Essays on Evolving of Management Theories Literature review

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper “ Evolving of Management Theories” is an inspiring example of a literature review on management. According to Kolb, Rubin & McIntyre (1984), the role, views, and theories of management have changed with years. Several years ago, the manager was seen by many people as the boss, which might be the case even today for some organizations. However, this has changed under several circumstances and managers see themselves as leaders today. The change in management theories can be associated with a change in management roles. Theories of management have changed over the years.

Management theories have evolved from Classical thought to behavioral theories, quantitative, contingent or subsystem, and modern theory of management. However, all those can be viewed from different perspectives that include mechanistic, power, organic, and culture. Mechanistic perspective entails management prerogative, money as motivator, efficiency, output, sanction, and obedience. Cultural perspective involves language, ceremony, attitudes, values, beliefs, rituals and inclusiveness. Organic is another perspective that includes interdependence, collaboration, effectiveness, collectiveness, concern for welfare, and cooperation. The last perspective is power and politics, and it involves dominance, position, exclusiveness, punishment or reward, collation formation, and control.

Have mechanistic, organic, cultural, and power and politics perspectives changed with a change in management theories? Management Theories FormulationClassical thought emerged throughout the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century mainly due to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution put emphasis on the significance of better management as companies and businesses become more complex and bigger. Managers had to develop schedules, production, controlling inventory and human resource systems as industries continued to grow. The managers, who emerged during the industrial revolution era, discovered the importance of organized methods.

This was to assist in discovering answers to workplace problems. There were several classical management theorists during the industrial revolution era. They thought of one way of solving problems of management. Classical management theorists had theories that assumed that, in trying to maximize personal gains in all working areas, management had to make rational and logical decisions. Scientific management was the basis of the classical school of management. Scientific management had its roots from Max Weber’ s ideas who was a German sociologist, and Henri Fayol’ s work that was based in France.

Scientific management bases standards on facts gathered by experimentation, observation, or sound reasoning. Scientific management was developed further by individuals in the United States. These individuals included Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), Frank (1868-1924) and Lilian (1878-1972). The first scientific management theory was developed first by Frederick Taylor in the 1890s. It was geared towards assembly line and mechanical work. At this time, tasks were usually standardized. The theory by Taylor assigned success measurement relating to those tasks. According to the mechanistic perspective, the quantity of work was put into place.

Workers were rewarded after reaching their goals. This was according to the politics view whereby those who did not reach the targets or goals were punished. This scientific theory had no element of human included in the management; it was strictly based on tasks. However, there was no interference of politics or control and dominance of politicians. Manab (1998) has details that, scientific theory was used by many companies in the United States until the 1930s. During this period, Max Weber tweaked a little bit of Taylor’ s scientific theory.

Max’ s main focus was to separate organizations into several hierarchies like shift leaders, assembly workers, and plant managers. From an organic perspective, there was the interdependence of each level. This was to increase the effectiveness of an organization according to the organic perspective. Tasks were no longer assigned to individuals but rather to levels or groups. Each level had a collective responsibility. This was after Weber thought that, the operating procedures needed to be standardized in each organization. The tasks were assigned to levels and not individuals.    

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