The Various Evolutionary Stages of Management - Essay Example

Introduction The term Management has come of ages and the evolution of management is discussed in this essay. The main focus of the essay is to compare the various evolutionary stages of management like Bureaucracy and Scientific Management proposed by rational systems theorists like Fayol, Weber and Taylor. The essay compares and contrasts their works based on the following factors: Formalizing organizational structures. Establishing a division of labor and hierarchy of authority. Differentiating the authority of line versus staff. Achieving optimal spans of control. Finally the essay concludes by stating the circumstances under which organizations do or do not engage in one or more of these practices, and about their effects on organizations or employees. The Changes that has been made to these management practices are discussed. The Application of these earlier practices in the current scenario is elucidated to a certain extent. Formalizing organizational structures According to Weber, Bureaucracies are governed by a set of impersonal rules and procedures that are applied universally, without regard to the personal characteristics of particular individuals, and rationally designed to serve some broader purpose. - (Handel, pp 6) For Weber, the use of expert specialists, impersonal norms, written document, and the discipline of a command hierarchy give bureaucratic organizations a reliability, regularity, and precision in the execution of tasks that no other form of authority equals. In a bureaucracy, each member repeatedly executes a particular function according to pre specified standards in the service of a larger collective goal. - (Handel, pp 7) Fayol contributed to the technical understanding of organizational structure in several ways. He recommended that no subordinate receive orders from more than one superior, as this will lead to confusion, disorder, and ill will when the directives of different supervisors conflict. Fayol made the first strong arguments for the use of organization charts to clarify lines of authority and communication and to demarcate areas of responsibility. - (Handel, pp 12) Taylor recognized an important fact about all organizations: If one works alone, the problem of work discipline is only one of self-discipline; but in a cooperative or collective work process, there is a problem of control or how to ensure that other people will do what you want them to do, sometimes known as the principal-agency problem. Taylor was determined to eliminate restriction of output and break all worker resistance to management control of work methods and pace. Taylor saw his mission as recapturing knowledge and control of the production process from the workers for management by using the scientific method. He interviewed and observed workers, conducted controlled experiments to determine the most efficient techniques and maximum output levels, and devised detailed work rules and wage incentives to enforce those methods and production targets. In order to gather the necessary information, Taylor had workers perform their jobs using different methods, and he observed and timed their every movement in detail, a procedure known as time and motion study. In this fashion, Taylor determined what he thought was the one best way a job should be performed. Until this time, engineers had standardized only physical inputs; now they would standardize the human inputs. Workers would work in rigid conformity to the prescribed method and would be expected to meet the output quotas that were determined to be feasible under this system. To use a contemporary phrase, Taylor believed that people worked "smarter not harder" when they used the best methods devised by scientific management. - (Handel, pp 14) Establishing a division of labor and hierarchy of authority Weber's Bureaucracies employ technically qualified, full-time experts assigned to unique areas of responsibility in a logical division of labor. There is a hierarchy of superiors and subordinates, and access to positions is based on knowledge and seniority. Subordinates obey superiors at work because they occupy an office with specific, defined, and limited rights, not because of any personal characteristics the office holder possesses. The office holder's personal property is clearly distinguished from that belonging to the organization, rather than intermingled with it, and there is extensive use of written documents and systematic record keeping. - (Handel, pp 6) According to Fayol, a division of labor and specialization of function allows administrators to develop specialized knowledge and proficiency in their tasks. A Chain of authority ensures coordination, discipline, and constancy of purpose. Top management provides a unified sense of direction for the organization, but circumstances will dictate the degree to which discretion and decision-making must be centralized in the hands of superiors or decentralized to subordinates. - (Handel, pp 11) The division of labor also dictated that all planning functions previously performed by craft or other workers be transferred to growing industrial engineering departments in the managerial bureaucracy, because Taylor believed workers lacked the time, expertise, and motivation required to conduct work experiments. Workers lost all discretion and now simply followed management's orders, and all planning was to come from above. If the organization were compared to a human body, management would be the brains and workers the hands. This philosophy continued to dominate U.S. manufacturing until the early 1980s, when managers began to rethink the idea that "workers should check their brains at the door." - (Handel, pp 15) Braverman views Taylorism as a management device to wrest power from workers rather than merely as a neutral technique for enhancing efficiency. The philosophy of subdividing work into narrow tasks and rigidly separating planning from execution eliminates the need for scarce craft skills while turning meaningful work into alienating labor. Inequality also grows when managers substitute cheaper workers for better-paid skilled labor. The purpose of scientific management, in Braverman's view, is to lower labor costs, increase worker effort, limit workers' autonomy, and enhance management control. Braverman argues that the division of labor as currently practiced is not a technical requirement, but really an artificial means of denying workers a wider knowledge of the production process and guaranteeing a role for capitalists as integrators of those narrow jobs that they have consciously created by dividing unified craft work into small, unskilled pieces. Braverman and others subscribing to de-skilling theory view Taylor's influence or capitalist management as pervasive and negative, not simply in the early twentieth century factory but also in modern manufacturing, clerical, service, and professional work, in which there is a constant tendency to simplify tasks and replace skilled workers with less skilled workers. - (Handel, pp 16) Differentiating the authority of line versus staff Weber suggests that bureaucratic authority is based on position in the hierarchy of command, but other times he suggests it is based on expert knowledge; indeed, Weber considered them closely related so that those making most decisions had highly developed expertise. Weber did not clearly distinguish managers, who give directions, from professionals, who apply technical knowledge. In the modern corporation, this difference is reflected in the difference between "line" and "staff" departments. Weber failed to explain this distinction and the conflicts between them. - (Handel, pp 9) Fayol introduced the distinction between line and staff into the study of organizations, recommending that staff perform the long-term research that operating management does not have time to conduct. - (Handel, pp 9) Achieving optimal spans of control Weber did not clearly distinguish managers, who give directions, from professionals, who apply technical knowledge. The confusion of direction and control prevailed. - (Handel, pp 9) Fayol observed that the number of subordinates one could supervise effectively, known as span of control, depends on the complexity of the subordinates' work. His recommendation that managers supervise no more than six subordinates, whereas foremen can supervise 15-30, is still influential today. - (Handel, pp 12) Conclusion: "Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management were instrumental in engineering precision and standardization into people's jobs. Henry Fayol defined the universal function that all managers performed and the principles that constitute good management practice. Max Weber developed a theory of authority structures and described organization activity based on authority relations. These principles of management are revised by Hawthorne studies and the works of Maslow and Douglas McGregor, who focused on the people side of organization. The focus then shifted to Motivation and leadership theories offered by David McClelland, Fred Fiedler, Frederick Herzberg, and other behavioral scientists during the 1960's and 1970's provided managers with more broader insight into employee behavior." - Stephen P. Robbins, 2002, PHI, 10th Edition, Organizational Behavior. Pg 604. Almost all contemporary management and organizational behavior concept are contingency based that is, they provide various recommendations depending on situational factors. Currently, research is emphasized on the refinement of the existing theories. Reference: Michael J. Handel, editor, The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary, and Critical Readings. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2003. Stephen P. Robbins, 2002, PHI, 10th Edition, Organizational Behavior. Pg 604. APPENDIX Appendix 1: Comparison of Weber's ideal bureaucracy and Fayol's management principles Principle Weber's Bureaucracy Fayol's Principles Job Specialization Jobs are broken down into simple, routine, and well defined tasks. Specialization increases output by making employees more efficient. Authority Hierarchy Offices or positions are organized in a hierarchy, each lower one being controlled and supervised by a higher one. Scalar Chains represents the line of authority and responsibility. Communication must be proper at all levels of the chain. Formal Selection All organizational members are to be selected on the basis of technical qualifications demonstrated by training, education, or formal examination. Not much documents are to be maintained. Formal Rules And Regulations To ensure uniformity and to regulate the actions of employees, managers must depend heavily on formal organization rules. Employees must obey and respect the rules that govern the organization and this develops good discipline. Impersonality Rules and controls are applied uniformly, avoiding involvement with personalities and personal preferences of employees. The interest of any one or group of employees should not take precedence over organizational interests. Career Orientation Managers are professional officials. They work for fixed salaries and pursue their career within the organization. Managers should be kind and fair to the employees and handle employee turnover efficiently. All must be paid fair wages. Principle Weber's Bureaucracy Fayol's Principles Unity of Command - Every Employee should receive orders from only one superior. Unity of Direction - Each group of organizational activities that have the same objective must be directed by one manager using one plan. Centralization - This refers to the extent to which the subordinates are involved in decision making. Initiative - Employees who are allowed to originate and carry out plans will exert high levels of effort. Espirit de Corps - Promoting team spirit will build harmony and unity within the organization. Source: Primary (Handel, pp 5 - 12). From the above table, it is clear that Fayol's work is an extension of Weber's Ideal Bureaucracy. Fayol has solved some of the limitations and criticisms of Weber's Ideal Bureaucracy. Read More