Evidently, non-rational perspectives of management have emerged that present better management model for contemporary management. The post-modern principles of management form a non-rational perspective that has different views from the rational perspectives. The post-modern principles of management promote long-term profit goals, flexibility within the organization, and view employees as an asset (Wren 2011, p. 22). Moreover, the post-modern approach focuses on teamwork and diverse skills exhibited by workers. In this approach, diversity is a great asset in the organization and managers focus on flexible networking. There is a high level of decentralization and space for creativity from employees. Leaders delegate authorities and present incentives for teams. The post-modern principles of management place emphasis on servant leadership and give attention to people. Training and empowerment receives attention and a clear feedback system within the organization exists. Without doubt, the post-modern approach of management has altered the roles of the management department in planning, organizing, influencing, leading, and controlling (Merz 2011, p. 33). Therefore, the non-rational perspectives introduce a better setting to tackle the 21st century challenges. Conclusion Evidently, the rational system perspectives were highly influential in the 20thcentury management approaches. Some of the leading schools of thought included Taylor’s theories of scientific management, Fayol’s administrative theory, and Weber’s bureaucratic principles. As highlighted above, the purpose of rational perspectives was to promote goal specificity and increase standardization within an organization. The contemporary management world has proved to be highly dynamic in response to the changing perspectives to the business front. Therefore, many managers find the rational perspectives irrelevant in the contemporary world. This is because they do not guide managers on how to tackle critical issues that have emerged recently. The post-modern approach seems to be more effective. Bibliography Merz, F 2011, Max Webers Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences, München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Pryor, M, & Taneja, S 2010, Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician – revered and reviled, Journal of Management History (1751-1348), 16, 4, p. 489, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 January 2015. Wren, DA 2011, The Centennial of Frederick W. Taylors The Principles of Scientific Management: A Retrospective Commentary, Journal of Business & Management, 17, 1, pp. 11-22, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 January 2015. Read More