Scientific, Bureaucratic, Administration, Human Relations, and Other Management Theories - Literature review Example

Heading: Management & Organization & Strategy Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction One of the most significant human activities is managing. Ever since human beings started creating social organizations in order to achieve aims and objectives that could be accomplished individually, the concept of managing has been necessary in ensuring harmonization of individual endeavors. With the increasing reliance of group effort by the society, and growing number of organized groups, managers’ tasks have gained a lot of meaning and complexity. Since then, managerial theory has been a critical in the management of complex firms. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore the trends and approaches to the concepts of organization, management, and strategy in the 20th century. Theories Scientific management theory This is theory that emphasizes on the empirical study that is essential in the development of an inclusive management solution. The main aim of the approach’s theory is to be used by organizational managers in a particular manner (Daft & Lane 2008, pp. 5-8). The most important implication of the scientific management theory is that the manager is basically in charge of enhancing the organization’s productivity. The main representative of the approach is Fredrick Winslow Taylor, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. In his experiments, Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) argues that Taylor sought to determine the most appropriate way of operating every work operation, required materials, and work order. According to Taylor, some of the principles of the scientific management theory are: the development of the scientific management methodology; managers’ assumption of the responsibility of selection, training, and development of the worker; full cooperation of managers with employees in the effective application of the approach; and involvement of the management of employee’s work (Daft & Marcic 2011, pp. 24-30). Besides, this approach comprised of a system that was instrumental in the supervision of workers, improvement of work methods, and provision of incentives to workers by use of the piece rate system (Haraway 2005, pp. 23-27). This theory was propounded with an aim of eliminating the ineffective and ill-directed men’s movements, and developing a management system that was different from the traditional personal management system (Dzimbiri 2009, pp. 2-10). He, therefore, proposed that tasks should be divided into small manageable tasks, and that the small tasks be optimized. Bureaucratic theory This is an approach attributed to Max Weber who believed that there was a drastic change in civilization in search of technically maximum outcomes at the expense of humanistic or emotional content (Daft & Marcic 2011, pp. 24-30). Weber came up with a set of ideal bureaucratic principles. These are official and fixed jurisdictional areas, management founded on written records, a firm and clear order of superior and subordinate staff, following of stable and knowable rules, extensive an expert training, and prioritization of official activity over other activities (Sheldrake 2003, pp. 57-60). Besides, he foresaw an absolutely impersonal firm that had little human interaction among members. Administration management theory Secondly, Henri Fayol developed the administrative management approach of managing workers in an organization. According to Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-20), Fayol proposed 14 management principles that should be observed by every management in order to achieve organizational and individual objectives. The first principle is division of work, which entails specialization that was instrumental in the production of more and improved work by application of the same effort. The principle focused on effort as well as maximizing worker productivity. Besides, the principle can be used in any work including technical work. Secondly, Fayol proposed the principle of responsibility and authority. Here, authority refers to the right accorded to an individual to issue orders, and the power to demand obedience (Yu 2009, pp. 14-18). There is a difference between official authority of a manager that is derived from office, and personal authority that results from an individual’s intelligence, personality, and experience. Responsibility is created by authority. Thirdly, discipline is another proposed principle that entails respect and obedience that exist between an organization and its workers, which is based on explicit and fair consents (Haraway 2005, pp. 23-27). Here, managers are encouraged to employ sanctions in case of violence in their organizations. Fourthly, unity of command principle asserts that employees should take orders for their superiors only, and that no worker should adapt a dual command. Fifthly, & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) notes that unity of command is also essential in enabling that organizational activities have one action plan and central authority. Sixthly, Dzimbiri (2009, pp. 2-10) says that the theory proposes that individuals should subordinate their individual interests to those of others. This implies that the workers’ interests are subordinate to the goals and interests of the firm, and cannot overcome it. Seventhly, Daft & Marcic (2011, pp. 24-30) asserts that remuneration of staff is critical in any organization. Salaries should be regarded as prices of the employees’ services to the organization. Besides, Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) argues that remuneration is determined by value of their services and the employment market. Therefore, it is vital the management remunerates their staff with fairly so as to enhance their satisfaction. The eighth principle involves centralization whose main aim is to utilize personnel effectively. The ninth principle concerns scalar chain that emphasizes that authority runs from the highest to the lowest organizational authorities (Yu 2009, pp. 14-18). Fayol encouraged the use of this chain by using the gang plank principle that advocates for direct communication between workers in order to improve organizational performance. The tenth principle entails significance of order in organizations in terms of personnel and material. This implies that firms should employ the right workers and materials in order to succeed in their operations (Daft & Marcic 2011, pp. 24-30). In addition, the eleventh principle of the administrative theory says that equity is essential in the treatment of workers in an organization. The twelfth principle concerns the emphasis of maintaining a stable work force by organizations in order to realize high productivity. This is because of the fact that management insecurity results in undesirable effects on the employee efficiency (Dzimbiri 2009, pp. 2-10). Thirteenth principle of the administrative management theory concerns initiative. This implies the importance of coming up with plans and working towards achievement of success. Therefore, employees should posses the energy and zeal in order to be effective in the organization (Daft & Marcic 2011, pp. 24-30). Lastly, the principle of Esprit de Corps emphasizes the significance of teamwork in every organization. Hence, organizational management should cultivate this by use of team work and verbal communication. Fayol also emphasized the function of the management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Behaviorism Theory: Human Relations Management The next modern management theory is Elton Mayo’s human relations movement approach that is associated with the Hawthorne work studies. Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) argues that the model was totally against Taylor’s belief that controlled experiments were the most appropriate ways of improving productivity in the organizations. On the contrary, Mayo found out that there was not direct relationship between the experiments and productivity (Hansen 2003, pp. 12-18). Instead, he noticed that other factors in organizations determined the performance levels of the employees. His experiments demonstrated that; first, work satisfaction and performance are determined by the attitudes and work conditions, such as, communications, encouragement, positive management, and working environment. Second, focus on worker self interest and financial incentives were inappropriate (Daft & Lane 2008, pp. 5-12). Third, Daft and Marcic (2011, pp. 24-30) says that the issue of peer influence is influential in every organization, and thus, informal groups should be allowed in firms. Lastly, the experiments went against the false beliefs that human beings are disorganized and have self-interests (Taylor 2010, pp. 19-30). Therefore, these results were highly instrumental in the encouraging greater participation among employees, greater openness and trust in work places, and attention to groups and teams at work places (Griffin 2010, pp. 23-30). Unlike Taylor’s outcomes of industrial engineering, personnel departments, and quality control, Mayo’s impacts resulted from what the firm’s personnel department and leadership were doing (Yu 2009, pp. 14-18). Therefore, the concepts of teamwork, group dynamics, and social systems emerged from Mayo’s studies. Recent management theory developments These include contingency or situational approach, systems approach, team building theory and chaos theory. To begin with, systems theory made an important effect on the understanding of firms and management science (Hansen 2003, pp. 12-18). Since a system consists of a collection of parts that aimed at achieving common goal, the removal of one section affects the whole system. A system has inputs like money, raw materials, people, and technology; inputs like services or products; processes like organizing, planning, controlling, and motivating; and outcomes, such as, improved quality of life, and consumers’ productivity (Yu 2009, pp. 14-18). Though the theory sounds basic, management practices and training has not adhered to it. Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) notes that it is only recently that huge changes that faced organizations and their operations, did they realize its significance. Therefore, the model is influential in helping managers broadly look at their firms, and interpret events and patterns in working environments. On the contrary, Dzimbiri (2009, pp. 2-10) notes that contingency or situational theory asserts that when managers decide, they should consider the present situations and work upon the aspects that are important to the issue at situation at hand. Therefore, the leadership style used largely depends on the situation at hand. Chaos theory is attributed to Tom Peters, and it looks at the relationship between the society and the organizations (Daft & Marcic 2011, pp. 24-30). It asserts that random and chaotic events in the modern society are reflected in organizational behaviors. Ironically, managers have always thought these behaviors can be controlled, and thus, this theory propagates that they are rarely controlled. According to the followers of the theory, firms systems advance to greater complexities; hence becoming volatile (Haraway 2005, pp. 23-27). Therefore, organizations ought to expend extra energy in order to control the complexity, while maintaining the structure’s stability (Yu 2009, pp. 14-18). Lastly, Yu (2009, pp. 14-18) says that there is the team building approach that emphasizes best practices, quality circles, and consistent improvement. It majorly campaigns for dependence work teams, and stresses on reducing hierarchy levels, and flattening management pyramid. It also advocates for the involvement of many employees at all the decision making levels. Other theories These include studies of Douglas McGregor and Edward W. Deming. Deming propounded the modern quality management, which has many assumptions that include adoption of new philosophy established in Japan; building quality and price; avoidance of reliance on mass inspection; creation of constancy of intention of continual development of service and products (Bowler 2006, pp. 8-16). Other assumptions include driving of fear and encouragement of two-way communications, breaking down obstacles between staff and departments, adoption and institution of leadership intended to help employees work better; removal of exhortations, numerical targets and quotas, obstacles to workmanship pride; self-improvement and education for all; and the senior management’s everlasting commitment to improve productivity and quality, and their obligation to execute the aforementioned principles (Ravetz 2009, pp. 10-20). Moreover, McGregor’s two-factor theory entails the theory “X” and theory “Y”. First, theory X offers a negative perception on management behavior and human behaviors that have subjugated the management theory during Fayol onwards (Landy 2007, pp. 575-580). Besides, the model assumes that many people are primarily immature, and therefore need control and direction, and unable of taking responsibility. Daft & Lane (2008, pp. 5-12) says that the approach views people as lazy, disliking work, and needing financial incentives and job loss threats so as to engage them in work. By contrast, Hansen (2003, pp. 12-18) says that theory Y asserts that human beings need to gratify themselves by seeking self-development, self-respect, and self-satisfaction at work and as generally do in life. According to Ravetz (2009, pp. 10-20), the theory assumes that work is a natural phenomenon like rest and sleep, and that people do not like working be it a punishment or a source of pleasure. Moreover, Yu (2009, pp. 14-18) effort at work should not be forced, but that it results from self-control and self-direction. In addition, rewards determine commitment to objectives, and that self-actualization needs and ego satisfaction should be directed to organizational objectives. What is more, Landy (2007, pp. 575-580) the theory stresses that human beings best learn when they are under appropriate conditions, and that creativity, ingenuity, and imagination are limited to small groups, yet they are widely spread in the population. Lastly, Taylor (2010, pp. 19-30) the utilization of intellectual potentialities of average person is partly done in industrial life. Nonetheless, there is a quantitative model that is hardly known and utilized by managers. This emanates from operations study and management science (Daft & Lane 2008, pp. 5-12). Besides, it is a statistical and mathematical solution to challenges by use of computer simulations and models. Additionally, the approach is only efficient in management decision making, but not managerial behavior. Conclusion Evidently, management, organization and strategic issues have evolved from classical approaches to the modern management approaches. Clearly, the classical approaches to management were more rigid and inhuman than the modern lenient and human models that have proved to be effective. Among the classical approaches were bureaucracy and administrative management theories. The recent developments built on the weaknesses of the classical models, and they include, systems approach, contingency or situational approach, team building, and chaos theory. Others include the two-factor; X and Y theories, and quality management theory. Therefore, organizations have opted to more innovative, engaging, and satisfying management approaches that are instrumental in the achievement of both organizational and individual objectives. References Bowler, WM 2006, ‘Organizational Goals versus the Dominant Coalition: a Critical View of the Value of Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8-16. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035125685 Daft, RL & Lane, P 2008, The new era of management, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, Ohio. pp. 5-20 Daft, RL & Marcic, D 2011, Understanding management, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. pp. 24-30 Dzimbiri, L 2009, Organisation and management theories: an African focus integrating structure, people, processes and the environment for human happiness, Cuvillier, Göttingen. Pp. 2-10. Griffin, R 2010, Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations, South-Western/Cengage Learning, Australia Mason, OH. Pp. 23-35. Hansen, JJ 2003, ‘Limits of Competition: Accountability in Government Contracting’, Yale Law Journal, vol. 112, no.4, pp. 12-18. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002006243 Haraway, WM 2005, ‘Employee Grievance Programs: Understanding the Nexus between Workplace Justice, Organizational Legitimacy and Successful Organizations’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 34, no.7, pp. 23-27. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5019659310 Landy, F 2007, Work in the 21st century: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, Mass: Blackwell. Pp. 575-580 Ravetz, JR 2009, ‘Essay: Conventions in Science and in the Courts: Images and Realities’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 72, no.3, pp. 10-20. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5032139974 Sheldrake, J 2003, Management theory, Thomson, Australia United States. Pp. 57-60. Taylor, F 2010, The principles of scientific management, Forgotten Books, Lexington, KY. Pp. 19-30. Yu, M 2009, Employees' Perception of Organizational Change: The Mediating Effects of Stress Management Strategies’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 38, no.6, pp. 14-18. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5038072342 Read More