Learning from Past Management Theories - Coursework Example

Learning from past management theories Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction The concept of management is not new. Its long tenure can be traced even from historical events. For instance, the construction of the Egyptian pyramids and the Great Wall of China would have not have existed without the application of management. It can therefore be stated that management has been significant. Throughout history, many environmental factors have influenced management practitioners and theorists to transform their views concerning what constitutes an effective approach of management. A case in point is the industrial revolution together with mass production and the development of factories which resulted to the need for a resilient management practice. Managers therefore had to come up with effective approaches of manufacturing in order to lower costs, increase output and earnings. Consequently, various theorists and management practitioner devised management theories that would progress management practices. Although years have progressed, it is essential to examine whether these theories are still relevant in contemporary and future management practice. This paper therefore seeks to critically examine whether learning from past management theories is important for managers of the future. The scope of the analysis will mainly be grounded on examining various sources that have studied previous management theories. It can be argued that learning from past management theories is important for managers of the future. Cummings and Bridgman (2011) conducted a study to examine why the history of management should be critical for our future. The scholars used Max Weber’s bureaucracy, as a case of reference to back the fact that past management theories can actually be beneficial for managers in future. According to Cummings and Bridgman (2011) bureaucracy when implemented effectively in the contemporary organizations can be beneficial in terms of the development of ethics in organizations. When looking at the recent scandals for instance; the lack of ethics in organizations greatly influenced the challenges and collapse of such organizations. Weber believed that bureaucracies are ideal forms of organizations. Weber therefore proposed that the rules and the regulations that exist in a bureaucratic organization should result to ideal organizations that can avoid corruption and unethical behavior. The views propagated by Cummings and Bridgman (2011) can actually be argued as true. The scholars reflect on corporate scandals that have occurred in the recent years. Most of the scandals were associated to unethical behavior and lack of adherence to organization rules and regulations. In deed when keenly examined, it can be stated that a bureaucratic system can actually assist managers of the future to adopt ethical behavior. This is because in a bureaucratic system, the management strictly adheres to the rules and regulation of the organization without compromise. When looking at the Enron scandal for instance, the organization operated with non- bureaucratic regulations. The implication of such a management practice is that the management disregarded the regulations of the organization and went ahead with scrupulous deals. Future managers should therefore come to the realization that without strict implementation of the regulations of the organization, unethical behaviors are bound to occur which may further result to the collapse of the organization just like the Enron scandal. Thus, it can be stated that the history of management, through bureaucracy is a critical aspect for future management. Consequently, future managers should not disregard bureaucracy in their management practice. Also, it can be stated that learning from past management theories is important for managers of the future due to the fact that the past is in the present. Hartley (2006) examined management history as an umbrella model. The paper evaluated how past management theories were built upon one another. According to Hartley (2006), in order to recognize the values that currently exist in the workplace, it is essential to have a historical foundation. This explains the reason why students have to learn management history as a method of advancing their critical attitudes concerning what they are reading and what goes on in the work environment. It is also essential for learners to understand that the past is also in the present, although we live today. The assertion presented by Hartley (2006) can actually be argued as viable based on the fact that what existed in the past also influences occurrences of the future. A case in point is when looking at the issue of employee welfare. Elton Mayo through the Hawthorn studies disclosed the fact that employee welfare is also significant in the workplace. Mayor emphasized employee welfare and relations as opposed to focus and productivity. It can be argued that the proposal made by Mayor are still very relevant for future managers. Today’s managers have acknowledged the significance of the human resource in their organizations. As argued by the Resource Based View (RBV) of strategic management employees are one of the most significant resources that an organization can use in order to be competitive. Focus on the employee has therefore been significant as proposed by Mayor. It can therefore be argued that future managers can also learn from the proposals made by Mayor. Learning from past management theories is important for managers of the future based on the fact that reliance on contemporary thinking of management is not satisfactory in the studying of management. Parker and Ritson, (2011) emphasize the significance of studying management writings in their original forms as opposed to depending on secondary sources. For instance; if scholars were to utilize the views of Urwick concerning scientific management then subsequent generations of management would fail to understand the important facts that can also be integrated in the practice of management. Urwick’s definition of scientific management was very different from the definition used by many management thinkers in the past, he created a great deal of confusion, due to his inaccurate and stereotypic perspective of a number of early writings on management. Parker and Ritson, (2011) therefore propose that managers should not entirely rely on the views of contemporary thinkers of management but rather understanding management requires adopting the unique and changing definition of scientific management. The arguments presented by Parker and Ritson, (2011) validates the fact that future manager cannot entirely rely on contemporary thinking in order to understand management. This is because contemporary thinking can possess certain misconceptions concerning theories of the past and thus leading to distorted views about significant facts that can be used in future management practice. It is therefore important for future managers to be given an insight concerning the relevance of past theories in modern management practice. Dweyer (2005) also conducted a study to evaluate formal organizations in contemporary society and the relevance of historical perspective. According to Dweyer (2005), the classical, historical and even the modern theories can still be studied together and are relevant in the practice of management. The paper therefore argues the pervasiveness of formal organizations is significant in contemporary society. Furthermore, understanding the significance and pervasiveness of formal organizations in modern society can assist managers to influence the changing values in society in a better way. The views of Dweyer (2005) are also linked to the study Parker and Ritson, (2011) which highlight the significance of preserving past theories of management. Dweyer (2005) however, emphasizes the significance of a multidisciplinary approach in studying management. The views of this particular scholar also denote that leaders can only properly understand management if they have a solid background of past management theories. Thus, learning from the past is significant. On the other hand, it can be argued that learning from past management theories is not significant for managers of the future. Smith and Boyns (2005) conducted a study to examine British management theory and practice; the impact of Fayol. The study narrowed down to British management practices between the 1920s, 1960s and 1970s. Smith and Boyns (2005) examined the application of Fayol’s ideas on small engineering companies. The study revealed that during these years, some British firms adopted the ideas proposed by Fayol. A case in point is the British Thomson Houston (BTH) an electrical engineering company. The company developed a planning and costing system in purist of ‘’ higher control’’ of the company. The higher control involved personnel management, teamwork, reorganization, and production planning. Much of these proposals were consistent with the administrative principles of ‘’ higher control ‘’ as proposed by Fayol. The concept of ‘’ higher control’’ was presented as the manner in which the senior management drive the various divisions of the organization as opposed to the use of strategic planning of the entire organization. The findings of the study disclosed that Fayol’ s ideas have actually stood the test of time based on the fact that to some extent they were applied in engineering firms in the past nevertheless, today things are different . The authors argue that Fayol’s ideas are only influential in theory but not in practice. This is because the thinking of management has shifted from the functions of management (the 14 principles administration are proposed by Fayol) to trying to understand management and managing by examining what managers do. The study therefore concludes by stating that Fayol’s theoretical approach is limited in practice. The views presented by Smith and Boyns (2005) can support the analogy that learning from past management theories is not significant for managers of the future. As stated by the two scholars, the practice of management has actually changed, essentially in contemporary society. Management is not only about the knowledge administrative principles and ‘’higher control’’ as propagated by Fayol. Rather, it encompasses understanding management with the changing business environment. Future managers should not only be able to perform their administrative roles but also they should have the capability of formulating management approaches that can deal with the dynamic business environment. Rodrigues (2001) also examined Fayol’s 14 principles of management in order to examine how they can work in modern organizations. Rodrigues (2001) outlined various arguments to justify the inapplicability of the 14 principles of management in today’s organizations. For instance Fayol propagated the division of work , whereby work can be performed more productively and efficiently when divided in small units and also assigned to specific elements of work, thus each employee was to perform a specific task as opposed to generalizing work. According to Rodrigues (2001), such an approach cannot work in today’s organizations. This is because in today’s changing business environment, where changes take place very fast, the use of specialization in designing jobs cannot be productive and efficient. Today robots have taken up jobs and only a few specialized jobs exist. Also when looking at the principle of the boss having the power to command the employees, it can be stated that today’s organizations do not require bosses to exercise their power to command subordinates but employee participation is considered as important. The views proposed by Rodrigues (2001), justify the fact that past theories of management are not significant for future of managers. What is evident is that the business environment in the future is also bound to be very dynamic. Although the world has recovered from the recent financial crisis, numerous challenges still occur today and even in future. Consequently, some of proposals of Fayol cannot be used in future organizations. For instance, organizations can find themselves in situations whereby they have to downsize the workforce in order to stay competitive. Principles such as specialization of work will not therefore be relevant in future organizations. From this analogy, it can be argued that managers in the future cannot learn from such principles of past theories. Conclusion The above discussion has presented various views concerning whether learning from past management theories is important for managers of the future. Various arguments have been presented to support the fact that learning from past theories is significant. Some of the factors highlighted include the fact that ethics can be maintained in organizations, also the fact that the past also influences the future, reliance on contemporary thinking of management is not satisfactory and the idea that learners should have an insight into the past in order to deal with the future. The paper has also acknowledged that learning from the previous management theories is not significant. Despite the justifications provided by the various scholars to counter learning from the past, it can be stated that past theories are actually still relevant for future managers. Consequently, they should be part of management learning. References Cummings, S and Bridgman, T, 2011, The Relevant Past: Why the History of Management Should Be Critical for Our Future, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 77–93. Dwyer, R, 2005, “Formal organizations in contemporary society: The relevance of historical perspectives", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss: 9, pp.1232 – 1248. Parker, LD & Ritson, P 2011, ‘Rage, rage against the dying of the light: Lyndall Urwick’s scientific management’, Journal of Management History, vol. 17, issue 4, pp 379-398. Rodrigues, C , 2001, Fayol’s 14 Principles of management then and now : a framework for managing today’s organizations effectively, Management Decision, 39(10), p880. Smith, I and Boyns, T 2005, British management theory and practice ; the impact of Fayol, Management Decision, 43(10), p1317. Tabor, N 2006, Management history: an umbreall model, Journal of Management History, 12(3),p 278-292. Read More