The paper "Management Theories Comparison" is a great example of management coursework. Organisational management efficiency is a critical success tool. As Mullins and Christy (2013, p. 67) noted, the success or failure of any organizational venture is pegged on the type and nature of management structures applied. Therefore, the concept of management has evolved over the years, influenced by both internal and external environmental factors. An illustration of management concept changes is illustrated by the emergence of different management theories at different periods of time over the years. This essay offers a review of the contributions of one of the crucial management theorists Chester Bernard, who developed the Natural systems theory and the Inducement-contributions theory.
The theorist contributions are compared and contrasted with other management theorists namely Elton Mayo and Mary Parker Follet who developed the Hawthorne studies and organisational theory respectively. Chester Bernard Theory Background Chester Bernard was an American public manager and business executive who lived between 1886-1961 (Scott, 1992, p. 107). Over this period, he had encountered a number of organisations emerging and declining over his leadership years. Essentially, he sought to establish the cause and reasons as to why organizations were not perpetual and often lasted for less than a century.
One of the fundamental influences for the management theory formulation was Chester’ s experience in managing the American public and private sector organisations. In this case, as executive management, he realised that lack of a systems approach, coordination and links between the executive management and the low-level employees was a key challenge (Gitlow, 2004, p. 17). Thus, as an individual, this motivated Chester to develop a theory that could help the executives overcome the challenge in the future. A second influencing factor for the theory development was the rising cases of globalisation.
In this period, as Jaffe (2006, p. 57) noted, the American corporations were venturing to the global market to emerge as multinational corporations. In this case, as American and global western MNCs emerged, there was the need to develop proper and operational systems. The operational systems were meant to ensure that the different global branches and organisational outlets functioned as a single system in the long-run period. Therefore, the need to develop and establish a global functioning system for multinational corporations.
A third influencing factor for the theory development was the rising global market competition. In this regard, as globalisation spread, the American corporations were facing increased competition from other foreign organisations. As such, there was the imperative need for the organisations to develop a sustainable model through which their operational effectiveness and efficiency would be facilitated (Nohria, Khurana and Anand, 2010, p. 27). Therefore, in order to create a sustainable organisational model, Chester developed the natural systems theory. In this case, the theorist developed a definition for organisational effectiveness and efficiency, by noting that while as effectiveness was meeting organisational goals, efficiency was delivering on the employee needs and emotions to increase motivation.
Through the theory development, organizations were expected to harmonise their operations. As such, through crating functional and coordinated systems, the theorists expected to enable organisations to increase their efficiency in the wake of expected increased market competition. Thus, the above analysis evidence that besides the external market management factors, the development of Chester’ s natural systems theory was also a product of his personal professional encounters.
Barnard, C. I. 1968, The functions of the executive (Vol. 11). Harvard university press, New York..
Cole, G. A. 2004, Management theory and practice, Thomson Learning, London.
Crowther, D., & Green, M. 2004, Organisational theory, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Follett, M. P. 2013, Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett, Martino Publishing, Mansfield Centre, CT
Gautam, V., & Batra, S. K. 2007, Organisation development systems: A study in organisation behaviour and organisation management, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi
Gitlow, A. L. 2004, Being the boss: The importance of leadership and power, Beard Books, Washington, DC
Graham, P., Kanter, R. M., & Drucker, P. F. 2003, Mary Parker Follett. Washington: Beard Books.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. 2012, Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, Oxford.
Hefner, R. L., & Seifert, E. H. 1980, Studies in administrative theory. American Press Boston, Mass:.
Jaffe, E. D. 2006, Globalization and development, Chelsea House, Philadelphia
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. 2008, Management. Barron's Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY
Mullins, L. J., Christy, G., & Pearson. 2013, Management & organisational behaviour, Pearson, Harlow.
Nohria, N., Khurana, R., & Anand, B. 2010, Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Mass
Schuler, J. 2008, Organizational theory: Just the facts, LuLu Enterprises, Morrisville, NC
Scott, W. G. 1992, Chester I. Barnard and the guardians of the managerial state, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Sheldrake, J. 2003, Management theory. Thomson, Australia
Thompson, J. D. 2011, Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory (Vol. 1). Transaction publishers.
Tonn, J. C. 2003, Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Trahair, R. C., & Trahair, R. C.2005, Elton Mayo: The humanist temper, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ:
Witzel, M., & Warner, M. 2013, The Oxford handbook of management theorists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.