A Significant Role in the Development of Different Structures and Styles of Management - Case Study Example

Should mаnаgеrs and mаnаgеmеnt students study the history of mаnаgеmеnt from а сritiсаl реrsресtivе? By Student’s name Code+ course name Professor’s name University name City, State Date In today’s business environment, the history of management continues to be taught in many business schools around the world. However, many scholars and management students treat the history of management in a more simplistic approach leaving a lot of issues not clearly understood. In this vein, most of the works carried out by ancient management scholars such as Charles Taylor, Max Weber and Mary Pollet seems dubious as the current approach to issues of management tries to justify the modern management thinking. However, an attempt to encourage students to critically reflect on such historical representations not only fosters the unmeasured benefits attributed to rich historical awareness, but also helps students and managers to develop robust and more creative management skills. Presently, the biggest challenge facing the discipline of management is to understand how management practices have developed overtime and the factors that contributed to such development. In this vein, this paper will examine a number of classical management theories including; scientific management theories which tried to match people and duties to enhance efficiency. Secondly, administrative management theories, which sought to show management principles that, could guarantee efficient systems of management and organization. The other class of theories is known as the behavioral management theories that came to light after the Second World War. These theories focused on the human aspect at work place and emphasized the need for managers to understand the workers behaviors and how such behaviors influenced performance. The term management refers to coordination and organization of business activities with an aim of achieving the desired goals. During the nineteenth century, management as a discipline developed to become a key element of economic, social and political development. From the historical point of view, studying history of management has proved critical in the development of management discipline (Bedeian, 2004). Basically, there have been three phases through which management discipline has fundamentally transformed. They include; the autocratic approach, management change following re-formation and finally the advent of new work practices that have significantly transformed the industrial revolution. Further, it is evident that other key historical events have also played a significant role in the development of different structures and styles of management. Notably, modern management started to evolve after the industrial revolution which took place towards the end of the nineteenth century. At this particular time, managers across the globe increasingly searched for more effective ways to satisfy their customers’ needs. According to Crainer (2003), management scholars and prominent Harvard business historians held a round table discussion, where they agreed that understanding history of management is essential in organizational management. The participants resolved that history is essential as it helps managers and students of management to evaluate the organization’s current position after comparing both present and the past information. In addition, managers are able to determine if the current management trends are part of a continuous trend or new developments not related to the ancient management approaches. Further, the participants agreed that history is crucial when determining strategies in today’s dynamic business environment. Interestingly, Wren (1987) asserts that as a medical practitioner needs information concerning the patient’s medical history as a pre-requisite for making a diagnosis, a management consultant charged with the responsibility of diagnosing business problems also needs an insight into the organization’s history. According to Smith (2007) a survey conducted in 1966 comprising seventy five individuals from the history department of one of the management academies indicated that knowledge of management history led to a variety of advantages including provision of concise background that help management students to understand the discipline of management more clearly. In addition, learning management history helps to dispel myths held by various management authors and also anchors the students properly in theory. More so, other such outcomes have also been mirrored in other researchers conducted in business education curriculum. As stated in management history, transformation from the industrial revolution saw development of sophisticated machinery and use of steam power. According to Wren (1987), small workshops that manufactured different products were replaced with more developed and complex machinery run by skilled people. Moreover, it is through management history that students of management learn of Adam Smith, one of the management theories developers who suggested that work specialization helped in the realization of efficient management of working hours. He further added that workers gained more skills when performing specific tasks in mass production process. This early observation by Smith ignited further research by other management scholars in an attempt to investigate how improved job specialization enhances overall work performance. According to details of management history, Fredrick Taylor, popularly known as the father of management introduced scientific theories of management. These theories helped in understanding the connection between individuals and tasks with the goal of re-designing the work processes to enhance efficiency. Taylor’s management theories teach both the modern managers and students of management of the need to ensure both employee and employers prosperity. Further, Taylor’s management theories require division of labor and task specialization to ensure efficiency at the work place. According to Taylor’s principles, providing workers with incentives helps to enhance their efficiency at the workplace. In this regard, Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson (2011) asserts that the historical component of management sheds more light on past approaches to management and how they have contributed to efficiency in modern organizations. Basically, critical review of management history helps the managers’ to forecast the probable future trends. As echoed by Wren (1987), use of historical information makes it for managers to establish a certain trend as observed over an extended period of time to objectively determine the foreseeable future. Knowledge of management history has also been used to gain an understanding of various management approaches and how they have been developed over time. For instance, it is through critical review of history that managers and management students learn about the “fathers of management” and thinking they held concerning different approaches to management. In addition, the same history continues to indicate how other management thinkers have developed traditional approaches of management overtime to derive what is currently practiced. Such a concise linkage between traditional approaches of management and modern approaches empowers the modern managers and management students to think creatively and contribute in the development of the management discipline. The history of management also shows us how Frank and Lillian Gilbreth refined Taylor’s principles of management by recommending the division of tasks to enhance performance of the entire production process. The two researchers further recommended the need to come up with better ways to perform identified task. According to Bedeian (2004), studying history of management enables both managers and student of management to understand how the discipline of management has transformed over time. For instance, during ancient times, the method used in managing the workforce was purely autocratic. In this regard, the workforce was treated like slaves. Nonetheless, the realm of evidence available from various literatures indicates that use of autocratic approach led to a very organized and efficient utilization of labor. However, even though both Taylor’s and Gilbreth management principles caused a number of problems, they led to some radical changes that have significantly contributed to the efficiency of modern organizations. Another re-known person in the field of management is Max Weber, a German Sociologist who formulated administrative management theory. This theory advocated for the creation of organizational structures that enhanced efficiency and effectiveness at the work place. Notably, bureaucracies are important to modern managers as they command authority which underpins any bureaucratic management (Waddell, Jones & George, 2011). Essentially, it is through authority that managers are able to command their subordinates. Further, exerting command over the subordinates ensures that the set of rules and standards are strictly followed. Weber also suggested some standard operating procedures that offered guidelines to improved performance of bureaucratic systems. Interestingly, as Taylor was famously known as the “father of management”, Mary Parker Follet who introduced theories that concerned the human aspect at the work place was popularly known as “the mother of management”. Mary looked at various concerns that Taylor had ignored. For instance, she proposed that managers should engage workers in determining better ways to perform tasks. Follet contribution advocated for job specialization and modernization of tools used by workers in the production process. She stressed that physical characteristics of work place affected workers performance and hence their productivity. Other theories according to management history include; Theory Y and Theory X, management science theory, organization environment theory and contingency theory. To start with, theory X assumes that all employees are lazy and hates to work. The theory continues to indicate that the role of managers is to counteract the workers behavior. In this regard, the theory suggests that to influence workers behavior both middle level managers and supervisors should control their behaviors either through punishment or rewards. On the other hand, management science theory focuses on the use of quantitative techniques to help managers use the company resources efficiently to produce maximum goods and services. Nonetheless, of all the developments achieved in history of management, the remarkable milestone suggested ways in which the organization could interact with the entire environment. The environment provides resources such as skilled people, raw materials, market for goods and services as well as financial services. Crainer (2003) argues that the breadth of management history enables managers to gain an understanding of human behavior while operating under different influences and constraints. This is true as workers carry out their duties under varied environments, and as such, the managers and management students are able to gain more insights on their varied behaviors. This theory acknowledges that management does not consist of a set of principles that are only applied in isolation. Another remarkable theory developed by Tom Burns and G.M Stalker is the Contingency theory. This theory postulates that there is no any single best way to organize both organization control systems and structures. On this front, the theory advocates that managers should allow the departmental heads to control and organize their activities in ways that permit them to obtain resources regardless of the constraints faced. According to Cummings & Bridgman (2011), understanding the history of management allows students to learn from past mistakes, establish links with ancient great minds or more importantly links up with collective memory that provides a benchmark to evaluate the degree of changes in management. Further, understanding management history also enables students and current managers to develop modern management practices. Smith (2007) argues that critical thinking on management history makes management students think more creatively. According to Cummings & Bridgman (2011), management history seeks to uncover the truth about various events and follows by presenting them in such a way to indicate the current trends. Giannantonio & Hurley (2011) categorically states that management history plays a significant role in the determination of the current status of management. In addition, the author breaks from the usual reasoning that advocates for legitimating what is historically known and rather pushes for a rethinking of the historical assumptions that could free the thoughts from what is silently thought. After a critical review of the modern business world, it is evident that management history tends to support management theories and principles that define the organization’s management. This is by showing the real state in which such theories and principles can be tested. Evidently, critical review of management history has also proven to supplement business teachings and research especially in the perspective of methodology and theoretical explanation. Wren (1987) argues that students and modern managers are not interested in management historical information, but rather what is relevant in the modern business world. Further, the author states that many managers and management students have little interest in studying management history. The author continues to claim that the classical content in many management history texts is invaluable in the contemporary world. Modern managers and student of management are concerned with the art of management and not mere history. These arguments were echoed by Cummings & Bridgman (2011) who claims that modern managers’ embraces change and thus are unencumbered by history. The current management curricular could even be better if it desists from teaching history from the background point of view, but also in such a way that links to the history with the current business practice. In this regard, the classical fabric of management will sound more relevant, and students will embrace the history of management positively. Nonetheless, a neglect of management historical awareness will deny business students and modern managers’ facts concerning evolution of management discipline. In conclusion, it is evident that management history not only provides a base of identifying the modern state of business thinking, but also provides a framework for integrating and securing new organizational information. In addition, it enables managers, researchers and management students to ask how? Why? What? Questions thereby linking the theory process of inquiry with the practice. Also noted is that the information gained from management historical research helps in the construction of an elaborate framework that allows presentation of research data in a more understandable, acceptable and valid manner. Moreover, management history has also indicated that re-assessment of the past is truly necessary for proper understanding of the future. References Bedeian, A.G. 2004. The Gift of Professional Maturity, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1): 92-98. Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2011. The Relevant Past: Why the History of Management Should Be Critical for Our Future, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (1):77-93. Crainer, C. 2003. One hundred years of management, Business Strategy Review, 14(2): 41-49. Giannantonio, C.M. & Hurley-Hanson, A.E. 2011. Frederick Winslow Taylor: Reflections on the Relevance of The Principles of Scientific Management 100 years later, Journal of Business and Management, 17(1): 7-10. Smith, G.E. 2007. Management History and Historical Context: Potential Benefits of Its Inclusion in the Management Curriculum, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (4):522-533. Waddell, D., Jones, G.R., & George, J.M. 2011. Contemporary Management, 2nd edn, Sydney : McGraw-Hill. Wren, D.A. 1987. Management History: Issues and Ideas for Teaching and Research, Journal of Management, 13(2): 339-350. Read More