Development in Management Science - Essay Example

Development in management science Management as a discipline has been around for centuries but was not popular because the only large institutions in ancient times were the Catholic Church and national militaries. Although both small and large institutions require management, large organizations are better placed in the research and development of the discipline (Patrick 200, p. 35). Organizational size introduces specialization and division of labour which leads to demand for co-ordination and control; it is at this stage that leadership comes in to illustrate a clear hierarchy of duty. Hierarchy then often leads to bureaucracy and bureaucracy, if not used properly, leads to redundancy as illustrated by Weber and Fayol (Richard 1965, p. 117). Functionally, management involves measuring quantity, adjusting plans and meeting goals through forecasting, planning, organizing, commanding, coordination, and controlling as proposed by Henry Fayol. Management serves as a design for the efficient function of the systems constituting an organization (Nahavandi 1998, p. 30). The issue of strategic management arose from the organization of the military as discussed by Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Some of the strategies and tactics used in the Military to bring down their opponents include the span of control where one is in charge of a particular unit and is accountable for it, use of military deception and insight to outplay the opponent, force of concentration and speed of advance. They also used maneuvering and outflanking, the advantage of surprise and the use of SWOT in the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the enemy to ensure proper control and success (Girard 2009, p. 64). Military rule gave rise to influence which spread across to commercial organizations, both small and large, to ensure the same kind of efficiency experienced in the military within their organizations. Although corporates organizations do not focus on defeating the enemy like the military, they need a similar strategic line to outsmart competition. The influence led to the study of management scientifically by various proponents in the 20th century. To understand management, we need to look at organizational behavior because they complement each other. Organizational behavior People working together to achieve a variety of set goals constitute an organization, but to understand an organization there is a need to study the actions and attitudes of the people that form it. The field studying these actions and attitudes is organizational behavior (Denhardt 1981, p. 92). Organizational behavior is the study of human behavior in organizational settings; how humans interact with the organization and the organization itself. We cannot review an individual employee’s behavior without understanding the organization because the individual influences the organization and picks influence from the organization. Likewise, we cannot understand an organization without studying the individual within it; the two are dependent (Nijmans 1992). Far from the two variables is the understanding of unique characteristics that individuals bring with them to the work environment such as personal experience and work-related experience from other organizations as well as their backgrounds. The need for individualized study is to provide a profile of the nature of the organization’s work force in terms of their expectations and goals among other things. However, individuals do not work in isolation; they come into contact with other people and organization in a myriad of ways (Limerick & Cunnington 1993, p. 24). Interactions include co-workers, managers, company policies and procedures as well as changes effected. These interactions contribute to changing an individual by contributing to personal experiences, work experience and maturity levels while the organization gets its influence from the presence and final absence of the employee. The development of this field is complex due to the many variables and concepts involved thus affecting interactions and judgments among the company’s public especially managers who experience a hard time understanding, appreciating and managing others in an organization but then organizational behavior studies can enhance personal and organizational effectiveness. Scientific Management This was one of the initial approaches to the study of management popular during the early 1990s. Some of the proponents of this movement include Fredrick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Thomas Watson, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Henry Gantt and Harrington Emerson (Robins 1998, p. 83). a) Fredrick Taylor Taylor’s interest in management developed at an early age. He had a keen eye for efficiency and productivity while working as a foreman at a steel company in Philadelphia from the year 1878-1890. He noticed that some workers worked at a slower rate than their capabilities, but since employers had no way of quantifying individual performance, they could not guarantee maximum productivity. Taylor’s response to this study called the soldering effect involved a myriad of innovative techniques. He studied all jobs at the plant he worked in and developed a standardized method of performing every one of the jobs. In addition, he devised a payment system where each worker is remunerated according to the amount of work they did regardless of the amount of time spent. Midvale plant experienced an increase in productivity and from this study, the basis of scientific management emanated (Richard 2008, p. 3). Taylor then worked as a management consultant for industrial firms. While working at Bethlehem steel company, he came up with efficient ways of loading and unloading rail cars. He also redesigned jobs by coming up with rest breaks to combat fatigue as well as, a "piece-rate pay system". His book on management titled ‘Principles of Scientific Management’ was exceedingly popular among early 20th century managers. It became a manual guide for management at some point. Scientific management significantly contributed to job specialization and mass production although it later proved to be inadequate because it treated workers as machines and not humans with needs (Girard 2009, p. 10). Classical Organization Theory As scientific management was developing, there emerged another perspective on management referred to as the classical management theory. The theory's concern was the structural organizations of the people (managers and workers) into a functional hierarchy that would ensure the smooth distribution and tackling of duties in an organization (Patrick 2008, p. 232). Its primary interest was in high production, division of labour and span of control. Major contributors of this theory are LyndallUrwick, Max Weber and Henri Fayol. Max Weber Weber proposes a bureaucratic model for management. The model utilized rationality, logic and efficiency; tasks are specific to outlined rules and hierarchy of authority. Bureaucracy uses the principle of division of labour where work division is clear before being allocation to avoid overlapping of duty. However, since all duties have a procedure in the bureaucratic model, it builds into a routine which kills creativity and limits achievements. Weber’s theory still works at times but then is out of date by the fact that different organizations require different structures in different situations (Richard 1965, p. 100). Henri Fayol Fayol proposes a model for management which he called ‘Fayol’s wheel of management’. Activities are divided into determining and deciding objectives, forecasting, planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and controlling. As a result of his long career in management, he developed 14 management principles (Girard 2009, p. 81). 1. Division of work- Specialization and division of labour has better outcomes in terms of production with the same effort. It maximizes employee efforts. 2. Authority and responsibility- A manager's authority by virtue of office should be clear and different from the authority they command because of their personality. 3. Discipline- Clarity and fairness in handling issues between a firm and its employees. 4. Unity of command- Employees should receive commands from one superior. 5. Unity of direction- Activities undertaken by an organization should have one plan of action and one central authority. 6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest- The goals of an organization are more salient than those of an individual or a group of people. 7. Remuneration of personnel- Salaries given should be favourable to the worker and profitable to the organization. 8. Centralization- Degree of centralization varies according to the dynamics of a company. 9. Scalar chain- This is the authority ranked across a hierarchy from the highest to the lowest ranked authority in an organization. 10. Order- Proper functioning of the organization requires the right materials and the right employees. 11. Equity- Equity is the combination of justice and kindliness. Equity and equality are necessary in all functional organization. 12. Stability of tenure of personnel- To increase productivity, it is essential that a stable workforce is formed and maintained. 13. Initiative- It requires initiative to come up with a practical and workable plan that can execute a strategy and bring success. 14. Esprit de Corps- Creating a team at work is necessary for an organization’s success. Fayol’s fourteen principles are considered inconclusive for successful management but are still widely practiced in modern day management. Human Relations Theory Scientific and classical management have been significantly criticized for their excessive demands on workers. There was a need to consider the needs of employees and the part played by the management in meeting these needs. (Stewart 2002, p. 34). The human relations theory has influence from social psychology and sociology; it encouraged cooperation and work group behavior and participation. Maslow’s study helps the manager visualize employee needs and how to satisfy them so as to achieve higher levels of motivation. Proponents of this theory are Abraham Maslow, Hertzberg and McGregor. Abraham Maslow He developed a theory of motivation based upon consideration of human needs. He noted that human need is a hierarchical continuous cycle that cannot be broken because human behavior is motivated by need satisfaction and humans are always in need (Richard 1965, p. 45). There are five levels in this theory. 1. Physiological needs These needs are necessary for human survival; they include food, shelter, clothing, water and sex. Those who satisfy these needs are no longer motivated by them. 2. Safety needs These needs are preceded by physiological needs. These include the need to be free from danger whether emotionally, economically, physically or socially. As long as they are unachieved they will motivate an individual. 3. Love and belonging A person will at this level strive to fit in and be accepted by other members of the society. Individuals will strive for meaningful relationships with relevant persons in their lives. 4. Esteem needs Achievement of status and reputation through mastery and competence are the motivating factors of this stage. An individual seeks to develop self-confidence. 5. Need for self-actualization Individuals at this level are satisfied and have no need. Getting to this level is rare because humans are always in a state of need. Douglas McGregor He was one of the major contributors of the human relations school of management. McGregor proposed the X & Y theory. Theory X has negative views of employees that they are lazy, untrustworthy and as such cannot assume responsibility without supervision. Theory Y, on the other hand, believes employees are hardworking, trustworthy and have a natural sense of responsibility (Richard &Dorothy 2008, p. 52). The two theories have been useful in understanding supervisory styles and employee motivational assumptions. Herzberg’s theory of motivation and hygiene The model states that employee motivation is achieved by growth in their work, recognition, responsibility allocation and advancement. Hygiene factors, which are environmentally motivated, such as the conditions of the working area, unfavorable working policies and non-competitive remuneration are disatisfiers while motivation factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth and advancement serve as satisfiers (Denhardt 1981, p. 77). Motivators help an employee to develop internal motivation while hygiene factors make an employee unhappy, the job itself is the motivator. The Systems Approach The systems approach tries to synthesize and integrate the views of earlier schools of management into a single functional, comprehensive and coherent theory that classifies processes into inputs, homeostasis, parameters, processing, outputs and feedback. Systems interact and adapt to internal and external environmental changes. Organizational subsystems such as marketing, production, accounts can be analyzed and reanalyzed in terms of their interactions with other internal and external systems. This approach provides a functional perspective to managers by equipping them with tools for studying organizational dynamics derived from the various theories (Stewart 2002, p. 180). The Contingency Approach This approach just like the systems approach does not advocate the use of a single theory in management. It leans more on the capability of the manager to maneuver through any condition. In the contingency approach, the management develops a suitable solution for a given situation. The approach has no principle instead it depends on the expert judgment of the manager (Nijman 1992, p. 93). Proponents of this theory include Fiedler, Moulton and Blake. Blake and Mouton They studied leadership behavior and described it in two parameters; concern for people and concern for production. When emphasis is on production the leader does not care about the people but rather about achieving production targets. On the other hand, emphasis on people has the manager focusing on how he is perceived by the people and not on how to meet production targets (Patrick 2008, p. 321). To conclude, management just like any other discipline is dynamic and ever changing. Changes in the trends of management are necessary evil because of changes in the nature of the workers and managerial situations. Theories have undergone modification and sometimes extinctions just to try and address arising challenges. Today’s manager and worker must be dynamic to be both innovative and productive. List of References Denhardt, R. B., 1989. In the Shadows of Organization. Westbrooke Circle: The University Press of Kansas. Girard, J., 2009. A leader’s guide to knowledge management: Drawing on the past to enhance the future. New York, NY: Business Export Press. Limerick, D. and Cunnington, B., 1993. Managing the new organization. Concord, CA: Blueprint Press. Nahavandi, B. et al., 1998. Organizational behavior: The person-organization fit. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Nijmans, M., 1992. Dionysian way to organizational effectiveness. Wilmette IL: Chiron Publications. Patrick, J. M., 2008. Management. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational series. Richard, D., 1965. Eupsychian management by Abraham Maslow. Wales, WI: Dorsey Press & Die Ltd. Richard, L., Dorothy, M., 2008. Understanding management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Robbins, S. P., 1998. Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stewart, C., 2002. Advances in organization studies: Management and organization paradoxes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Read More