Essays on Trends in Management Organization and Strategy Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper 'Trends in Management Organization and Strategy' is a great example of a Management Case Study. The exploration and study of organization management were initiated in the late 19th century and has progressed through several steps and stages. Scholars and other practitioners working in different management fields and in different eras have continuously worked hard focusing on what they believed to be important good management practices. It is evident that evolution of today’ s management thinking dates back into the 19th century and developed in the 20th century (McClelland, 1961). The foundation of today’ s organization developed during mid 19th century with regard to the rise of factory system particularly in the textile industry where automation and mass production was essential for productivity.

The 20th century witnessed tremendous management revolution from the classical theory to the Japanese management approach. This paper seeks to discuss major trends in approaches to organization and management since the beginning of the 20th century. The Classical School During the early 20th century calls for the development of comprehensive management practices were eminent. The classical school of management discovered this need and worked to come up with theories and models that could improve effective management in organizations.

Not only did they focus on developing a comprehensive management theory, but they also sought to improve tools that managers need in dealing with organizational challenges. Owing to this, the classical school developed bureaucratic management, administrative management, and scientific management theories. These theories will be discussed independently. Bureaucratic Management This management style is based on Max Weber's view that early organizations were inefficiently managed whereby management decisions were based on personal relationships and loyalty. He believed in the institutionalization of power and authority within the organization (Herbert, 1957).

Given these facts, he came up with a bureaucratic model of management that was based on normative rules and the right of those promoted to authority to issue commands (legal authority). The bureaucracy model is characterized by a well-defined hierarchy, division of labor and specialization, rules and regulations, the impersonal relationship between managers and employees, competence, and records. In addition, Weber believed that manager’ s authority in relation to the organization should not be based on tradition or charisma but on the position held by managers in the organizational hierarchy (Herbert, 1957). This model was adopted across the world by many organizations.

However, the system is criticized for its inflexibility, unresponsiveness, and lack of effectiveness. Regardless of this, it is important to note that Weber’ s ideas formed the basis of modern organization management theory. Scientific management During the late 19th century, management decisions were arbitrary and employees worked at an extremely slow rate. The scientific management model was improvised to change the mindsets of workers. Basically, this model can be defined as the systematic study of work methods in order to improve efficiency (Fredrick, 1967).

This approach emphasizes empirical research for developing an elaborate and comprehensive management solution. Scientific management principles should be applied by managers in specific ways. The contributors to the scientific management theory are Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry Gantt. The principles of scientific management entail; applying scientific procedures to work in order to establish the best methods of accomplishing a given task. Secondly, employees should be scientifically selected based on their qualifications and trained for them to perform in an optimal manner.

Thirdly, there should be genuine cooperation between the management and the employees with regard to mutual self-interest. Finally, the model suggests that the management must or should take complete responsibility for planning the work while employees are supposed and should implement the management’ s plans (Fredrick, 1967).


Chester B, 1964. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 165.

Douglas M., 1960. The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Frederick W.T., 1967. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,

Henri F., 1919. General and Industrial Management, Constance Storrs (trans.). London: Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1, pp. 19-42.

Herbert A. S., 1957. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, pp. 44.

Herzberg, F. Mausner, B and Snydrman, B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. (Herzberg, et al, 1959)

Likert, R. 1967. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, p. 46.

Ouchi, W. G. 1984. The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand Company,

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us