How Organisational Management Theory and Practice Have Changed since the Last Century - Essay Example

How Organisational Management Theory and Practice Have Changed Since the Beginning of the 20th Century Introduction This essay is about changes in the theory and practice of management that have occurred since the beginning of the 20th century up to now. The essay examines different ways in which the theory and practice of organisational management have progressed over the course of time. In comparing the practice and theory of management between the early 20th century and the current times, reference is made to various theories of organisational management that have been developed at different periods. Also, reference is made to how specific aspects of organisational management have changed and how this has affected the theory and practice of organisational management. In this essay, it is argued that organisational management thought and practice has progressed through several distinct theories: classical, human relations, systems and contingency. Therefore, progress in the theory and practice of management is seen concerning changes in the following aspects of organisational management: how organisations manage their human resources, the structures that organisations use, the manner in which organisations interact with their stakeholders and how organisations use innovation to create value. Changes in Human Resource Management Practices Third, the theory and practice of organisational management have progressed from the beginning of the 20th century to the current times concerning changes in the way organisations manage their human resources. At the beginning of the 20th century, the practice of organisational management was based on the scientific management theory. Under this theory, which was developed and popularised by Taylor, employees were treated in a manner that is quite different from what is happening today. This was seen in the application of the several principles of the scientific theory of management as developed by Taylor. First, it was necessary to ensure that employees match specific tasks at the place of work. The essence of this approach was to match the specific skills of employees with narrowly and clearly defined tasks to maximise the performance of the employees (Burke 2010, p. 31). Second, employees, under application of the scientific theory of management, it was necessary to constantly train workers as a way of helping them to achieve the highest levels of performance (Nanda 2006, p. 100). Hence, the management of employees, or workers as they were commonly referred to at the time, was based on clearly defining roles for individuals, selecting the most suitable individuals and training the individuals to ensure that they perform at their best. There was a radical shift in the level of importance of human resources in organisational management practice in the 1920s. During this period, there was the rise in what came to be referred as the human relations movement in the theory and practice of organisational management. Several things defined the human relations movements in management thought and practice. In the first place, the human relations movement sought to humanise organisations. The emphasis of the movement, as indicated in the works of Elton Mayo and others, was to ensure that the human needs of the employees take the centre-stage in the manner in which organisations are managed (Nanda 2006, p. 100). To this end, the proponents of human relations movement emphasised on the need to ensure that organisations are people-oriented or focused on addressing the needs of the employees first. More so, the human relations approach to management emphasised the need for organisations to focus on addressing the emotional needs of employees because the performance of the employees was based on their emotional health as well as interaction with their colleagues (Kreitner 2008, p. 42). Although current managerial practice still emphasises the need for organisations to take care of the needs of their employees, the theoretical basis of doing so is slightly different from that established under the human relations movement. It is important to note that the theoretical developments of the human relations movement had some weaknesses that later theorists sought to correct. The need to address some of the weaknesses in the earlier theory led to the development of new forms of human relations movement, referred to as Neo-Human Relations Movement (Huczynski 2006, p. 47). At the heart of this new form of human relations movement in organisational management was Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. Under this theory, it is argued that the needs of people are organised in a hierarchical manner and that humans seek to satisfy their basic needs first before progressing to the others (McKenna 2000, p. 12). The application of this theory, and other similar ones, to organisational management, has so far led to changes in the way organisations seek to motivate and reward their employees. Furthermore, organisations are nowadays concerned with the need to have highly engaged employees. Employee engagement, work-life balance and employee participation in decision making are regarded as some of the most important aspects that any organisation should have in the current times. Therefore, it can be seen that over the course of time, the extent to which organisations recognise the needs of their employees and attempt to address them has been increasing. Since the development of the human relations movement in the theory and practice of management, organisations have been increasingly recognising that the performance of their employees largely depends on how well the organisations treat the employees. Hence, the human resource function of organisation has been growing in importance over the course of time as organisations have been seeking to use their human resources to make strategic decisions and develop competitive advantages. Changes in Organisational Structure The second area in which we progress in the theory of organisational management and practice has occurred is organisational administration. Traditionally, one of the main functions of management is to plan and control all the operations of organisations (Starling 2010, p. 18). As such, the managerial function of organisations is organised in such a manner that information and responsibility flow within different levels of the organisation. To achieve this objective, organisations use different types of structures. Over the course of time, there has been a fundamental change in the manner in which organisations are structured. At the beginning of the 20th century when the classical school of management was in place, organisations were managed using highly bureaucratic and hierarchical structures (Andersson & Zbirenko 2014, p. 8). At the beginning of the 20th century, organisations were structured as large bureaucracies. Thus, the separation of responsibilities among managers at different levels of the organisation was based on the theory of organisational bureaucracy. At the heart of the theory of organisational bureaucracy is the need to organise the managerial function of organisations on clear-cut rules and responsibilities. Under this approach, every manager is assigned specific duties based on specialisation and expertise. More so, bureaucracy within organisations was and is still associated with clear hierarchical structures (Cole 2004, p. 25). At the helm of the company are senior managers, followed by middle-level managers and junior managers. Hence, authority and leadership flow from the top of the organisation towards the ordinary employees. The ordinary employees are required to implement the decisions of the senior management. One of the most important things about the bureaucratic organisational structure that was commonly used during the beginning of the 20th century is that it was the best approach to use for the new forms of organisations that were emerging at the time. Crowther and Green (2004, p. 19) notes that at the beginning of the 20th century, large organisations were emerging and that there was a need to develop highly effective approaches to managing the organisations. Thus, the hierarchical organisational structure was regarded as the best method of managing such organisations. There has been a drastic change in organisational structure over the course of time (Rishipal 2014, p. 59). Many organisations have abandoned the hierarchical structure for a more dynamic and responsive flat structure (Rishipal 2014, p. 59). A flat organisational structure entails using few managers to manage a large number of employees (Andersson & Zbirenko 2014, p. 7). Furthermore, contrary to a hierarchical structure in which authority is highly centralised, flat organisational structure entails highly decentralised authority (Tripathi & Reddy 2008, p. 118). Therefore, managers, under a flat organisational structure, tend to have a wide span of control and are personally responsible for their decisions. Several organisations use flat structures today. For example, Facebook, the social media giant, uses a flat organisational structure. The senior management team of the company is made up of few individuals who are responsible for the various aspects of the organisation including products, operations, technology and marketing (Facebook Inc 2016). This form of organisational structure underscores the need for organisations in the current times to organise jobs based on broad functions, enhance communication and overall levels of employee motivation. Changes in Organisational Purpose and Design Third, organisational management theory and practice have changed regarding how organisations are designed, their purposes and place in the society. Essentially, it can be seen that there has been a progressive change from the classical theories of management to what are considered today as the postmodern views of organisational management. Therefore, whereas at the beginning of the 20th century, organisations were managed using the classical paradigms of organisational management, currently, organisations are managed using the postmodernism paradigm of management. To understand the significance of this change, it is necessary to consider the theoretical foundations of the postmodernist paradigm of organisational management. At the heart of postmodernism are several philosophical assumptions. For example, postmodernism rests on the observation that there is no single and absolute way of interpreting phenomena (Esmaeeli & Afshani 2014, p. 267). In other words, the philosophy of postmodernism proposes relativism as opposed to the view that there are absolute truths in the world. Second, postmodernism philosophy holds that human progress is based on scientific development and material progress as opposed to a reference to a divine purpose (Rasche 2007, p. 134). Emphasis on material and scientific progress at the expense of divine purpose is an important aspect of postmodernism since it defines how individuals and organisations within the society define their goals and purpose of existence. Therefore, it is based on these characteristics; emphasis on material progress and pluralistic interpretation of phenomena; that the philosophy of postmodernism is based. Further, these characterise influence how the philosophy of postmodernism is applied to the theory of management to develop the theory of the postmodern organisation. The application of the philosophy of postmodernism to management has given rise to the postmodern view of the organisation. The postmodern organisation is different from the classical organisations that were defined by classical theories of management at the beginning of the 20th century in several ways. For example, there is a fundamental difference in the overall goals that organisations focus on now as it was back in the 20th century. During the age of classical management, the focus of the organisation was simple: to generate profits. Hence, the profit motive superseded everything else that that happened within organisations. However, currently, organisations are concerned with several goals at the same time. The concept of the triple bottom line, which means that organisations seek to achieve financial, social and environmental objectives as part of their primary focus, underscores how organisations have changed from what they were back in the 20th century to the current times. As a result of this process, postmodern organisations seek to not only to make financial profits but also to meet the needs of their stakeholders in the society and the environment. Another example in which the postmodern organisation differs from the organisations of the earlier times is in the manner in which the employees are supposed to participate in the key activities of the organisation. It has been noted that in the current times, employees are required to play leading roles in defining the goals and overall mission of their organisations in constant to what the situation was (Peltonen 2016, p. 186). It appears that organisations have evolved in such a manner that the process of defining organisational missions and goals is no longer a preserve of members of the senior management team but rather a duty in which all employees are required to participate actively. The increasing role of employees in defining the mission and objectives of organisations in a postmodern organisation should be seen within the context of increased employee engagement. In the current times, it appears that organisations are interested in ensuring that employees are active participants in the decision-making process. The last important example of the manner in which postmodern organisations are different from the organisations of the past is in the role and form of organisations. It has been noted that one of the defining characteristics of postmodern organisations is their level of structural flexibility (Barry 2000, p. 39). Postmodern organisations, unlike their earlier counterparts, are not built on rigid functional structures. Rather, the organisations are flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment fast. Therefore, in the current times, organisations are modelled on the existing needs of the environment in which they exist, use flexible structures and focus on creating a highly collaborative work environment. Conclusion From the discussion, it is clear that organisational management theory and practice has progressed from what it was like at the beginning of the 20th century to what it is today. Different theories of organisational management have been developed over the course of time. Inherent weaknesses in the theories and approaches have made it necessary for new theories and approaches to be developed. Progress in organisational theory and practice has occurred in the form of changes in the way organisations manage their human resources, a shift from the hierarchical to flat organisational structures and the use of postmodernism perspectives in managing organisations. References Andersson, J & Zbirenko, A 2014, Effect of organisational structure, leadership and communication on efficiency and productivity – a qualitative study of a public healthcare organisation (Bachelor thesis, Umea School of Business and Economics), viewed 10th December 2016, . Barry, J 2000, Organisation and management: a critical text, Cengage, Boston. Burke, WW 2010, Organisation change: theory and practice, Sage, London. Cole, GA 2004, Management theory and practice, Cengage, Mason. Crowther, D & Green, M 2004, Organisational theory, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, London. Esmaeeli, MR & Afshani, M 2014, ‘Postmodern leadership in organisation,’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 266-272. Facebook Inc. 2016, Corporate governance, viewed 10th December 2016, via https://investor.fb.com/corporate-governance/default.aspx Huczynski, A 2006, Management gurus, Routledge, London. Kreitner, R 2008, Principles of management, Cengage, Mason. McKenna, EF 2000, Business psychology and organisational behaviour: a student’s handbook, Psychology Press, London. Nanda, JK 2006, Management thought, Sarup & Sons, New Delhi. Peltonen, T 2016, Organisation theory: critical and philosophical engagements, Emerald, London. Rasche, A 2007, The paradoxical foundation of strategic management, Springer, Heidelberg. Rishipal, 2014, ‘Analytical comparison of flat and vertical organizational structures,’ European Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 36, pp. 56-65. Starling, G 2010, Managing the public sector, Cengage, Boston. Tripathi, PC & Reddy, PN 2008, Principles of management, Tata-McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Read More