Essays on Management Theories Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

I. IntroductionIt is a renowned quote that need is the mother for all inventions. Man in the past has been very short-sighted, and still is; not everyone thinks about the future. The recent global economic crisis, though being beyond the scope of this assignment, is a prime example of the fact that people don’t tend to see what issues may arise in the future and think-and-plan in advance for its resolution. People generally think about resolving the problems at hand. Thus the approach can be called the as-it-happens approach whereby the issue resolution is only thought about once the issue arises.

Inventions such as wheel, bulbs, trains, automobiles, electricity, clocks, etc. are all examples of inventions as and when their demand was made, an issue arose and the invention was a response. History hardly witnesses any scenario in which a proactive approach was taken up by inventors. Following the same proposition, it can also be argued that the management theories have been developed in response to the problems faced by managers at a particular stage in the history. The following section presents an over view of how the ‘management’ was developed. II.

Development of ManagementHistory was the time when much stress was laid on sole proprietorships, and very less partnerships, with the scale of business being fairly limited, and the scope generally limited to a particular area or region. Imports and exports were seldom, but they did take place. Assumptions and arguments aside, it is quite evident from readings that what management is today has developed over a really short period of time, thus, not having a long history particularly in the context of great social and economic disruption.

In-depth study reveals (Pollard, 1965) that the birth place of management lays in the industrial revolution and during the rise of the modern bureaucratic state. There is no doubt that the changes that took place in our society during this era were the prime sources of a number of key subject-matters such as ‘founding fathers’ of social science like Marx, Weber, Comte, and Durkheim. The times during the 19th Century were when the organized society came into existence in the UK and the US i. e.

when civil society took on an appearance based on organizations. Another accepted view of the formation is that the rise of capitalism (free-enterprise) allowed the concentration of possession of working places, means of work, power-sources and raw material in the hands of the sole-proprietor or the entrepreneur (Pollard, 1965). The focus of all power in the hands of the entrepreneur allowed the firms to grow larger in terms of size, and the risks were reduced mainly due to the clause of limited liability that distinguished between the firm and its owner.

This growth was the foundation of many problems in itself, mainly the creation of hierarchies, as due to the increasing size of the business, the entrepreneur couldn’t be in touch with the employees, and had to appoint ‘management staff’, and at a later stage, there had to be supervisory staff above the management staff. It was only with the afterwards development of ‘scientific management’ in the US and related developments in the UK that ‘modern management’ started taking the form in which it is seen today. The present form of ‘modern management’ is characterized by designations such as managers that exercise authority over the various aspects of the work process, and at times on the workers as well.

Several managerial positions combine to form the authority structure, commonly known as organizational hierarchy. Thus the firm moves from being a singly operated enterprise through managerial authority based on delegated agency to managerial authority based on expertise. This development, as visible, is social in nature. This transformation can also be phased as from direct employment to ‘Talorised’ organization i. e.

large scale bureaucratic. This bureaucratization was not just a technical transformation with increasing the complexity and size, but rather considered by authors as sociological transformation (Littler, 1982).

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