Trends in Management Organization and Strategy - Case Study Example

Trends in Management, Organization and Strategy Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Introduction The exploration and study of organization management was initiated in the late 19th century and has progressed through several steps and stages. 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. It is evident that evolution of today’s management thinking dates back into the 19th century and developed in the 20th century (McClelland, 1961). The foundation of today’s organization developed during mid 19th century with regard to the rise of factory system particularly in the textile industry where automation and mass production was essential for productivity. The 20th century witnessed tremendous management revolution from the classical theory to the Japanese management approach. This paper seeks to discus major trends in approaches to organization and management since the beginning of 20th century. The Classical School During the early 20th century calls for the development of comprehensive management practices were eminent. The classical school of management discovered this need and worked to come up with theories and models that could improve effective management in organizations. Not only did they focus on developing a comprehensive management theory, but they also sought to improve tools that managers need in dealing with organizational challenges. Owing to this, the classical school developed the bureaucratic management, administrative management, and scientific management theories. These theories will be discussed independently. Bureaucratic Management This management style is based on Max Weber view that early organizations were inefficiently managed whereby management decisions were based on personal relationships and loyalty. He believed in the institutionalization of power and authority within the organization (Herbert, 1957). Given these facts, he came up with a bureaucracy model of management that was based on normative rules, and the right of those promoted to authority to issue commands (legal authority). The bureaucracy model is characterized with: a well defined hierarchy, division of labour 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 (Herbert, 1957). This model was adopted across the world by many organizations. However, the system is criticized for its inflexibility, unresponsiveness, and lack of effectiveness. Regardless of this, it is important to note that Weber’s ideas formed the basis of modern organization management theory. Scientific management During the late 19th century, management decisions were arbitrary and employees worked at extremely slow rate. The scientific management model was improvised to change the mind sets of workers. Basically, this model can be defined as the systematic study of work methods in order to improve efficiency (Fredrick, 1967). This approach emphasizes the empirical research for developing an elaborate and comprehensive management solution. The scientific management principles should be applied by managers in specific ways. The contributors to the scientific management theory are Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry Gantt. The principles of scientific management entail; applying scientific procedures to work in order to establish the best methods of accomplishing a given task. Secondly, employees should be scientifically selected basing on their qualifications and trained for them to perform in an optimal manner. Thirdly, there should be genuine cooperation between the management and the employees with regard to mutual self-interest. Finally, the model suggests that the management must or should take complete responsibility for planning the work while employees are supposed and should implement the management’s plans (Fredrick, 1967). The scientific model had great impact on organization management practices in the early 20th century; however, it does not represent the whole management theory. The model has also contributed greatly to the development of management; many organizations have relied on the latter especially in human resource management and industrial engineering. Tenets of scientific management are valid and still in use in present times (Fredrick, 1967). Administrative management In this particular model the management focuses on the management processes and principles of management. The model provides a general approach to management. Henry Fayol argued that management is a universal process that entails functions like planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Henri, 1919). He believed that managers at all levels performed these functions and that these functions distinguished management as a distinct discipline of study that is different from accounting, finance, and production. Fayol believed that management theories could be developed and taught to others. In this regard, he 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 (Henri, 1919). Despite the criticism of the administrative management of being rigid and not flexible given that the functional approach to management has been questioned, 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. Behavioural movement The study of organizational behaviour and behavioural science came into play in the mid 20th century. This theory is concerned with applying conceptual and analytical tools to problem understanding and predicting behaviour in the workplace (Chester, 1964). The classical management theories helped tremendously in placing management objectives in the organization’s perspective, however, they failed to address organizational personnel challenges. For instance, they ignored employee motivation and behaviour. Owing to this, many theorists including Mary Parker, Douglas McGregor, Chris Agyris, Fredrick Herzberg and Herbert Simon together with other psychologists decided to research on organizational behaviour rather than studying individual behaviour (Chester, 1964). The study of organizational behaviour recommended that it is imperative that management practitioners to understand human behaviour. This will enable them to create relationship between worker attitudes and productivity. Behavioural science and organizational behaviour studies contributed greatly to the study of management by focusing on personality, attitudes, values, motivation, group behaviour, leadership, communication, and conflict management. Human relations movement Strong criticism of classical management theories culminated into deeper consideration of the needs of employees and the role of management as the sole provider of these needs. The two renowned organizational theorists in human relations movement are Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor. Maslow for instance developed motivation theory with regard to human needs. He noted that human needs are never completely satisfied, human behaviour is purposeful and is motivated by need of satisfaction, and lastly human needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970). Maslow believed human needs can hierarchically be classified into five specific groups. And in order to achieve successive levels of satisfaction of the hierarchy, lower levels must be satisfied first. The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes; psychological needs, safety need, belongingness and love, self esteem, and self actualization (Maslow, 1970). This theory help mangers to visualize that employee motivation is a crucial factor in production. McGregor on the other hand believes that there are two basic kinds of managers. Theory X, describes those managers who view employees to be lazy, untrustworthy and unable to assume responsibilities (Douglas, 1960). Theory Y, describe those managers who view employees to be trustworthy and capable of assuming their responsibilities when they are highly motivated (Douglas, 1960). These theories have great influence on the management theory and practices as contemporary management pay more attention to human resource management, organizational behaviour, and applied psychology in the workplace. Contemporary management It is evident that many management theories have been developed since the onset of the 20th century. Management research and practices are constantly evolving and new advancements in the study of management are evident. 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. 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. 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 The system approach to management tries to integrate the various management theories and come up with one coherent and cohesive management theory. A common functional system where all organizational activities are grouped into processes such as inputs, homeostasis, parameters, processing, outputs, and feed back characterizes the system theory. In this regard organizational systems can be described in terms of operations, production, finance, marketing, and personnel subsystems (Likert, 1967). This theory provides mangers with tools for analysing organizational dynamics without relying on a specific theory about how the organization is to be managed. The recognition of systems theory that all organizations consist of processing inputs and outputs, with internal and external systems and subsystems, is helpful in providing a functional overview of any organization. The contingency approach This theory emphasizes the recognition of the significance of specific individual manager in any given situation. It is basically based on the manager’s power and control over a situation and the degree of uncertainty in any given situation. 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 (Likert, 1967). Japanese management Japanese Management styles are well described by William Ouchi where theory Z and the M-Form society with regard to management are explained. The ability to increase productivity of Japanese organizations brought Japanese management into play. The success of this model is directly linked to the trust that Japanese management has in its employees (Ouchi, 1984). High levels of trust gives employees an opportunity to make decisions with regard to the tasks assigned to them. This theory advocates for the concept of intimacy in its managerial relationships, for instance, personal relationships are highly valued, respected and rewarded. At organizational level, large Japanese companies have a balance between teamwork and individual effort (M-Form organizations) (Ouchi, 1984). This is a combination of a large decentralized organization and 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. In essence it is a loose-tight organization where individual initiative is rewarded and at the same time being controlled at a centralized corporate management system. The 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 (Ouchi, 1984). 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 From the above discussion, organization management has come a long way and the general theory of management development is yet to be achieved. Many researchers and scholars have plaid a big role to bring management theory this far. Management models that integrate organizational goals and employee welfare are result into increased productivity. The Japanese Management system is currently the most preferred model as employee welfare is at the core of organization’s ultimate performance. Bibliography Chester B, 1964. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 165. Douglas M., 1960. The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Frederick W.T., 1967. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Henri F., 1919. General and Industrial Management, Constance Storrs (trans.). London: Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1, pp. 19-42. Herbert A. S., 1957. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, pp. 44. Herzberg, F. Mausner, B and Snydrman, B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. (Herzberg, et al, 1959) Likert, R. 1967. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, p. 46. Ouchi, W. G. 1984. The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand Company, Read More