Scientific Principles and Management - Coursework Example

SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND MANAGEMENT By Student’s Name Course + Code Class Institution Date Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Theoretical Approaches 4 2.1 Scientific Management Approach, Applications and shortcomings 4 2.2 Chaos and Complexity Theory 5 3.0 Toward a New Managerial Science (Why the Application of Scientific Approach Principles May Led to Organizational Failure) 7 4.0 Conclusion 9 5.0 References 10 1.0 Introduction Managers understand products are being transformed by new technologies, business processes, and markets, resulting in revolutionising entire industries, and business environment (Freeman, 2017). However, as new technologies continue to emerge as a competition factor, so does the emphasis on education classes for executive, managerial books, seminars for corporate training, motivation for employees, and change management increases. This simply means that the more there is reshaping of business essence by science and technology, the less the concept of management itself as a science appears to be useful (Freeman, 2017). To management, the conventional scientific approach assured managers with the capability to examine, predict, and influence the behaviour of their firms. Nonetheless, the current managers often seem to be uncontrollable, unpredictable and uncertain (Uddin and Hossain, 2015). The management challenges sit less in the scientific approach shortcomings than in the understanding of science by managers. However, the modern firm will perform much better if they adopt and develop the progressive aspects of scientific approach by avoiding its outdated principles. What the majority of business managers refer to as scientific management is found on a scientific hypothesis that very few modern scientists will agree with (Uddin and Hossain, 2015). Additionally, as much as the current business leaders have become engrossed with the instability of business world, so does the scientists also have been engrossed with natural environmental instability with the dynamics of unstable and unpredictable systems in the world. In recent past, for instance, Compaq Computer was the best choice for everybody and better positioned to battle it out with a well-established, IBM. Though that occurred before clone-makers of mail-order like Northgate and Dell made their rival (Freeman, 2017). Compaq is now a sluggish giant despite its recent formation, and it is faced with a challenge of reestablishing itself in a highly competitive business environment (Freeman, 2017). The conventional principles of scientific management approach are useless in the face of the current volatile and dynamic world of business. Also, to the practical concerns of managers, science seems to be less relevant. Unlike the traditional scientists who focused on control, analysis and prediction, the modern science put emphasis on the chaos and complexity (Freeman, 2017). Currently, the scientists are preoccupied with the development of an authoritative account of the means to effectively cope with rapid change and uncertainty (Freeman, 2017). In this preoccupation lies an opportunity for beneficial discussion between the world of science and the world of management. The organisational behaviours that many firms are struggling to encourage have fascinating parallels with the modern complex behaviour described by scientific research (Freeman, 2017). To the managers, science has been viewed as a technological innovation source. However, science can also provide the business with new ways of perceiving the world. 2.0 Theoretical Approaches 2.1 Scientific Management Approach, Applications and shortcomings Taylorism also known as Scientific Management, is a theory for management that studies work flows to increase economic performance, with most of its focus on the production of labour (Freeman, 2017). The theory was developed by Winslow Taylor, and it was mostly prevalent in the 1880s and 1890s, especially in the manufacturing industries (Uddin and Hossain, 2015). Significant factors of this theory include logic, analysis, efficiency, waste elimination, work ethics, and rationality (Freeman, 2017). All the mentioned factors do not focus on variations among employees or behavioural qualities but worker’s efficiency. The principles of Taylor initiated a management and organisational revolution (Freeman, 2017). The principles of the theory contributed extensively to the increase of living standards and productivity. Nonetheless, managers have learnt a lesson through the past 20 years’ experiences, that such scientific ideas in a business environment, are a recipe for failure (Uddin and Hossain, 2015). In fast-paced markets, the planning separation from execution, the division of work, and workers’ isolation creates an inflexible firm that does not quickly adapt to changes (Freeman, 2017). As a consequence, managers need to reconsider basic elements of the scientific system developed by Taylor. Some modern managerial ideas such as the self-managed work groups the networked organisation and cross-functional teams are either indirect or direct reactions to the insufficiencies of Taylor’s original model (Uddin and Hossain, 2015). The important beliefs of a new paradigm in managerial are far not clear despite the creation of specific techniques. Current developments in science may be of help at this present crossroads (Freeman, 2017). Several scientists began comprehending the disadvantages of scientific models of the nineteenth-century on which that system was based upon, while Taylor was organising his organisational model. During the publication of Taylor’s book, there was some new development in physics such as quantum mechanics and the relativity theory by Einstein’s (Freeman, 2017). The developments proposed that at the extremes of time and space there was a breakdown of the laws of Newtonian physics. Currently, the scientists have spread that information of unpredictability and uncertainty to the everywhere in the world. 2.2 Chaos and Complexity Theory Based on Newton’s laws of motion the nineteenth-century physics suggested a neat correspondence between effect and cause (Cardoso, 2014). Scientists believed that they could calculate the exact behaviour of any physical machine far into the future and decrease even the most complex behaviours to the collaboration of simple rules (Freeman, 2017). Taylors organisations analysis was profoundly shaped by the conviction that human being must work (Cardoso, 2014). Some scientists have come to a conclusion in the past few decades, that Taylors assumptions and much more science’s traditional assumptions that are primarily wrong about how nature operates. A part from being easily predictable nature operates randomly like throwing a dice. Chaos theory is the term used in explaining the new model of how things work. To the chaos theory, there is the best-selling book known as Chaos written by James Gleick (Freeman, 2017). Chaos theory was a study of meteorological scientist MIT Edward Lorenz as stated by Gleick the chief catalyst for chaos theory. Lorenz established a computer program that imitates the weather system. Lorenz’s program shook out the consequent weather models by pushing in numbers that represent the initial state of temperatures and winds as it developed with time (Freeman, 2017). Like any other scientists, Lorenz ignored the impact of small changes that he had placed in the computer which entirely affected the evolution of the whole system. Surprisingly, Lorenzo realised that even the minute changes caused slight changes in the weather pattern (Freeman, 2017). A slight breeze in Idaho or slight drop in temperature in Massachusetts could alter the weather in Florida into a hurricane a month later on. In order to create self-managed and highly organised behaviour, the complex adaptive systems in nature must contain people that network (Freeman, 2017). Also, they must give feedback to the surrounding environment and adjust their behaviours appropriately (Cardoso, 2014). The individual agents should also embed that learning in the very structure of the system and learn from experience. And be able to gain from specialisation without being stuck in rigidity (Cardoso, 2014). In order to adapt to uncertainties and frequent chaos in the business environment the managers in the organisations must struggle and create the new kind of organisation with similar characteristics to that of Lorenz. It is difficult to simulate economic behaviour. However, the programmers can only do modelling of individual agents’ simple behaviour and then leave the rest to the self-organization (Freeman, 2017). Determining which behaviour will be simulated to reflect the reality accurately is not clear. Currently, the researchers at Santa Fe have not yet come up with an assuring version of a computer covering the whole economy (Cardoso, 2014). However, the researchers have managed to develop simulations the reflect economic activity’s limited aspect. Among the simulations that have been created, there has been an exhibition of realistic behaviours. 3.0 Toward a New Managerial Science (Why the Application of Scientific Approach Principles May Led to Organizational Failure) The perspective of the current managerial literature has been shaped largely by complexity scientists and Chaos theorists (Freeman, 2017). Taylor’s major focus was on the waste and inefficiency whereas the argument put forward by chaos and complexity is that many individuals have a sense of being lost in their organisation (Shin and Jeong, 2015). Managers, for instance, are overwhelmed with much-conflicting demands, rapid changes, and too much information. According to chaos and complexity, most people cannot say the greater purpose of the firm they working for when asked about what they do for a living. The majority of the individual will answer based on their everyday task (Shin and Jeong, 2015). Most of the people perceive themselves as being trapped within a system they cannot influence. Actual these individuals just work on the assigned tasks while copping with uncontrolled forces. According to chaos theorist, the inability of the system to adapt to complex changes has been brought by the traditional scientific management approaches (Freeman, 2017). At the centre of all nineteenth-century science and Taylor’s system is reductionism. Reductionism encourages the division of complex tasks into small tasks that can be managed easily. However, this fragmentation has its prices at a later stage (Shin and Jeong, 2015). Some of the consequences that result in huge business losses are that, by focusing on fragmented tasks, individuals lose a natural sense of connection to the whole task (Shin and Jeong, 2015). Therefore, individuals fail to focus on the mission and vision of the business. Looking on the management side in the present world, the managers can be viewed as existing in a similar position as the natural scientists during pre-chaos. (Freeman, 2017) Most of them believe that they know fully the relationship between effect and cause in their companies. However, the links existing between results and actions are infinite and more complicated that what the majority of the business leaders can comprehend. As (Senge, n.d.) explains, this is what is called the core learning dilemma in many modern companies. Explained further, this means that as much as people learn from experience, they do not experience directly the effects of their important resolutions (Freeman, 2017). Therefore, the current managers are imprisoned by the same model they are supposed to control. When it comes to changing and influencing the system to achieve the set organisational goal most of them are have no idea. This is caused by the fact that they do not understand clearly the organisation’s fundamental dynamics or how to control them. The notion of taking a manager as a well-informed organisational, scientific planner is not correct. Hence, it is an illusion to have an idea that the management at the top is in control of every business aspect. One of the mistakes Taylor’s scientific approach did is to assume that organisations operated in the same way as the machines did (Freeman, 2017). An option is to stop perceive a firm as a machine and begin perceiving it as some biological being. To achieve this, it requires an approach that is holistic and which imitates the chaos theory’s emphasis on the general system behaviour (Senge, n.d.). It should be understood that there is integrity in the living. The biological organisms’ character relies on the whole and not a fragment (Freeman, 2017). The same should be applied to organisations. Because for the managers to solve most management challenges they should view the whole system generating the problem. It is the systematic spontaneous quality of the procedures which generates out of control feeling that is experienced by the managers (Senge, n.d.). Since the managers are not aware of the systematic prototypes, they only view the part of the problem and not the whole problem (Freeman, 2017). In the modern organisations, it is a duty of a manager and everyone in the organisation to appreciate and change the systematic processes that generate problems (Freeman, 2017). The managers will influence real changes when they can understand and identify the dynamics of these prototypes. 4.0 Conclusion Every manager understands products are being transformed by new technologies, business processes, and markets, resulting in revolutionising entire industries, and business environment. Scientific management is a theory for management that studies workflows to increase economic performance, with most of its focus on the production of labour. The principles of the theory contributed extensively to the increase of living standards and productivity. Nonetheless, managers have learnt a lesson through the past 20 years’ experiences, that such scientific ideas in a business environment, are a recipe for failure, especially in a high-paced modern business environment. Unlike the traditional scientists who focused on control, analysis and prediction, the modern science put emphasis on the chaos and complexity. The chaos and complexity argue that the scientific approach is wrong in fragmenting organisational tasks. According to the theory, an organisation should be treated as a whole and not a fragment. By doing so, the managers will be able to find solutions to managerial challenges. As seen in this article, it is true that modern organisations that avoid Taylor’s principle will perform well. 5.0 References Cardoso, D. (2014). Taylor's Scientific Management Principles in Current Organisational Management Practices. 1st ed. [ebook] Hanken: Hanken School of Economics, pp.3-15. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/9553271/Taylors_Scientific_Management_Principles_in_Current_Organizational_Management_Practices [Accessed 27 Mar. 2017]. Freeman, D. (2017). Is Management Still a Science?. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1992/11/is-management-still-a-science [Accessed 27 Mar. 2017]. Senge, P. (n.d.). Systems Thinking, Systems Tools and Chaos Theory. [online] Managementhelp.org. Available at: http://managementhelp.org/systems/ [Accessed 27 Mar. 2017]. Shin, S. and Jeong, I. (2015). Strategic Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: A Complexity Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), pp.10381-10381. Shin, S. and Jeong, I. (2015). Strategic Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: A Complexity Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), pp.10381-10381. Uddin, N. and Hossain, F. (2015). Evolution of Modern Management through Taylorism: An Adjustment of Scientific Management Comprising Behavioral Science. Procedia Computer Science, 62, pp.578-584. Read More