The Paradox of Studying the Past is That It Illuminates the Present - Assignment Example

The paradox of studying the past is that it illuminates the present, and perhaps also the future- Following this statement discuss how the aspects of management theories from the past can be applied to contemporary management practice. The world views the past as long gone and that it should be forgotten. Most individuals perceive the past as history and something that should not be dwelt on if one needs to make it successfully in the present and probably in the future. They say it is better to leave the past in the past and focus on the present, and that yesterday is gone and tomorrow is another day. However, various studies have shown that the past illuminates the present, and perhaps also the future. This paper will discuss how the aspects of management theories from past can be applied to contemporary management practice. Management is not a new idea as application of early forms of management concepts has taken place throughout history. The understanding of managerial practices today is owed to the theorists of the past who attempted to understand the best way to operated businesses. The management theories of the past include Fredrick Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory (1890-1940), Max Weber’s bureaucratic management theory (1930-1950), Henry Fayol’s administrative management theory and neoclassical management theory (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). These management theories have enlightened the present and probably will continue with the future. Scientific management theory was founded by Fredrick Taylor between 1890-1940. At the inception of this theory many organizations were industrialized and large, and included routine tasks that produced many various products. The management practice was the same from organization to organization. Taylor developed the scientific management theory to advocate for specification and measurement of all tasks in the organization. Scientific management theory focused on movement of tasks efficiently. The theory advocates matching of workers to their tasks based on their capabilities and motivation, and train them how to carry out their tasks at maximum efficiency. The theory asserts that supervision and monitoring of employee’s performance and provision of instructions ensures that the most working ways are used. Workers and managers are to be allocated work in such a way that managers focus on time planning and training, allowing employees to perform their work efficiently. According to Taylor, a well-designed job states that the employee would be motivated to be more productive and efficient. This theory changed the scope and purpose of factory workers (Sonia, Golden, MP & Toombs, 2011). The roles of managers changed from one that bullied employees to complete their tasks to skilled managers who could supervise the production aspect of works in order to increase production efficiently. Standardization of work was done; workers who performed better were rewarded while those who performed poorly were punished. However, this approach only works well for organizations with routinized activities and assembly lines. In addition, workers are not given a chance to freely express their individuality in their tasks. Greater power is given to management and employees are reduced to automatons. Scientific management theory has major contributions to the modern management practice as much as is a theory of the past. Though taylorism is not practiced purely today, scientific management provided advancement of management practice. The theory links productivity and output with financial gain for employees to earn more. It also includes providing a safe work environment that would reduce injuries at work. In contemporary management Taylor’s sentiments are used including total quality management, bonuses, financial incentives and pay-related performance. Employees who work well hard and excellently are promoted while those who work poorly are demoted or fired. The cooperation of workers and managers has been developed in to teamwork in organizations today. Scientific management introduced systematic employee selection and training procedures used in management today; it supported systematic organizational design idea and opened the door to study efficiency at the workplace (Rahman, 2013). The scientific management theory was elaborated by Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory (1930-1950). Weber asserted that bureaucracy is a designed formal system of administration and organization to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. He emphasized on hierarchy, division of labor, impersonal relations and detailed rules. This theory is applied widely in the management practice today. Job specialization has taken route in many organizations where jobs are divided into simple and routine tasks based on functional specialization and competence. Organizations have also embraced authority hierarchy in which lower positions holders are controlled by higher officers (Visitchaichan, 2003). Each department is headed by a manager or supervisor who overseas those under him. Bureaucracy in organization today is also manifested in the selection of employees. The employees are selected based on their technical qualifications and competence demonstration by formal examination, education and training. Organizations also have formal rules and regulations in which mangers depend upon to regulate actions of employees and ensure uniformity. This avoids preferences of employees, favouritsm and nepotism. Bureaucratic theory of management also advocates for career orientation or provision of career building opportunity. Managers today purpose to provide long term employment to individuals and avoid indiscriminate dismissal. Managers work pursue their careers within the organization as they work for a fixed salary (Rahman, 2013). Despite the strong contributions of bureaucratic management theory to modern management practice, it has its limitations. The theory is inconsiderate of the informal relationships between employees in the organizations. On the other hand the workplace has changed in the changing environment, making the authority and control system outdated. One of the key successful management practices is the ability to resolve arising differences and conflicts between functional groups, a means which bureaucratic theory fails to provide (Ogunrotifa, 2003). Administrative management theory focused on organizational efficiency, and attempted to formalized administrative structure, clear division of labour and power and authority delegation to administrators relevant to their tasks. The administrative management theorists were Henri Fayol (1841-1925), James Mooney (1884-1957), and Luther Gulick (1892-1993). The greatest contributor was Henri Fayol, who is regarded as the administrative theory pioneer. The theory asserts that management is part of all aspects of the society and our lives including government, work and home. Tasks could be categorized into either of the five functions including planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. It is believed that if proper management principles are understood and implemented, individuals could become good managers (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Planning is forecasting and or defining what will be needed in the future. Organizing involves gathering manpower and raw materials as necessary resources. Commanding is ensuring that all required activities are done as expected. Coordinating is ensuring that all tasks are done in a synchronized manner and that everyone is working as a team. Controlling is ensuring that all laid down rules and regulations are conformed to. Henri Fayol’s Principles of Management has contributed significantly to the modern management practices. It has helped managers learn how to organize and interact with employees productively. Though these principles are not widely used, they still guide today’s managers. Division of work is widely embraced in many organizations today, where employees are specialized such as marketing, human resource, accounting, among others, thus increasing output and efficiency. Authority and discipline are exercised in organizations though methods of doing so vary from organization to organization. Unity of command ensures that employees report to one supervisor for efficient communication such that those working in marketing department report to the marketing manager and not also to the finance manager (Wren, Bedeian & Breeze, 2002). The administrative management theory however fails to give attention to the needs of employees as it focuses majorly on the management. If applied in management today without the support of other theories like neoclassical theories then it will not enable the management to reach its full potential in this era. This theory also does not consider the importance of informal organizations or groups to productivity of the organization. Some of concepts used were borrowed from military science such as “commanding”. The best word to use would have been “directing” because today’s employees prefer kind concepts and “commanding” sounds rude. Neoclassical theory of management is also the theory of the past that attempted to incorporate the behavioural sciences into thought of management in order to solve the problems cause by the past theories. The basis of this inclusion was the role of management in using workers in the organization to get things done. This theory was concerned with individuals in the organization rather than technology, structures, and production. Its focus was on answering questions related to support, structure, and motivate employees within the organization. Hawthorne studies asserted that it was important for managers to consider social factors such as employee relationships. Failure to consider the social needs of employees could mean expecting lower performance of and resistance from employees. Jobs needed to provide intrinsic value to employees. Neoclassical theory emphasized on the need to structure employees to share tasks, knowledge and information frequently rather than placing them into job roles where they completed tasks without interacting with each other. This would fulfill socialization needs of employees, thus increasing their productivity (Whicker, 1990). The neoclassical theory encompasses two movements that focus on organization’s human side: the human relations movement and the behavioral movement. The human relations movement emerged from social physiologists and sociologists who were concerned with people interacted in the organization related and interacted within a group, while behavioral movement arose from psychologists who concentrated on the employee’s individual behavior. The dehumanizing effects of the preceding theories led to the reaction of government regulations and unions. Individuals and their unique capabilities were given more attention in the organization. It was believed that as workers prosper so will the organization. This saw the addition of Human Resource departments to the organization to help understand the workers’ needs and how they could be aligned to those of the organization (Sarker & Khan, 2013). Based on neoclassical theory organizations today have embraced employee relations policies and practices which regulate the relationships between employees, the organization and work groups within the organization. Employee relations is steered by the organization’s Human Resources Department. Effective communication and participation mechanisms have been devised, and a safe and effective work environment provided for all employees, which entails mitigating potential losses and risks management. Most organizations provide health insurance covers to their employees. Employees are trained on proper use of complex equipment and machinery to reduce accidents and stay safe at work. There are various issues on which conflicts or disputes may arise in an organization between employees and the organization. The Human Resource acts as a mediator and consultant to sort out these disputes in the most effective way. Employees’ grievances are listened to and suitable solutions provided, and timely preventable actions undertaken. Employees today are rewarded annual leave, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave by their employers (Whicker, 1990).. The contribution of management theories of the past to the modern management is inevitable. However, each theory individually cannot be applied to organizations at a later day due to certain assumptions they carry. The applicability of these theories is limited and not universal in the way they approach situations. Time changes and work conditions continue to change while the theories are based primarily on the sector of manufacturing (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). The theories can be congratulated for basic their arguments on human aspect, however they failed to consider all the human behavior aspects. An organization is not static but dynamic, but the theories took a rigid view of the organization. Neoclassical theory has contributed significantly to the understanding of human behavior in organization and at work. The role of human factor in industry has been made aware. New techniques and ideas have been provided for better understanding of human behavior. Today an organization is recognized as a social system subject to the cultural patterns and sentiments of participation, motivation, group dynamics, job environment, leadership and members of the organization, among others, all constituting the neoclassical theory. The view of workers as tools was changed to the belief that they are valuable organization’s resources. However, neoclassical theory ignores the unpredictability of human behavior. It is also difficult to apply it as it requires essential changes in the attitude and thinking of both workers and management (Sarker & Khan, 2013). The management theories of the past made an essential role in the advancement of management practices and theories. The management approaches that have been adopted are importance as they determine the congenial environment and efficiency with which activities of management are performed. In today’s era the economic development and expansion of nation industries are taking place rapidly, and the appreciation goes to the past management theories which developed different production techniques and enabled nations to participate in the global market. Though scientific and bureaucratic management theories are seen as outdated, they are important because they led to the introduction of management concept as a subject that need to be analyzed intellectually and provided a platform through which schools of management thought have been developed. Neoclassical theory emphasized more on symbolic rewards and human variables and serves as a backbone to many theories of management today. It is clear that the management filed has remarkable and applicable theories which are reinforced by practical study evidence. This holds that the future for the management research, study and practice is brighter. Reference List Ogunrotifa, B 2003, ‘Democratic Deficit: The Dark Side of Weberian Bureaucracy in Nigeria’. International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, Vol 3, no. 3, pp 541-550. Rahman, H 2013. ‘Henry Fayol and Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Contribution to Management Thought’. ABC Journal of Advanced Research, Vol 1, No 2, pp 32-41 Sarker, SI & Khan MR, 2013, ‘Classical and neoclassical approaches of management: An overview’. Journal of Business Management, Vol 14, No. 6, pp. 01-05. Sonia, T, Golden, MP & Toombs, LA 2011, ‘Frederick W. Taylor's Scientific Management Principles: Relevance and Validity’. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship , Vol. 16, No. 3  Visitchaichan, S 2003, ‘Revisiting Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy and its Usefulness for Analyzing Organizational Structures and Issues’. Thai Journal of Public Administration, Vol 2, pp 20-34 Whicker, ML 1990, Public Sector Management. Greenwood Publishing Group Wren D, Bedeian, A & Breeze, J (2002). ‘The foundations of Henri Fayol’s administrative theory’. Management Decision. Vol 40, No.9, pp 906-918. Wren, DA & Bedeian, AG 2009, The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th ed. Wiley John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp 211-234 Read More