The Evolution of Management Thought and the Patterns of Management Analysis Flashcard

essay A+

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Management in all business and organizational activities is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal.

Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources. Because organizations can be viewed as systems, management can also be defined as human action, including design, to facilitate the production of useful outcomes from a system. This view opens the opportunity to ‘manage’ oneself, a pre-requisite to attempting to manage others. Despite the inexactness and relative crudity of management theory and science, the development thought on management dates back to the days when people first attempted to accomplish goals by working together in groups.

Although modern operational management theory dates primarily from the early twentieth century, there was serious thinking and theorizing about managing many years before. Let us first focus on the evolution of management thought, major contributors are noted. Characteristics of Management Management is a managerial process: Management is a process and not merely a body of individuals. Those who perform this process are called managers. The managers exercise leadership by assuming authority and direct others to act within the organisation.

Management process involves planning, organising, directing and unifying human efforts for the accomplishment of given tasks. Management is a social process- Management takes place through people. The importance of human factor in management cannot be ignored. A manager’s job is to get the things done with the support and cooperation of subordinates. It is this human element which gives management its special character. Management is action-based: Management is always for achieving certain objectives in terms of sales, profit, etc. It is a result-oriented concept and not merely an abstract philosophy.

It gives importance to concrete performance through suitable actions. It is an action based activity. Management involves achieving results through the efforts of others: Management is the art of getting the things done through others. Managers are expected to guide and motivate subordinates and get the expected performance from them. Management acts as an activating factor. Management is a group activity: Management is not an isolated individual activity but it is a collective activity or an activity of a group. It aims at using group efforts for achieving objectives.

Managers manage the groups and coordinate the activities of groups functioning in an organisation. Management is intangible: Management is not directly visible but its presence is noticed in the form of concrete results. Management is intangible. It is like invisible spirit, which guides and motivates people working in a business unit. Management is like government, which functions but is not visible in physical form. Management is aided, not replaced by computers: The computer is an extremely powerful tool of management. It helps a manager to widen his vision.

The computer supplies ocean of information for important decision-making. The computer has unbelievable data processing and feedback facilities. This has enabled the manager to conduct quick analysis towards making correct decisions. A computer supports manager in his managerial work. However, it cannot replace managers in business. They were required in the past, at present and also in future. Their existence is absolutely essential in the management process. Management is all pervasive: Management is comprehensive and covers all departments, activities and employees.

Managers operate at different levels but their functions are identical. This indicates that management is a universal and all pervasive process. Management is an art, science as well as a profession: Management is an art because certain skills, essential for good management, are unique to individuals. Management is a science because it has an organised body of knowledge. Management is also a profession because it is based on advanced and cultivated knowledge. Management aims at coordination of activities: Coordination is the essence of management.

It gives one clear direction to the whole organisation and brings unity and harmony in the whole business unit. For such coordination, effective communication at all levels is essential. Management is innovative: Management techniques are dynamic and innovative. They need to be adjusted as per the requirements of the situations. Another manager need not repeat the decisions of one manager. Similarly, a manager has to change his decisions under different situations. Management has different operational levels: Every Organisation needs managers for managing business activities.

The manager’s job is basically the same at all levels. The managers at the higher levels have more important duties while managers at the lower levels have to perform routine functions i. e duties. Management is different from ownership: Management is concerned with the management of business activities. Managers are not the owners but they manage the business on behalf of the owners. Separation of ownership and management is a special feature of modem business organisation. Management has vast scope: The scope of management is quite comprehensive. It covers all aspects of business.

The principles of management guide managers while managing various business activities. Management is dynamic: Business is influenced by changes in economic, social, political technological and human resource. Management adjusts itself to the changing atmosphere making suitable forecasts and changes in the policies. Hence, management is treated as a dynamic activity. Management aims at achieving predetermined objectives: Management is a meaningful activity. All organisations are essentially groups of individuals formed for achieving common objectives. An Organisation exists for the attainment of specific objectives. Need of Management

Direction, coordination and control of group efforts: In business, many persons work together. They need proper direction and guidance for raising their efficiency. In the absence of guidance, people will work as per their desire and the, orderly working of enterprise will not be possible. Management is needed for planning business activities, for guiding employees in the right direction and finally for coordinating their efforts for achieving best/most favorable results. Orderly achievement of business objectives: Efficient management is needed in order to achieve the objectives of business activity in an orderly and quick manner.

Performance of basic managerial functions: Planning, Organising, Co-ordinating and Controlling are the basic functions of management. Management is needed as these functions are performed through the management process. Effective communication at all levels: Management is needed for effective communication within and outside the Organisation. Motivation of employees: Management is needed for motivating employees and also for coordinating their efforts so as to achieve business objectives quickly.

Success and stability of business enterprise: Efficient management is needed for success, stability and prosperity of a business enterprise. Modem business is highly competitive and needs efficient and capable management for survival and growth. Management is needed as it occupies a unique position in the smooth functioning of a business unit. This suggests the need of efficient management of business enterprises. Profitable/successful business may not he possible without efficient management. In this sense, “No management, no business” is true.

Survival of a business unit in the present competitive world is possible only through efficient and competent management Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He is regarded as the father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants. Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era.

Taylor was a mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was one of the first management consultants and director of a famous firm. In Peter Drucker’s description, Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. On Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do.

Taylor, though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of the science of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since – even though he has been dead all of sixty years. Taylor was also an accomplished tennis player. He and Clarence Clark won the first doubles tournament in the 1881 U. S. National Championships, the precursor of the U. S. Open. Future U. S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his argument for the Eastern Rate Case before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910.

Brandeis debated that railroads, when governed according to the principles of Taylor, did not need to raise rates to increase wages. Taylor used Brandeis’s term in the title of his monograph The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911. The Eastern Rate Case propelled Taylor’s ideas to the forefront of the management agenda. Taylor wrote to Brandeis “I have rarely seen a new movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one. ” Taylor’s approach is also often referred to as Taylor’s Principles, or frequently disparagingly, as Taylorism.

Taylor’s scientific management consisted of four principles: * Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. * Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. * Provide “Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker’s discrete task” (Montgomery 1997: 250). * Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.

Management theory Taylor thought that by analyzing work, the “One Best Way” to do it would be found. He is most remembered for developing the time and motion study. He would break a job into its component parts and measure each to the hundredth of a minute. One of his most famous studies involved shovels. He noticed that workers used the same shovel for all materials. He determined that the most effective load was 21? lb, and found or designed shovels that for each material would scoop up that amount. He was generally unsuccessful in getting his concepts applied and was dismissed from Bethlehem Steel.

Nevertheless, Taylor was able to convince workers who used shovels and whose compensation was tied to how much they produced to adopt his advice about the optimum way to shovel by breaking the movements down into their component elements and recommending better ways to perform these movements. It was largely through the efforts of his disciples (most notably H. L. Gantt) that industry came to implement his ideas. Moreover, the book he wrote after parting company with Bethlehem Steel, Shop Management, sold well. Scientific Management [pic] Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), lead developer of scientific management.

Scientific management, also called Taylorism, was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas.

Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.

The core ideas of scientific management were developed by Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s, and were first published in his monographs Shop Management (1903) and The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). While working as a lathe operator and foreman at Midvale Steel, Taylor noticed the natural differences in productivity between workers, which were driven by various causes, including differences in talent, intelligence, or motivations.

He was one of the first people to try to apply science to this application, that is, understanding why and how these differences existed and how best practices could be analyzed and synthesized, then propagated to the other workers via standardization of process steps. He believed that decisions based upon tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful study of an individual at work, including via time and motion studies, which would tend to discover or synthesize the “one best way” to do any given task.

The goal and promise was both an increase in productivity and reduction of effort. Scientific management’s application was contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent, detail-oriented management from mere misguided micromanagement also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers, and social tensions between the blue-collar and white-collar classes.

The terms “scientific management” and “Taylorism” are near synonyms. Taylor is considered the father of scientific management. While the terms “scientific management” and “Taylorism” are often treated as synonymous, an alternative view considers Taylorism as the first form of scientific management, which was followed by new iterations; thus in today’s management theory, Taylorism is sometimes called (or considered a subset of) the classical perspective (meaning a perspective that’s still respected for its seminal influence although it is no longer state-of-the-art).

Taylor’s own early names for his approach included “shop management” and “process management”. When Louis Brandeis popularized the term “scientific management” in 1910, Taylor recognized it as another good name for the concept, and he used it himself in his 1911 monograph. The field comprised the work of Taylor; his disciples (such as Henry Gantt); other engineers and managers (such as Benjamin S. Graham); and other theorists, such as Max Weber. It is compared and contrasted with other efforts, including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank Gilbreth, Sr. nd Lillian Moller Gilbreth (whose views originally shared much with Taylor’s but later evolved divergently in response to Taylorism’s inadequate handling of human relations). Taylorism proper, in its strict sense, became obsolete by the 1930s, and by the 1960s the term “scientific management” had fallen out of favor for describing current management theories. However, many aspects of scientific management have never stopped being part of later management efforts called by other names.

There is no simple dividing line demarcating the time when management as a modern profession (blending art, academic science, and applied science) diverged from Taylorism proper. It was a gradual process that began as soon as Taylor published (as evidenced by, for example, Hartness’s motivation to publish his Human Factor, or the Gilbreths’ work), and each subsequent decade brought further evolution. Henri Fayol: The father of Modern Operational Management Theory Henri Fayol (Istanbul, 29 July 1841–Paris, 19 November 1925) was a French mining engineer and director of mines who developed a general theory of business administration.

He and his colleagues developed this theory independently of scientific management but roughly contemporaneously. He was one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management. Fayol’s work was one of the first comprehensive statements of a general theory of management. He proposed that there were six primary functions of management and 14 principles of management. Functions of management • forecasting • planning • organizing • commanding • coordinating • monitoring (French: controler: in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments).

Principles of Management • Division of work. This principle is the same as Adam Smith’s ‘division of labour’. Specialisation increases output by making employees more efficient. • Authority. Managers must be able to give orders. Authority gives them this right. Note that responsibility arises wherever authority is exercised. • Discipline. Employees must obey and respect the rules that govern the organisation. Good discipline is the result of effective leadership, a clear understanding between management and workers regarding the organisation’s rules, and the judicious use of penalties for infractions of the rules. Unity of command. Every employee should receive orders from only one superior. • Unity of direction. Each group of organisational activities that have the same objective should be directed by one manager using one plan. • Subordination of individual interests to the general interest. The interests of any one employee or group of employees should not take precedence over the interests of the organisation as a whole. • Remuneration. Workers must be paid a fair wage for their services. • Centralisation. Centralisation refers to the degree to which subordinates are involved in decision making.

Whether decision making is centralised (to management) or decentralised (to subordinates) is a question of proper proportion. The task is to find the optimum degree of centralisation for each situation. • Scalar chain. The line of authority from top management to the lowest ranks represents the scalar chain. Communications should follow this chain. However, if following the chain creates delays, cross-communications can be allowed if agreed to by all parties and superiors are kept informed. • Order. People and materials should be in the right place at the right time. Equity. Managers should be kind and fair to their subordinates. • Stability of tenure of personnel. High employee turnover is inefficient. Management should provide orderly personnel planning and ensure that replacements are available to fill vacancies. • Initiative. Employees who are allowed to originate and carry out plans will exert high levels of effort. • Esprit de corps. Promoting team spirit will build harmony and unity within the organisation. • Fayol’s work has stood the test of time and has been shown to be relevant and appropriate to contemporary management.

Many of today’s management texts including Daft have reduced the six functions to four: (1) planning; (2) organizing; (3) leading; and (4) controlling. Daft’s text is organized around Fayol’s four functions. Fayol has been described as the father of modern operational management theory (George, p. 146). Although his ideas have become a universal part of the modern management concepts, some writers continue to associate him with Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor’s scientific management deals with the efficient organisation of production in the context of a competitive enterprise that has to control its production costs.

That was only one of the many areas that Fayol addressed. Perhaps the connection with Taylor is more one of time, than of perspective. According to Claude George (1968), a primary difference between Fayol and Taylor was that Taylor viewed management processes from the bottom up, while Fayol viewed it from the top down. George’s comment may have originated from Fayol himself. In the classic General and Industrial Management Fayol wrote that “Taylor’s approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the “bottom up. He starts with the most elemental units of activity the workers’ action then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy (Fayol, 1987, p. 43). ” He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a “negation of the principle of unity of command” (p. 44). Fayol criticized Taylor’s functional management in this way. the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses” (Fayol, 1949, p. 68. ) Those eight, Taylor said, were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian (p. 68). This, Fayol said, was an unworkable situation, and that Taylor must have somehow reconciled the dichotomy in some way not described in Taylor’s works.

Fayol’s desire for teaching a generalized theory of management stemmed from the belief that each individual of an organization at one point or another takes on duties that involve managerial decisions. Unlike Taylor, however, who believed management activity was the exclusive duty of an organizations dominant class. Fayol’s approach was more in sync with his idea of Authority which stated that the right to give orders should not be considered without the acceptance and understanding of responsibility.

Noted as one of the early fathers of the Human Relations movements, Fayol expressed ideas and theories with practices which differed from Taylor in that they showed flexibility and adaptation as well as stressed the importance of Interpersonal Interaction among employees. Fayol believed that animosity and unease within the workplace occurred among employees in different departments often due to communication in writing; i. e. letters, (or in current times) e-mails. Among scholars of organizational ommunication and psychology, e-mails and letters as a form of communication in work are said to induce or solidify the idea of importance of an individual within the workplace and furthermore give way to selfish thinking which leads to arguments and conflict among employees. Fayol expressed this idea in his book by stating,” in some firms… employees in neighboring departments with numerous points of contact, or even employees within a department, who could quite easily meet, communicate with each other in writing… here is to be observed a certain amount of animosity prevailing between different departments or different employees within a department. The system of written communication usually brings this result. There is a way of putting an end to this deplorable system and that is to forbid all communication in writing which could easily and advantageously be replaced by verbal ones. ” While Fayol’s theories are typically referred to as rigid and inflexible, it is practices and theories such as these which show flexibility in his theories of management.

He developed and used theses ideas in order to diagnose a problem and eventually find solutions which provided methods to work around and fix these situations. This all led to his general idea of controlling employees in order to achieve increased productivity. Fayol also expressed ideas which would later on lead to influence Systems and Contingency theories. The two are said to have emerged as a result of management theorists’ desire to integrate ideas of the human relation theories within management which is what Fayol’s General theory of Management relied upon.

Systems theory, first introduced in 1958 by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and later on published in 1968 attempts to understand organizations by comparing them to living organisms. Systems Theory is broken down into four distinct characteristics which reflect the biological resemblance between living organisms and organizations. First, Wholeness expresses the idea that an organization is a set of individual elements which are interdependent in the sense that the actions of one individual or group will affect the rest of the system or organization.

The second is described as Hierarchy or the division of individuals into subsystems. This can be illustrated by groups within an organization. With regards to organisms, this could be called the organs of the body. Third, the organization may be regarded as, “Open or closed,” in that systems can be characterized by their level of active exchange with the outside environment; successful organizations must be actively open . Lastly, open systems are characterized by two processes; maintenance and adaptation.

Both of these processes act on Feedback to actions taken by the groups in order to maintain stability and adapt to environmental changes. Fayol illustrated all of these ideas in his theories on general management. First, he believed in the division of labor among organizations(subsystems) by relating them to living organisms. He states that, “it is observable in the animal world where the more highly developed the creature the more highly differentiated it’s organs. ” He continues to describe the same scenario replicating that of an individual within a group and of a group within an organization.

This is described in his 14 principles as the principle of Order (see the 14 principles) System Theory relies heavily on interdependence which Fayol also suggests is a vital part of management as he states, “”Man plays a role like that of a cell in the animal. As the development of the organism is effected the grouping together of elemental units the organs appear, they are differentiated and perfected in proportion as the number of combined elements increase. In the social organism, as in the animal, a small number of functional elements accounts for an infinite variety of activities. ‘ Contingency Leadership Theory which was produced around the same time as Systems Theory, roughly states that no one leadership or management style is ideal and that the best leadership is that which reflects the internal and external environment of the organization. This is perhaps the most important concept that Fayol based his ideas around as well as the area where he and Taylor differ the most. “Seldom do we have to apply the same principle twice in identical conditions;allowance must be made for different changing circumstances.

Therefore principles must be flexible and capable of adaptation to every need; it is a matter of knowing how to make use of them which is a difficult art requiring intelligence, experience, decision, and proportion. Hugo Munsterberg: The Father of Industrial Psychology Hugo Munsterberg (June 1, 1863 – December 19, 1916) was a German-American psychologist. He was one of the pioneers in applied psychology, extending his research and theories to Industrial / Organizational (I/O), legal, medical, clinical, educational and business settings.

Munsterberg encountered immense turmoil with the outbreak of the First World War. Torn between his loyalty to America and his homeland, he often defended Germany’s actions, attracting highly contrasting reactions. Hugo Munsterberg was born into a Jewish family in Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland). His father Moritz (1825-1880) was a lumber merchant who came from Breslau in the middle of the 19th century. His mother, Minna Anna Bernhardi (1838-1875), was Moritz’s second wife, and the niece of his first, Rosalie Weinberg (1830-1857).

Moritz had two sons with Rosalie — Otto (1854-1915) and Emil (1855-1915) — and two with Anna — Hugo (1863-1916) and Oscar (1865-1920). The four sons remained close, and all of them became successful in their chosen careers. A neo-Renaissance villa in Detmold, Germany, that Oscar lived in from 1886-1896 has recently been renovated, and opened as a cultural center. Munsterberg’s first years of school were spent at the Gymnasium of Danzig from which he graduated in 1882. He entered the University of Leipzig in 1883 where he met Oliver and Dennis who influenced him to join the psychology laboratory.

He received a Ph. D. in physiological psychology in 1885 and in 1887 received his medical degree at Heidelberg. He also passed an examination that enabled him to lecture as a privatdocent at Freiburg. In the same year he married a distant cousin, Selma Oppler of Strassburg, on August 7. In 1891, he was promoted to assistant professorship and attended the First International Congress of psychology where he met William James. They kept up a correspondence and in 1892 William invited him to Harvard for a three year term as a chair of the psychology lab.

In 1895 he returned to Freiburg due to uncertainties of settling in America. However, in 1897 he returned to Harvard in response to urgent invitation from James and Harvard’s president, Charles William Eliot. Among the organizations he was affiliated with were the American Psychological Association (president 1898), the American Philosophical Association (president 1908), the Washington Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was organizer and vice-president of the International Congress of Arts and

Sciences at the Saint Louis World’s Fair of 1904, vice-president of the International Psychological Congress in Paris in 1900, and vice-president of the International Philosophical Congress at Heidelberg in 1907. In 1910-11 he was appointed exchange professor from Harvard to the University of Berlin. During that year founded the Amerika-Institut in Berlin. [2] During the whole period of his stay in the United States, he worked for the improvement of the relations between the United States and Germany, writing in America for a better understanding of Germany and in Germany for a higher appreciation of America.

The outspoken views of Munsterberg on the issue of the War of 1914 raised storms of controversy about his head. He appeared as probably the most eminent supporter of German policies in America, and as such was most bitterly condemned by the Entente Allies and their friends, while to the pro-Germans he appeared almost an idol. While supporting German policies, Munsterberg denounced many of the activities of the Teutonic hyphenates in the United States. He condemned the forming of an alien party within the United States as “a crime against the spirit of true Americanism,” and said that its results would reach far beyond the time of the war.

He remained at Harvard as professor of experimental psychology and director of the Psychological Laboratory until his sudden death in 1916 while on a lecture platform. Elton Mayo: The Hawthorne Effect George Elton Mayo (26 December 1880 – 7 September 1949) was an Australian psychologist, sociologist and organization theorist. He lectured at the University of Queensland from 1911 to 1923 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, but spent most of his career at Harvard Business School (1926 – 1947), where he was professor of industrial research.

On 18 April 1913 he married Dorothea McConnel in Brisbane, Australia. They had two daughters, Patricia and Gael. Mayo is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement, and is known for his research including the Hawthorne Studies and his book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933). The research he conducted under the Hawthorne Studies of the 1930s showed the importance of groups in affecting the behavior of individuals at work. Mayo’s employees, Roethlisberger and Dickson, conducted the practical experiments. This enabled him to make certain deductions about how managers should behave.

He carried out a number of investigations to look at ways of improving productivity, for example changing lighting conditions in the workplace. What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the work group. Where norms of cooperation and higher output were established because of a feeling of importance, physical conditions or financial incentives had little motivational value. People will form work groups and this can be used by management to benefit the organization. He concluded that people’s work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content.

He suggested a tension between workers’ ‘logic of sentiment’ and managers’ ‘logic of cost and efficiency’ which could lead to conflict within organizations. Disagreement regarding his employees’ procedure while conducting the studies: • The members of the groups whose behavior has been studied were allowed to choose themselves. • Two women have been replaced since they were chatting during their work. They were later identified as members of a leftist movement. • One Italian member was working above average since she had to care for her family alone. Thus she affected the group’s performance in an above average way. Summary of Mayo’s Beliefs: • Individual workers cannot be treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group. • Monetary incentives and good working conditions are less important to the individual than the need to belong to a group. • Informal or unofficial groups formed at work have a strong influence on the behavior of those workers in a group. Managers must be aware of these ‘social needs’ and cater for them to ensure that employees collaborate with the official organization rather than work against it. Mayo’s simple instructions to industrial interviewers set a template and remain influential to this day i. . A. The simple rules of interviewing:- 1. Give your full attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so. 2. Listen – don’t talk. 3. Never argue; never give advice. 4. Listen to: what he wants to say; what he does not want to say; what he can not say without help. 5. As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern that is being set before you. To test, summarize what has been said and present for comment. Always do this with caution – that is, clarify but don’t add or twist. [SOURCE: papers held by Mayo’s grand-daughter. Chester I. Barnard and Social Systems Theory Chester Irving Barnard (1886 – 1961) was an American business executive, public administrator, and the author of pioneering work in management theory and organizational studies. His landmark 1938 book, Functions of the Executive, sets out a theory of organization and of the functions of executives in organizations. The book has been widely assigned in university courses in management theory and organizational sociology. Authority and incentives Barnard formulated two interesting theories: one of authority and the other of incentives.

Both are seen in the context of a communication system grounded in seven essential rules: • The channels of communication should be definite; • Everyone should know of the channels of communication; • Everyone should have access to the formal channels of communication; • Lines of communication should be as short and as direct as possible; • Competence of persons serving as communication centers should be adequate; • The line of communication should not be interrupted when the organization is functioning; • Every communication should be authenticated.

Thus, what makes a communication authoritative rests with the subordinate rather than with his superior. Barnard’s perspective had affinities to that of Mary Parker Follett and was very unusual for his time, and that has remained the case down to the present day. He seemed to argue that managers should obtain authority by treating subordinates with respect and competence. As for incentives, he proposed two ways of convincing subordinates to cooperate: tangible incentives and persuasion. He gives great importance to persuasion, much more than to economic incentives. He described four general and four specific incentives. The specific incentives were: • Money and other material inducements; • Personal non-material opportunities for distinction; • Desirable physical conditions of work; • Ideal benefactions, such as pride of workmanship etc. Managerial Levels The term “Levels of Management’ refers to a line of demarcation between various managerial positions in an organization. The number of levels in management increases when the size of the business and work force increases and vice versa. The level of management determines a chain of command, the amount of authority & status enjoyed by any managerial position.

The levels of management can be classified in three broad categories: 1. Top level / Administrative level 2. Middle level / Executory 3. Low level / Supervisory / Operative / First-line managers Managers at all these levels perform different functions. The role of managers at all the three levels is discussed below: [pic] LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT Top Level of Management It consists of board of directors, chief executive or managing director. The top management is the ultimate source of authority and it manages goals and policies for an enterprise.

It devotes more time on planning and coordinating functions. The role of the top management can be summarized as follows – a. Top management lays down the objectives and broad policies of the enterprise. b. It issues necessary instructions for preparation of department budgets, procedures, schedules etc. c. It prepares strategic plans & policies for the enterprise. d. It appoints the executive for middle level i. e. departmental managers. e. It controls & coordinates the activities of all the departments. f. It is also responsible for maintaining a contact with the outside world. . It provides guidance and direction. h. The top management is also responsible towards the shareholders for the performance of the enterprise. Middle Level of Management The branch managers and departmental managers constitute middle level. They are responsible to the top management for the functioning of their department. They devote more time to organizational and directional functions. In small organization, there is only one layer of middle level of management but in big enterprises, there may be senior and junior middle level management. Their role can be emphasized as – . They execute the plans of the organization in accordance with the policies and directives of the top management. j. They make plans for the sub-units of the organization. k. They participate in employment & training of lower level management. l. They interpret and explain policies from top level management to lower level. m. They are responsible for coordinating the activities within the division or department. n. It also sends important reports and other important data to top level management. o. They evaluate performance of junior managers. p.

They are also responsible for inspiring lower level managers towards better performance. Lower Level of Management Lower level is also known as supervisory / operative level of management. It consists of supervisors, foreman, section officers, superintendent etc. According to R. C. Davis, “Supervisory management refers to those executives whose work has to be largely with personal oversight and direction of operative employees”. In other words, they are concerned with direction and controlling function of management. Their activities include – q. Assigning of jobs and tasks to various workers. . They guide and instruct workers for day to day activities. s. They are responsible for the quality as well as quantity of production. t. They are also entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining good relation in the organization. u. They communicate workers problems, suggestions, and recommendatory appeals etc to the higher level and higher level goals and objectives to the workers. v. They help to solve the grievances of the workers. w. They supervise & guide the sub-ordinates. x. They are responsible for providing training to the workers. y.

They arrange necessary materials, machines, tools etc for getting the things done. z. They prepare periodical reports about the performance of the workers. aa. They ensure discipline in the enterprise. ab. They motivate workers. ac. They are the image builders of the enterprise because they are in direct contact with the workers. Patterns of Management Analysis: Since based on cases and past experiences, it has not contributed anything fundamental to the development of management as a discipline because of contradictions in various management experiences.

The proposition that a successful technique applied in the past will be good for future is untenable. 1) Management is not based on precedents 2) Situations cannot be exactly identical. The various approaches to management analysis are found in management theory. The Managerial Roles Approach: One of the newer approaches to management theory is the managerial role approach, popularized by Professor Henry Mintzberg of McGill University. Essentially his approach is to observe what managers actually do and from such observations come to conclusions as to what managerial activities are.

Although many researchers have studied the actual work of managers- from chief executive to line supervisor- Mintzberg has given this approach higher visibility. Mintzberg came to conclusion that executive do not perform the classical managerial functions- planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling. Instead they engage in a variety of other activities. From his research and research of others who have studied what managers actually do, Mintzberg has come to conclusion that managers really fill a series of ten roles as shown to below: Interpersonal roles: 1.

The figurehead role performing ceremonial and social duties as the organizations representative. 2. The leader role 3. The liaison role(particularly with outside) Informational roles: 1. The recipient role (receiving information about the operation of an enterprise) 2. The disseminator role (passing information to subordinates) 3. The spokesperson role (transmitting information to those outside the organization) Decision roles: 1. The entrepreneurial role 2. The disturbance-handler role 3. The resource allocator role 4. The negotiator role (dealing with various persons and groups of persons) McKinsey’s 7-S Approach:

The McKinsey 7S Framework is a management model developed by well-known business consultants Waterman and Peters (who also developed the MBWA– “Management by Walking Around” motif, and authored “In Search of Excellence”) in the 1980s. This was a strategic vision for groups, to include businesses, business units, and teams. The 7S are given below: 1. Structure: organization structure and authority/responsibility relationships. 2. Strategy: systematic action and allocation of resources to achieve company aims. 3. Systems: Procedure and processes such as information systems, manufacturing processes, budgeting and control proceses. . Skills: Distinctive capabilities of enterprise. 5. Style: The way management behaves and collectively spends its time to achieve organizational goals. 6. Staff: The people in the enterprise and their socialization into the organizational culture. 7. Shared values: The values shared by the members of an organization. The model is most often used as a tool to assess and monitor changes in the internal situation of an organization. The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing.

So, the model can be used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change. Whatever the type of change – restructuring, new processes, organizational merger, new systems, change of leadership, and so on – the model can be used to understand how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact of changes made in one area is taken into consideration. When it comes to asking the right questions, we’ve developed a Mind Tools checklist and a matrix to keep track of how the seven elements align with each other.

Supplement these with your own questions, based on your organization’s specific circumstances and accumulated wisdom. Human Behavior Approach: Human Relation, Leadership or Behavioral Science Approach. It bears the existing and newly developed theories and methods of the relevant social sciences upon the study of human behavior ranging from personality dynamics of individuals to the relations of culture. Features • AS MANAGEMENT IS THE PROCESS OF GETTING THINGS DONE BY PEOPLE, MANAGERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND HUMAN BEHAVIOR. • Emphasis is put on increasing productivity through motivation and good human relations. Motivation, leadership, communication, participative management and group dynamics are the central core of this approach. Uses • IT SUGGESTS HOW THE KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR CAN BE USED IN MAKING PEOPLE MORE EFFECTIVE IN THE ORGANIZATION. AN INDIVIDUAL’S BEHAVIOR IS NOT DETERMINED BY ORGANIZATION FACTORS ALONE BUT ALSO BY HIS ATTITUDE, PRESSURE, CONFLICTS OF CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ETC. HENCE THESE FACTORS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Limitations • MANAGERS CAN BE BETTER PLACED BY UNDERSTANDING HUMAN BEHAVIOR BUT EQUATING MANAGEMENT WITH HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS UNTENABLE. Social System Approach:

The real pioneer of this approach is Vilfredo Pareto, a sociologist and later Chester Barnard. Theme ORGANIZATION IS ESSENTIALLY A CULTURAL SYSTEM COMPOSED OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN COOPERATION. FOR ACHIEVING ORGANIZATION GOALS, A COOPERATIVE SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT CAN BE DEVELOPED ONLY BY UNDERSTANDING THE BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE IN GROUPS. Features • ORGANIZATION IS A SOCIAL SYSTEM, A SYSTEM OF CULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS. • Relationships exist among the external as well as internal environment of the organization. • Cooperation among group members is necessary for the achievement of organization objectives. For effective management, efforts should be made for establishing harmony between goals of the organization and the various groups therein. Uses • IT HAS REAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PRACTICING MANAGER IN THE SENSE THAT MANAGERS OPERATE IN SOCIAL SYSTEM AND THE ORGANIZATION IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED IF THE DEMANDS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH IT OPERATES ARE FULLY RECOGNIZED. Limitations • IT SPREADS THE BOUNDARY AND APPLICATION OF MANAGEMENT BEYOND THE TRUE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE MANY GROUPS WHICH MAY NOT BE TRULY CALLED ORGANIZATION AND HENCE NO QUESTION OF MANAGEMENT. This approach is broader than management and in practice it tends to overlook many management concepts, principles and techniques that are important to management. Socio-Technical Systems Approach: The contributors are Trist,Saddam khan and Bamforth of Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, England and Emery and Rice. Really? Features • THE SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH OF MANAGEMENT VIEWS AN ORGANIZATION AS A COMBINATION OF 2 SYSTEMS – A SOCIAL SYSTEM AND A TECHNICAL SYSTEM. THE REAL PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR IN THE ORGANIZATION IS DETERMINED BY THE INTERACTION OF TWO. Social systems of the organization is governed by social laws as well as by psychological forces. • Technical systems consists of technological forces operating in the organization like physical setting of work, rules, procedures etc. • Due to interaction of social and technical systems, technical aspects of the work are modified by social aspects. Thus organization of an organization situation within the framework of socio-technical system involves scrutinizing of the specific technology used, the way in which patterns are organized, the formal structuring of interpersonal interactions and the informal patterns emerging in the work group.

Uses • WHILE ANALYZING MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS OF GETTING THINGS DONE BY PEOPLE, ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO TECHNOLOGY AS WELL AS INFORMAL INTERACTIONS OF PEOPLE. Decision Theory Approach: Features • MANAGEMENT IS ESSENTIALLY DECISION-MAKING. • Members of the organization are decision-makers and problems solvers. • Organization can be treated as a combination of various decision centers. The level and importance of organization members are determined on the basis of importance of decisions, which they make. • Quality of decision affects the organization effectiveness. All factors affecting decision-making are the subject matter of study of management. Besides processes and techniques in decision making factors affecting decisions are information systems, social and psychological aspects of decision-makers. Uses • IT DEMONSTRATES HOW MANAGERS CAN DISCHARGE THEIR FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY AND FOR THIS APPROACH IT PROVIDES VARIOUS TOOLS. • Decision theorists have grappled with decisions pertaining to diagnosis and the resulting prescriptions for improving communication, incentives, reactions of the individuals to group and analysis of human values write stated objectives.

Limitations • THIS APPROACH DOES NOT TAKE THE TOTAL VIEW OF MANAGEMENT. DECISION-MAKING IS VITAL IN EVERY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT. THIS VITAL ASPECT CANNOT BE DENIED BUT MANAGEMENT IS MORE THAN MERE DECISION-MAKING. Management Science Approach: It is known as Mathematical or Quantitative Measurement Approach. Features • MANAGEMENT IS REGARDED AS THE PROBLEM-SOLVING MECHANISM WITH THE HELP OF MATHEMATICAL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES. • Management problems can be described in terms of mathematical symbols and data. Thus every managerial activity can be quantified. This approach covers decision-making, systems analysis and some aspects of human behavior. Operations research, mathematical tools, simulation, models etc. are the basic methodologies to solve managerial problems. Uses • IT HAS CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY IN DEVELOPING ORDERLY THINKING IN MANAGEMENT WHICH HAS PROVIDED EXACTNESS IN MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE. • Various Mathematical tools like sampling, linear programming, games theory, time series analysis, simulation, waiting line theory etc. have provided more exactness in solving managerial problems. This approach is a fast developing area in analysing and understanding management. Limitations • IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO CALL A SEPARATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE ANSWER FOR TOTAL MANAGERIAL PROBLEMS. • Managerial activities are not really capable of being quantified because of involvement of human beings who are governed by many irrational factors also. • more expertise and technical skills are required to formulate mathematical models Systems Approach: System is defined as “An organized or complex whole; an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex unitary whole.

Features • A SYSTEM IS BASICALLY A COMBINATION OF PARTS, SUBSYSTEMS. EACH PART MAY HAVE VARIOUS SUB-PARTS. • An organization is a system of mutually dependent parts, each of which may include many subsystems. Features of Management as System • MANAGEMENT IS REGARDED AS A SYSTEM AND IT IS TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS, • Management as a Social System • Management as Open System • Adaptive • Dynamic • Probabilistic • Multilevel and Multidimensional • Multivariable • An integral approach • Multidisciplinary. Limitations • IT IS CONSIDERED AS AN ABSTRACT APPROACH AND LACK OF UNIVERSALITY IN IT.

Contingency or Situational Approach: It is the most recent development in the field of management. This attempts to integrate all the management approaches. Features • MANAGEMENT ACTION IS CONTINGENT ON CERTAIN ACTION OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM OR SUBSYSTEM AS THE CASE MAY BE. • Organizational action should be based on the behavior of action outside the system so that organization should be integrated with the environment. • Because of the specific organization – environment relationship, no action can be universal. • It varies from situation to situation. Limitations INADEQUATE LITERATURE. • Complex • Difficult empirical testing • Reactive not Proactive. Operational Approach: Also known as Management Process Approach Features • MANAGEMENT IS THE STUDY OF WHAT MANAGERS DO. IT EMPHASISES ON MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND VARIOUS CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN PERFORMING THESE FUNCTIONS. • Management functions are universal irrespective of the type of organizational or level of management in an organization, though there may be differences on emphasis on a particular function in a particular organization or at particular level. The conceptual framework of management can be constructed on the basis of the analysis of management process and identification of management principles. • The central core of managing revolves around planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling. This central core of management is unique and is not found in other activities. Limitations CRITICISMS OF OPERATIONAL APPROACH ARE AS FOLLOWS. • The basic tenets of operational management that is various managerial functions are not universally accepted. Management functions differ from author to author. • Various terms used in this approach are not commonly shared.

Example, People substitute leading for directing. • It claims universality or management principles while management differs from organization to organization and from level to level. • Operational Approach emphasizes static conditions whereas the organizations have to function in dynamic conditions. Conclusion: Many writers and practitioners have contributed to the development of management thought. Fredrick Taylor’s concern was productivity improvement through the application of the scientific method. Henry Fayol “the father of the modern management theory” formulated fourteen principles of management.

It could be easily understood and said that Management Systems are planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling methods of providing information related to past, present, and projected operations of an organization. These systems support planning, control, and operational functions by furnishing uniform, timely information to assist in the decision making process. The Mintzberg’s managerial roles approach also well known approach to management theory. References: 1. Heinz Weihrich & Harold Koontz: Management A Global Perspective (10th edition). 2. http://books. google. com/books? d=OSAkMZ3SMQ0CHYPERLINK “http://books. google. com/books? id=OSAkMZ3SMQ0C&pg=PA11&lpg”&HYPERLINK “http://books. google. com/books? id=OSAkMZ3SMQ0C&pg=PA11&lpg”pg=PA11HYPERLINK “http://books. google. com/books? id=OSAkMZ3SMQ0C&pg=PA11&lpg”&HYPERLINK “http://books. google. com/books? id=OSAkMZ3SMQ0C&pg=PA11&lpg”lpg 3. http://www. opapers. com/subjects/the-evolution-of-management 4. http://www. sribd. com/doc/4541824/Schools-of-Management-Thought 5. http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/management 6. http://www. enotes. com/management-encyclopedia 7. Approaches of management – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. htm

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member