Trends in Management, Organization, and Strategy - Literature review Example

Trends in Management, Organization and Strategy Insert Name Insert Course Name and Code Insert Instructor’s Details Insert Date Introduction The study of organizational management to date has been made possible through a series of progressive steps and stages since the late 19th century. There have been different schools of management thought which were theoretical in their frameworks that worked to come up with workable organizational management strategies. Each school or management thought based its arguments on different assumptions with regard to human beings and for firms which they worked (Griffin, 2003). Scholars and other practitioners working in different management fields and in different eras have continuously worked hard focusing on what they believed to be important good management practices. Human beings have come a long way through evolution; organization management like human beings has made tremendous strides since it was discovered in the late 19th century (Griffin, 2003). The management strategy development was significantly witnessed in the 20th century from the classical theory to the Japanese management approach. This paper discusses trends and approaches to organization and management strategy since the beginning of 2th century. In order to have a better understanding, different schools of management thought including the classical school, the behavioral school, management science school, systems school, and contingency school. Finally the paper will also describe the Japanese Management theory. Classical School of Management (1890s – 1940s) The need for efficient management practices was evident in the early 20th century. The classical school of management discovered this need and developed theories and models that could improve effectiveness organization’s management. For instance, they were not only focused on developing a comprehensive management theory, but they also worked to improve tools and techniques that managers needed in order to deal with organizational challenges (Robinson &Coulter, 1999). The classical school therefore, developed the bureaucratic management, administrative management, and scientific management theories that were meant to address the foresighted needs. Scientific Management Theory (1890s) In the late 19th century, management decisions were uninformed and employees worked at intentionally extreme slow rates. The scientific management model was fundamentally designed to change the mind sets of workers. According to O’Connor, (1999) the scientific model is defined as the systematic study of work methods in order to improve efficiency. This model stresses the need for pragmatic research in order to develop a detailed and comprehensive management strategy. O’Connor, (1999) observed that scientific management principles should be applied by managers in specific ways. For instance he noted that the following scientific management demands that managers; apply scientific procedures to establish the best methods of accomplishing a given task. Employees must scientifically be selected basing on their qualifications and be trained for them to perform in an optimal manner (Daft, 2005). Genuine cooperation between the management and the employees should be fostered with regard to mutual self-interest. Finally, the management should take charge in planning the work while employees are responsible for implementing the management’s plans (O’Connor, 1999). The scientific theory was efficient and effective in organization management practices in the early 20th century. In this regard the model contributed greatly to the development of management theory. Across the globe organizations have and still are using the model particularly in areas of human resource management and industrial engineering. Tenets of scientific management are valid and still in use in present times. Bureaucratic Management (1920s) Due to the perceived inefficiencies in management Max Weber proposed that management decisions should base on personal relationships and loyalty (Senge, 1990). Weber believed in the centralization of power and authority within the organization. In relation to these facts, he established a bureaucratic theory that based on normative rules, and the right of those promoted to authority to issue commands (legal authority) (Senge, 1990). The tenets of bureaucracy model can be characterized with: a well defined hierarchy, division of labor and specialization, rules and regulations, impersonal relationship between managers and employees, competence, and records. In addition, Weber believed that manager’s authority in relation to the organization should not be based on tradition or charisma but on the position held by managers in the organizational hierarchy (Senge, 1990). This model was adopted across the world by many organizations. However, the system has been criticized for being rigid, unresponsive, and lack of effectiveness. Regardless of this, it is important to note that Weber’s ideas formed the basis of modern organization management theory. Administrative management This theory was developed to basically focus on the management processes and principles of management. With regard to Henri (1949) arguments, management is a universal process that is described by functions such as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. Managers at all levels in the organization perform these duties while these functions distinguish management as a separate discipline of study that is different from accounting, finance, and production. Management theory can be developed and be taught to others. In this regard, Henri (1949) developed fourteen management principles that include: division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, remuneration of personnel, centralization, scalar chain, order, equity, and stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and team spirit. Like Bureaucratic theory, the administrative management theory was also criticized for being inefficient, rigid and unresponsive (Robinson &Coulter, 1999). Despite these criticisms, the model has greatly influenced the management theory and practices. It is evident that the functional approach to management still dominates many organizations in terms of organizing management knowledge. Behavioral School of Management (1930s – 1950s) The school was developed regarding the perceived weaknesses in the Classic School theories. The classic school core emphases were efficiency, process, and principles not taking into consideration the significant aspects organizational life especially human behavior (Lewis et al., 1998). With regard to this, the behavioral school worked to understand factors that affect human behavior. The focus here was human relations and behavioral science. Behavioral movement Human behavior and characters determines the way an individual acts or reacts with regard to the present situation. Keeping this in mind the behavioral school of management thought in the mid 20th century established the behavioral theory. Warner, (1994) observed that this particular model demands the application of conceptual and analytical tools in problem understanding and predicting behavior in the workplace. Organization management objectives were highly addressed by the Classical theories, however, they failed to address organizational behavior. Employee motivation and behavior were not addressed. On discovering this challenge, many theorists including Mary Parker, Douglas McGregor, Chris Agyris, Fredrick Herzberg and Herbert Simon together with other psychologists decided to research on organizational behavior (Warner, 1994). Recommendations form these experts suggested that it of great importance for managers to understand human. Consequently, understanding human behavior helps in creating relationships among employees and at the same employee’s attitudes can be changed to focus on the firm’s productivity (Daft, 2005). Organization behavior and behavioral science studies contributed greatly to the study and development of management theory by focusing on personality, attitudes, values, motivation, group behavior, leadership, communication, and conflict management. Human relations movement This theory is strongly concerned with the welfare of workers and the role of management as the sole provider of these needs. The universally known human relations theories were developed by Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor. According to Warner, (1994), Maslow believed that human needs are never satisfied, human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need for satisfaction, and that needs are hierarchically classified depending on the importance starting from the lowest to the highest. With regard to these views, Maslow developed a hierarchy of needs theory that classified human needs in five specific classes. He observed that in order to achieve successive levels of satisfaction of the hierarchy, lower level needs must be satisfied first. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes; psychological, safety, belongingness and love, self esteem, and self actualization (Warner, 1994).This theory help mangers to visualize that employee motivation is a crucial factor in production. On the other hand, McGregor observed that there are two categories of managers. With regard to Warner, (1994) McGregor stated that there are those managers who view employees to be lazy, unproductive, incompetent and unable to take responsibilities (theory X). Consequently, he identified that other managers appreciate their employees of being trustworthy, productive, competent, and are ready to assume their responsibilities (Theory Y). According to these observations, Warner, (1994)argued that managers with Theory Y characteristics are bound to succeed in the management roles as they inspire employees to do their work. With regard to these theories, employee’s welfare has been and still is being addressed in the workplace. Furthermore, the theories have greatly influenced on the management theory and practices as contemporary management, system and Japanese management theories pay more attention to human resource management, organizational behavior, and applied psychology in the workplace. Management science/Quantitative school (1940s – 1970s) Here the focus is on improving decision making process through application of quantitative techniques. Sometimes it is also referred to as contemporary management. Contemporary approaches include Total Quality Management and the Learning organization. Total Quality Management is a philosophy to management that is inclined towards managing the entire organization in order to deliver goods and services to customers. It was first implemented in Japan after World War 1 (Wren, 1987). TQM has four elements, employees who are vital in preventing quality problems before they occur, customer focus; the organization must work to identify customer needs and wants after which they must deliver goods and services that satisfy these needs. Benchmarking means; the organization must seek out other organizations that perform specific functions effectively and use them as a standard or benchmark to judge their own performance (Wren, 1987). Lastly, continuous improvement, organizations must be committed to incremental changes and improvement over time in all sectors of the organization. Contemporary management theories do not offer a complete theory of management, but they have offered great insights into the management field. System Theory (1950s) System management theory is based on integration of various management theories and coming up with one effective, coherent, and cohesive management theory. Under this model, advocates for adoption of a common functional system that oversees all organizational activities which are grouped into processes such as inputs, homeostasis, parameters, processing, outputs, and feed back. This model can be best understood in terms of operations, production, finance, marketing, and personnel subsystems. . Wren (1987) stated that this theory equips mangers with relevant tools and techniques for analyzing organizational dynamics without relying on a specific theory about how the organization is to be managed. According to the systems theory, it is imperative to acknowledge that all organizations consist of processing inputs and outputs, with internal and external systems and subsystems; therefore, it is essential to provide a functional overview. The contingency approach (1960s) The theory is based on the power and control that the manager posses with regard to a specific situation and the magnitude of the uncertainty. In the contingency approach, the manager is supposed to come up with an appropriate management solution with regard to organizational environment. This theory is devoid of management principles rather it depends on the experience and manager’s judgment in a given organizational environment (Wren, 1987). Japanese management Currently, many organizations the world over have implemented the Japanese Management theory. This theory was derived from William Ouchi’s Theory Z and the M-Form society in accordance to management. The break through of this model is directly attributed to the trust that mangers have in their employees (Ouchi, 1984). Trusting employees and giving them an opportunity to make decision with regard to the tasks assigned to them makes them more autonomous and hence increasing their productivity. The management theory advocates for intimacy in its managerial relationships; personal values should be respected, valued and rewarded. The M-Form of organization according to Ouchi (1984) is a large Japanese organization and the balance between teamwork and individual’s effort is recommended in order to achieve optimal productivity. In essence it is a combination of a large decentralized organization where each unit competes with other units in order to obtain budgetary resources based upon earnings, while at the same time; they draw upon the same centralized corporate services. Ouchi (1984) refers to this as a loose-tight organization where individual initiative is rewarded and at the same time being controlled at a centralized corporate management system. Ouchi (1984) also stated that Japanese organizations have a social memory; as in, the previous employee efforts receive future rewards regardless of the employee being productive or not. The past employee contribution gives the organization a form of endowment. Through Japanese Management, employee loyalty is insured while at the same time acting as a role model for present employees. With regard to Japanese school of management, personnel policies that provide investment in human capital endow the organization with resources necessary to achieve increased productivity (Ouchi, 1984). Conclusion The evolution of management theory can be traced back to the mid 19th century. The Classical School helped greatly in coming up with practices for managing workers and organizations efficiently. Behavioral school that came into play in mid 20th century focused on understanding human behavior in the organization. The quantitative school on its part considered increasing quality of managerial decision making through application of mathematical and statistical methods. The systems school, appreciates the understanding of the organization as a system that transforms inputs into outputs while in constant interaction with it’s environment. Contingency school emphasizes the application of management principles and processes as described by the unique characterization of each situation. Bibliography Daft, R. L. 2005.. Management. 7th ed. Australia: Thomson/South-Western, Griffin, R. W. 2003. Management. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Henri. F. 1949. General and Industrial Administration. London: Sir Issac Pitman & Sons, Ltd. Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S H. and. Fandt P. M. 1998. Management. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, Locke, E.A. "1982.The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation." Academy of Management Review 7, no. 1: 14–24. O'Connor, E. S. 1999. The Politics of Management Thought: A Case Study of the Harvard Business School and the Human Relations School. Academy of Management Review vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 117–131. Ouchi, W. G. 1984. The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Robbins, S. P., and Coulter, M. 1999. Management, 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Warner, M. 1994. Organizational Behavior Revisited. Human Relations, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1151–1164. Wren, D. 1987. The Evolution of Management Thought, 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Read More