Extent of Development in the Management Practice and Theory - Coursework Example

Extent of Development in the Management Practice and Theory By: Professor: Class: University: City: State: Date of submission: Extent of Development in the Management Practice and Theory Introduction Management is one of the most critical factors in human activities. Through the time people began forming the social organizations of accomplishing the aims and objectives that they failed to achieve as individuals, management has been essential in ensuring the coordination of the individual efforts. With the society continuously relying on the group efforts and most organized groups becoming large, the role of the managers has been increasing in complexity and importance. As a result, the managerial theory has become important in the manner in which the managers manage complex organizations (Bush, 2003. 205). There have been evolutions in the management thinking and practice over the last century due to increased understanding of the organizational and human behavior, historical context, the economic climate, and changes within the generation over time. Nonetheless, if there is honesty, it is significant to note that the practices used today are due to the consulting industry playing on the aspirations and fears through selling the products and services causing more problems than the solutions. It is time to rethink management practices and theories. Both the history of management and human society are old (Neely, 2007, 145). The emergence of the human race is followed closely with the outcropping on different social groups aiming to achieve the goals which are not achievable by individuals. Hence, management became an important instrument for the coordination of different human efforts. The Concept and Development of Management Considering that the society is increasingly becoming based on the efforts of the groups and organized groups becoming larger, the significance and complexity in the management tasks has been on the rise. In such sense, the management role within the contemporary economy is shifting to be irreplaceable. According to Peter Drucker, management has been able to transform both the social and economic structures within the developed countries leading to creation of the global economy and introduction of the new rules for the states willing to participate in such economy as the equals. The emergence of management contributed to the conversion of knowledge from being the social luxury to the actual economical asset. Various theories might have built on Drucker’s though especially those citing that it is through the invention of the industrial management at the early 20th century, which turned the enlighten policy and various scientific discoveries into the global prosperity. In a study undertaken by J. J. Servan-Schreiber (1968) in exploring the factors for the superiority in the American economy over that of Europe, the result revealed that the major reasons for such superiority lies within the effectiveness of management performance within the United States. Currently, it is evident that the success of any business majorly depends on the effective management, which under the circumstances could be set by complex, dynamic, heterogeneous, and uncertainty in the environment are likely to spur organizational growth. Nonetheless, in contrast to the management practices, which are considered as old as the human races, some of the conceptual frameworks and theories used in the management are quite recent considering that they date back to the late 19th century (Ulrich, Losey & Miesinger, 2005, 166). Most of the undertaken researchers consider management a phenomenon of the 20th century since it facilitated the development of approaches, theories, schools, and conceptual frameworks. In the 20th century, several authors tried creating adequate systemization through the jungle of the management theories with the most successful one being that of Koontz. Since then, there have been several attempts by the researchers to integrate different theoretical approaches. Nevertheless, the major challenges seem to arise from the fact that management is an applied science that in most present inadequate coherency in the theoretical concepts. To ensure effective management practices, theorists focused on the adoption and application of concepts from the other disciplines. Therefore, there have been evolutions in the management theory in symbiosis with the major supporting disciplines including behavioral science, mathematics, and statistics, which deprive the management concept of the motivation of finding its conceptual framework independently with other disciplines. Even though the concept of management as a discipline emerged in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the assumption is that it was founded on the second and third wave that led to the turbulent changes experienced by humanity (Buble, 2015, 6). It is evident that no one could have ignored such changes with inclusion of management, designed to meet the requirements of efficiency paradigm. Based on such old paradigm, Taylor cited that management arises from knowingly exactly the needs from the people and laying the foundation that makes sure undertake their roles to their level best and most convenient manner. In addition, Taylor believed that management could be the real science based on the definition of the laws, principles, and rules (Wilson, 2001, 146). Hence, the major question that has been on the rise is whether the rational school of management has adequate ability of responding to various challenges of the modern world. The currently existing management paradigm is due to various principles set both the theoreticians in the 19th and 20th centuries. Based on such findings, there been increased emergence of questions associated with the need to design new models of management with the ability to coordinate the work of many employees without creation of burdensome hierarchy of their superiors (Grant, 2008, 472). It is clear from the many doctrines, theories, and schools none of the ideas has been able to mainstream the concept of management for adoption and following. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the modern practices and theories have exhausted completely different evolutionary capabilities. Scientific Management and its Principles In the late 19th century, the major features of the human activities were characterized by increasing size and complexity of the industrial organizations, which contributed significantly to the challenges of organizing various human efforts efficiently and effectively (Okpara, 2008, 138). The major response to the contemporary trends was the formation of the systematic management movement, which the managers considered to have engineering background, and was applicable to different principles of managerial practices within organizational production. The aim of such formation was to solve the problems of the industry using rational management methods. Based on the work of Fredrick Winslow Taylor, there was conceptualization of management theory (Business Matters, 2013). Scientific management aimed to provide systematic management movement that managers considered coherent with the ideological foundation; as a result, it is widely accepted and used with the set of general principles for organizing the production. Moreover, the currently used job analysis and design have the roots on the scientific management and currently forming the base of the human resources practice (Rousseau, 2012, 242). Throughout the years, there have been evolutions of the management practices and theories. The development of scientific management led to conception of management as organizational ideology and set of methods conceived to deal with the problems associated with soldiering of the employees, disorder, arbitrariness of management, inadequate control, and resource waste. Scientific management presents on board a series of tools, mechanisms, and organizational arrangement of increasing the efficiency. The scientific theory presented by Taylor rests on the assumption that high pay remains the major people seek while obtaining work. Primarily, people are rational especially through the belief within the utility and morality within the scientific reasoning. Based on the research undertaken by theorists after Taylor, the results revealed that both the parties, managers, and employees, acquire their needs with scientific management leading to corporation, success, and greater organizational surplus (Amin, 2008, 114). Nonetheless, the opportunist managers often use the system in abusing and mistreating the employees. The peak of fame of the theory began declining in the 1920s due to its consideration as science of exploitation. After such time, the era of criticism and competition for the movement associated with the willingness of collaborating with the labor started. Scientific management managements arise from different principles. The major principle involves the development of laws and guidelines for the employees to replace the old-fashioned traditional methods. With such principle, theory aimed to use scientific methods in determining the most efficient manner in working. In the essence, the theorist arrogated that the managers have the ability of finding the one best method in performing various tasks that would guarantee maximum efficiency (Hartelius & Browning, 2008, 35). However, in the modern management practice, such view is rejected considering that there is no best managerial best practice as it all depends on the industry and culture within which the organization operates. In addition, there seem to be numerous eclectic models of management with each managerial practices seeming to be a mixture of them considering the unpredictability, uncertainty, and uncontrollability of some organizations (Bell & Martin, 2012, 111). Nonetheless, with the adoption of the new technologies and modern practices, the specialization of the tasks, standardization, and the scientific improvement of the processes presented by Taylor are still evident in the modern organizational practices. The major businesses are usually divided into different departments focusing on specialization considering the change within the structures allows division of the tasks of the entire organization into manageable sub-responsibilities. Moreover, the division also ensures adequate allocation of the organizational units responsible for the completion of different roles. However, whenever there is no inclusion of specialized jobs while analyzing business environment, business often fail in adapting the changing circumstances. Hence, scientific management works better within small businesses, which in most cases do not need to react to the change, which reflects inflexibility of the theory and the main defect attributed to the Fordism model (Caldari, 2007, 72). Even though it might be evident that Post Fordism surged to challenge tenets, the major principles of scientific management neglected under Fordism were implemented while seeking flexibility and application of the rationalist ideas such as efficiency and standardization. Implications of Changes in the Management Theory Both the management and organizations are products of their social and historical times and place. Therefore, the best way of understanding the evolution of the management theory is through understanding the how people have wrestled with the matters associated with relationships within particular time in history (Hamel, 2007, 188). In the last century, there have been significant changes in management as scientific discipline from the classical and traditional theories to modern and postmodern theories. With the conception of the paradigm of the business as a closed system, efficiency, and control as the major principles associated with rational school of management, management experienced the first major challenge at the beginning of development. A study undertaken by Mary Parker Folett revealed the three determinants of the future leadership: self-organized teams, the power of diversity, and leadership with the function of management (as cited in Devinney, Pedersen & Tihanyi, 2010, 179). As a result, the study developed the theory of management contrary to the prevailing principles of time. Unfortunately, the ideas presented by the study took time before being taken and accepted seriously. Different studies undertaken to question the validity of the mechanical approach presented by Taylor to the human dimension of the organization revealed new revolutionary approach to the problems. Such a behavioral approach presented remained within the framework considered enterprise as the closed system (Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2007, 110). The major deviation from the classical management paradigm happened in the 1960s when businesses began treating the environment as important element of management. Among the contributors of the shift were Jeffrey Pfeffer, Gerald Salancik, and Marshall Meyer (as cited in Brown, 2005, 401). The central focus of these authors was, if there is need to understand organizational behavior, it is important to understand the context of such behavior. Generally, the theorists began treating businesses as open systems, which differs from the traditional management paradigm. The concept of treating businesses as open, dynamic systems led to the creation of the conditions for development of the management method through the system theory. Another significant challenge associated with classical paradigm took place in 1978 in which Tom Peters developed the concept of the eight principles, which contradicts directly with the traditional management paradigms. The researcher experienced various views on organizational structures while pointing out to the belief that success cannot be achieved using both rigid and bureaucratic structures. Hence, based on such study, de-organization needs to be made consciously with an aim of liberating the employees using radical downsizing and horizontal articulation of the enterprise within the entrepreneurial and autonomous units. The study conducted by Peter Senge in the 1990 further contributed to the deviation from the classical paradigm within management through introduction of the concept of a learning organization describing the business as an organism with the ability of increasing the capabilities and shaping them for the future (as cited in Karsten, 2014, 422). Most theories view learning organization as any business considering itself complex and organic system with the purpose and vision (Guptra, 2005, 122). As a result, to achieve the desired goals, such organizations often use various disciplines: mental models, personal mastery, team learning, shared vision, and systematic thinking. Further development of the concept of learning organization occurred in the 1990 which was based on the assumption that it is neither necessary not desirable for the business to organize its work depending on the division of labor presented by Adam Smith. Based on such analysis, the contemporary customer environment, competition, and changes, the task-oriented responsibilities have remained obsolete. Rather, it is significant that businesses organize their work based on the processes, which strikes the blow to the traditional concept presented by the hierarchical structures and the functional concept of structuring the organization (Wang & Pizam, 2011, 128). Conclusion Management practices and theories have undergone through significant changes since Tylorism theory that has been use for many decades. In the 21st century, Peter Drucker made a significant attack on the traditional management paradigm pointing to the changes that are likely to occur and associated implications for the businesses, their organization, and management. In the study, Drucker managed to highlight changes to the management principles that dominated the management environment until 1980s. In the centre of the modern society, there are numerous management institutions, which aim to make them able to produce results. In various studies, the researchers encouraged the managers to abandon the existing managerial methods of thinking and introduction of the practice, acceptability and nurturing of innovation. Generally, according to the existing literature, most of the management principles and systems are based on the unnecessary traditional managerial paradigm; thus, management innovations are the major source of competitive advantage. Based on the conceptual point of view, it is evident that organizations exist with an aim of expanding human activity. In such context, no individual has the ability of independently producing complex finality considering that most of the products and services often need integration skills and knowledge from various individuals. Thus, the major goal of management is to achieve adequate corporation and coordination between various people for the creation of products and services. In the modern management, certain parts such as budgeting, hierarchy, procedures, and rules are the responses to the challenges. In most cases, the rules and procedures tent to restrict entrepreneurship; however, the major purpose remains alignment of the individual interests within the organization. References Amin, A. (2008). (ed) Post-Fordism: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Bell, R. L., & Martin, J. S. (2012). The relevance of scientific management and equity theory in everyday managerial communication situations. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(3), 106-115. Brown, A. (2005). Book Review: The Essentials of the New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Working Practices. Management Learning, 36(3), 399-402. Buble, M. (2015). Tendencies in evolution of 21st century management. Management, 20(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://moj.efst.hr/management/Vol20-Specissue/1-Buble%20-%20Management%20tendencies.pdf Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management. London: Sage Publications. Business Matters. (2013, May 28). The Evolution of Management. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/advice/the-evolution-of-management/ Caldari, K. (2007). Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management∗. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14(1), 55-78. Devinney, T. M., Pedersen, T., & Tihanyi, L. (2010). The past, present and future of international business & management. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Grant, R. M. (2008). The Future of Management: Where is Gary Hamel Leading Us? Long Range Planning, 41(5), 469-482. Guptra. (2005). Manager's Lives, Work, and Careers in the Twenty-First Century, in: Cooper, L. C. (ed.), Leadership and Management in the 21.Century – Business Challenges of the Future, pp. 107-138. Oxford University Press. Hamel, G. (2007). The Future of Management. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The Application of Rhetorical Theory in Managerial Research: A Literature Review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13-39. Karsten, L. (2014). Time as a periodization of management practices. Management & Organizational History, 9(4), 414-432. Neely, A. D. (2007). Business performance measurement: Unifying theories and integrating practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okpara, J. O. (2008). Globalization of business: Theories and strategies for tomorrow's managers. London: Adonis & Abbey. Rousseau, D. M. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of evidence-based management. New York: Oxford University Press. Ulrich, D., Losey, M. R., & Miesinger, S. (2005). The future of human resource management: 64 thought leaders explore the critical HR issues of today and tomorrow. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007). An Institutional Economic Reconstruction Of Scientific Management: On The Lost Theoretical Logic Of Taylorism. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 105-117. Wang, Y., & Pizam, A. (2011). Destination marketing and management: Theories and applications. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI. Wilson, T. D. (2001). The nonsense of knowledge management. Information Research, 8(1), 1-8. Read More