Historical Foundations of Management - Literature review Example

Name: Student No. Course Code: Assessment No. 4 Assessment Question: Historical Foundations of management Class Time: Tutor’s Name: Historical Foundations of Management Background Although the relevance of classical approaches in management may be overlooked in the highly dynamic and changed contemporary contexts, they remain the cornerstone of organizational control especially in human resource management. Literature reveals that complex and changing management challenges and opportunities underlie the contemporary organization, which puts the modern commercial and public institutions under inevitable pressure precipitating from the emerging global business environment (Schermerhorn, 2011). However, it is imperative that management knowledge extracted from classical principles remain the irreplaceable guide to current and future institutional management practices. As evinced by the early 1900s Mary Parker Follett (Melé, 2007) advocacy for more cooperation and enhanced horizontal relationships at workplace, and the need for continual respect for experience and honed skills of labor, historical concepts are the cornerstone of contemporary management. The 20th success by Henry Ford and others in realizing their mass production goals, which set the ground for mainstay modern economy, has continually chronicled the significance of classical management principles. Brady (1987) provides that the classical management approaches anchored the foundation for establishment of universal principles for sustainable managerial contexts. An exploration of the discourse of classical management concepts in relation to contemporary styles will be instrumental in detailing the utility of the historical approaches in the context of relevance in the current and future management styles. Understanding the historical management approaches is elucidated through critique of the scientific, bureaucratic, and administrative classical concepts that are reviewed under the lens of contemporary organizational management. Classical Management Approaches The classical approaches to management are elucidated trough a framework that segments it into three main branches: the scientific, administrative, and administrative concepts (Schermerhorn, 2011). The commonality with the three broad principles is that the prominent people behind them concurred in ideologies that demonstrated that people at work act rationality that is greatly a function of economic concerns. Scientific Concepts The concept of scientific management was conceived from the 1911 Fredric W. Taylor famous thinking that the management on its basics should pursue optimal prosperity for the employer and the employee (Oh, 1972). The Taylor ideology extracted from the conception that in the haphazard manner in which employees performed their chores without control and uniformity of specifications, both organizations and the labor’s prosperity was curtailed. Like in the contemporary contexts, lack of clarity and uniformity in job performance deprive the organization and its resources of performance. Taylor in this context conceived the existence of a problem that could be corrected through a mechanism that provided coaching and provided supervisory support in ways that enhanced employee performance (Schermerhorn, 2011). Taylor created an historical management precedence that remains relevant for exploitation in improving contemporary management styles. The scientific management (SM) concept (Parker & Ritson, 2011) provides four conceptual directions that have tremendously shaped the management world. In particular, the SM concept requires a management regime to facilitate a job scheme that provides for rules of motion, standardized work processes and enabling work environment. The concept birthed the requirement for the management to create attraction, selection, and recruitment processes that pool a labor repository endowed with talents and right abilities for the job. Taylor’s classical approach formed the bedrock for organizational management resilience anchored on training and development as is practiced in the contemporary management styles. Additionally, the SM approach advanced the industrial practice of supporting workers through carefully planned mechanisms that help them improve efficiency and performance. Essentially, the approach proposed scientific techniques that are ubiquitously deployed in contemporary management regimes across the globe. SM approach received an empowering impetus from Frank and Lillian Gilbreth that enhanced the utility of the motion studies as management tools. The improvement on the SM theory through motion studies included setting ground for continual improvement in advancement of core components of productivity supporting strategies: job simplification, motivational tools, and work standardization processes. The historical tenets enshrined in the classical management approach remain significant to the contemporary practices. Although Taylor’s SM approach can be evinced through many organizations, Schermerhorn (2011) acknowledges the conceptual advantage to the contemporary management styles through unparalleled customization by many U.S. firms to realize huge efficiency gains. Important to note though is that despite the unparalleled influence of Taylor’s classical concept of management, employees are increasingly faulting it for favoring optimization of labor for the biased advantage of the employers. People feel that the approach was created to reduce labor intensity for job performance to the profiteering advantage of industrialists. Administrative Approach The administrative approaches represent the branch of classical management that capitalizes on experience of successful managers to standardize optimization practices. The historical concept is founded on five canons deemed the determinants of a management’s duties. Although the literal interpretation of the administrative approaches may differ in the contemporary sense, they put forth requirements for prior planning before implementation of a strategy, prior mobilization of resources in readiness to roll out a strategy, and to employ able leadership supported by objective workforce acquisition and retention (Parker & Ritson, 2011). Underscoring the administrative concept are the components of coordination and control in the management. The administrative principles are synonymous with management icons: Henri Fayol and Mary Parker Follett. The classical rationale that transcended history into the contemporary management realm is that management should be taught. The ideology of training for improved management was underpinned by the ultimate aspect of quality improvement. The administrative principle as envisioned in Fayoism urged the managerial foresight practice that was conceived as an essential component for guiding proper planning for prospective strategic plans. The concept envisaged the organization element as a managerial practice, which was construed cultivate the ability to mobilize resources in support for planned implementation of organizational schemes. Another critical synergy bolstered by the classical management tenet was the command capability, which was considered vital for the management to ensure able leadership, acquisition of labor, and continual evaluation of core business aspects in order to optimize labor and other capital resources. According to Schermerhorn (2011), Henri Fayol’s rules of management birthed the conventional practices or coordination and control that characterize contemporary management. In advancing the rule or coordination, the theorist considered the complexity that characterizes an organization, and proposed the need for deployment of requisite tools to ensure uninterruptible information flow across all functions. Ultimately, the control facet of the classical approach extracted from the need for central power point that provides guidance to the implementation of planned causes as stipulated in the plan while remedying timely corrections. Important to note are the historical principles fronted by Fayol: scalar chain, standard command, and the uniformity of direction (Parker & Ritson, 2011). This conceptual rule argued for efficacy in communication across all organization’s departments: from top to bottom. As aforementioned, the administrative concept as envisaged by Fayol considered the centrality of command at work place and the departmentalized leadership as an important simplifier of managerial chores. In advancing the administrative classical rationale, Mary Parker Follett identified the dimension of team work and the underlying dynamics essential for successful management. In the early 20th century documentations, Follett displayed unparalleled advocacy for team work and human cooperation for successful management. Follett’s ideology has increasingly been customized and improved by modern firms and remain greatly relevant in the contemporary management contexts. Follett advanced the ideology that in a working situation where individual employees can combine their differentiated talents, the resulting organizational performance can be underpinned through cooperation efforts. According to Melé (2007), Follett’s conception of organizations as social amalgams in which managers and employees should labor in harmony with absolute equity in recognition of needs and respect has been the bases for more human-resource management oriented practice as witnessed in the contemporary management style. This aspect of administrative principles fronted the need for democratic practices that allow freedom of expression and speech, and provide room for reconciliatory conflict resolution tenets. Essentially, Follett’s was a historical precedence via which the managerial culture of managers helping their subordinates cooperate with each other in order to achieve common good transited into the contemporary workplace. The testimony of the transition of historical administrative techniques into the contemporary management styles is evinced by the emerging jargon deployed by human resource management professionals. For example, managers have adopted terms such as employee ownership, gain sharing and profit sharing to reflect the reality at the organization today, which extracts from the need to recognize all stakeholders within an organization and communicate their role in the wellness of the company. A case example can be inferred from the employee empowerment strategy that delivered growth at Sinclair Knight Merz, that has employed classical management approaches since its inception to be crowned a globally revered engineering leader. This premise vindicates Follett’s (Selber & Austin, 1997) classical management approaches that though indirectly advanced the doctrine of management ethics in which profits resulting from a business must be considered for common good and not individualized. Classical management approaches as envisioned via Follett’s historical ideologies set the platform for the contemporary practices operating within the new environment and workplace conditions. According to Stewart (2006), the understanding of an organization as a complex and dynamic entity that is shaped by diverse social relations that stem from reciprocal reactions was the genesis of recognition of the true nature of an organization. The historical management concepts have been instrumental to the contemporary management styles, which is ratified by principles such as corporate responsibility, participation and empowerment. Additionally, the leveraging of principles of dynamic leadership, experiential job evaluation and support, and the doctrine of reconciliatory conflict resolution as employed in the contemporary management styles establishes from classical administrative management principles. Bureaucratic Organization The bureaucratic organization (BO) classical management approach was advanced by max Weber in the late 19th century (Parker & Ritson, 2011) and the impact of the Germany intellectual’s ideologies remain vibrant in the contemporary management and sociology realms. The BO approach was largely cultivated by the utter underperformance of companies over the better period of the 19th century. Based on a Germany context, the concept welled from the philosopher’s belief that people occupied managerial positions in big organizations not because of their merits but because they hailed from privileged backgrounds, which reflected in the failures by companies to reach their optimal performance. Weber identified a bureaucratic organizational model as the best cure for the anomaly that would cause foundational tenets guided by logic, order and legitimate authority (Schermerhorn, 2011). The bureaucratic organization model established from the need for clear division of labor where employees would profess to particular field and hone their skills for improved performance. The concept recognized the inevitable need for clear hierarchy of authority where responsibility would be charged on clearly defined position. Additionally, the bureaucratic approach advanced the cause for clearly documented rules and procedures that guided the conduct of people at work place and the decision making process that involved proper storage of requisite data. Important to recognize about the classical approach of bureaucratic approach of management is the impersonality character that disqualified favoritism at the work place. Weber also fronted the ideology of merit based careers in which selections for particular positions and promotions followed merit-based process. Essentially, Weber’s belief that organizations required bureaucracy to perform has held to the current private and public institutional management styles. Part B: Personal Reflection Although the three classical management approaches address historical practices that remain relevant in the contemporary management styles, the administrative principles appear more appealing for a would-be manager like me. I would concur with Fayol’s administrative rules that advocate for proper initial planning of an organizational strategy and mobilization of enough resources before actual implementation. I choose this approach because planning as has been evinced through historical management facts, underpins success or failure of an organization. In the increasingly competitive global business environment, the administrative approach offers viable avenues in talent acquisition and retention (Peterson, 2007). The rules in this context that require proper people leadership and job evaluation cannot be overemphasized on their importance in management. Control is inevitably the foundation of discipline and respect in a people management perspective, and requires coordination skills and experience to drive high performance human resource management style. As captured in Fottell’s approaches (Melé, 2007), the need for conciliatory techniques that cultivate mutual benefit for all within an organization cannot be overemphasized for success or a contemporary management style. I would adopt the group management concept to establish manageable and performing teams under my management, which would not only help optimize the talents within but also create an enabling environment for the growth of the company and development of human resource. References Brady, F.N. (1987). Rules for making exceptions to rules. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 436-444. Melé, D. (2007). Ethics in management: Exploring the contribution of Mary Parker Follett. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(4), 405-424. Selber, K., & Austin, D.M. (1997). Mary Parker Follett. Administration in Social Work, 21(1), 1- 15. Oh, T.K. (1972). Human motivation in management theory: History and trends. Industrial Management, 1-5. Parker, L.D., & Ritson, P. (2011). Accounting’s latent classism: Revisiting classical management origins. Abacus, 47(2), 234-265. Peterson, D.W. (2007). The bread and butter of classical organizational approaches: The time- and-motion study. Communication Teacher, 21(1), 21-25. Schermerhorn, J.R. (2011). Introduction to management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Stewart, M. (2006). The management myth. The Atlantic Monthly, 80-87. Read More