24/7 writing help on your phone
Thus, management refers to the development of bureaucracy that derives Its importance from the need for strategic planning, co- radiation, directing and controlling of large and complex decision-making process. Essentially, therefore, management entails the acquisition of managerial competence, and effectiveness in the following key areas: problem solving, administration, human resource management. And organizational leadership. First and foremost, management is about solving problems that keep emerging all the time in the course of an organization struggling to achieve its goals and objectives.
Problem solving should be accompanied by problem identification, analysis and the implementation f remedies to managerial problems, Second, administration Involves following laid down procedures (although procedures or rules should not be seen as ends in themselves) for the execution, control, communication, delegation and crisis management. Third, human resource management should be based on strategic Integration of human resource, assessment of workers, and exchange of Ideas between shareholders and workers.
Finally, organizational leadership should be developed a long lines of interpersonal relationship, teamwork, self-motivation to perform, emotional strength and maturity to handle situations, personal integrity, ND general management skills.
Evolution of Management places. Thus, we can understand the evolution of management theory in terms of how people have wrestled with matters of relationships at particular times in history. One of the central lessons of this chapter, and of this book as a whole is that we can learn from the trials and tribulations of those who have preceded us in steering the fortunes of formal organizations.
As you study management theory you will learn that although the particular concerns of Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan are very different from those facing managers in the mid-sass, we can still see ourselves continuing he traditions that these individuals began long before our time.
By keeping in mind a framework of relationships and time, we can put ourselves in their shoes as students of management. Imagine that you are a manager at an American steel mill, textile factory, or one of Ford’s plants in the early twentieth century.
Your factory employs thousands of workers. This is a scale of enterprise unprecedented in Western history. Many of your employees were raised in agricultural communities. Industrial routines are new to them. Many of your employees, as well, are immigrants from other lands. They do not speak English well, if at all. As a manager under these circumstances, you will probably be very curious about how you can develop working relationships with these people. Your managerial effectiveness depends on how well you understand what it is that is important to these people.
Current-day challenges parallel some of those faced in the early twentieth century. In the sass 8. 7 million foreign nationals entered the U. S. And Joined the labor market. They often have distinct needs for skills and language proficiency, much as those before them at the advent of the industrial age. Early management theory consisted of numerous attempts at getting to know these newcomers to industrial life at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century in Europe and the United States.
In this section, we will survey a number of the better-known approaches to early management theory. These include scientific management, classical organization theory, the Behavioral school, and management science. As you study these approaches, keep one important fact in mind: the managers and theorist who developed these assumptions about human relationships were doing so with little recent. Large-scale industrial enterprise was very new. Some of the assumptions that they made might therefore seem simple or unimportant to you, but they were crucial to Ford and his contemporaries.
We examine how management theory concerning appropriate management practices has evolved in modern times, and look at the central concerns that have guided its development. First, we examine the so-called classical management theories that emerged around the turn of the twentieth century. These include scientific management, which focuses on matching people and tasks to maximize efficiency; ND administrative management, which focuses on identifying the principles that will lead to the creation of the most efficient system of organization and management.
Next, we consider behavioral management theories, developed both before and after workforces to increase performance. Then we discuss management science theory, which developed during the Second World War and which has become increasingly important as researchers have developed rigorous analytical and quantitative techniques to help managers measure and control organizational performance. Finally, we discuss business in the sass and sass and focus on the theories that ere developed to help explain how the external environment affects the way organizations and managers operate.
Scientific Management Theory The evolution of modern management began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, after the industrial revolution had swept through Europe, Canada, and the United States. In the new economic climate, managers of all types of organizations-?political, educational, and economic-?were increasingly trying to find better ways to satisfy customers’ needs. Many major economic, technical, and cultural changes were taking place at this time.
The introduction of steam power and the development of sophisticated machinery and equipment changed the way in which goods were produced, particularly in the weaving and clothing industries. Small workshops run by skilled workers who produced hand-manufactured products (a system called crafts production) were being replaced by large factories in which sophisticated machines controlled by hundreds or even thousands of unskilled or semiskilled workers made products.
Owners and managers of the new factories found themselves unprepared for the challenges accompanying the change from mall-scale crafts production to large-scale mechanized manufacturing. Many of the the social problems that occur when people work together in large groups (as in a factory or shop system). Managers began to search for new techniques to manage their organizations’ resources, and soon they began to focus on ways to increase the efficiency of the worker-task mix. Job Specialization and the Division of Labor The famous economist Adam Smith was one of the first to look at the effects of different manufacturing systems. He compared the relative performance of two different manufacturing methods. The first was similar to crafts-style production, in which each worker was responsible for all of the 18 tasks involved in producing a pin. The other had each worker performing only 1 or a few of the 18 tasks that go into making a completed pin. Smith found that factories in which workers specialized in only 1 or a few tasks had greater performance than factories in which each worker performed all 18 pin-making tasks.
In fact, Smith found that 10 workers specializing in a particular task could, between them, make 48000 pins a day, whereas those workers who performed all the tasks could make only a few thousand at most. Smith reasoned that this difference in performance was due to the fact that the workers who specialized became much more skilled at their specific tasks, and, as a group, were thus able to produce a product faster than the group of workers who each had to perform many tasks.
Smith concluded that increasing the level of Job specialization -? the process by which a division of labor occurs as different workers specialize in different tasks over time-?increases efficiency and leads to higher organizational performance. Based on Adam Smith’s observations, early management practitioners ND theorists focused on how managers should organize and control the work process to maximize the advantages of Job specialization and the division of labor. F. W. Taylor and Scientific Management Frederick W.
Taylor (1856-1915) is best known for defining the techniques of scientific management, the systematic study of relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process to increase efficiency. Taylor believed that if the amount of time and effort that each worker expended to produce a unit of output (a finished good or service) could be reduced by increasing specialization and the vision of labor, then the production process would become more efficient.
Taylor believed that the way to create the most efficient division of labor could best be determined by means of scientific management techniques, rather than intuitive or informal rule-of-thumb knowledge. Based on his experiments and observations as a manufacturing manager in a variety of settings, he developed four principles to increase efficiency in the workplace. Principle 1: Study the way workers perform their tasks, gather all the informal Job tasks are performed.
To discover the most efficient method of performing specific tasks, Taylor studied in retreat detail and measured the ways different workers went about performing their tasks. One of the main tools he used was a time-and-motion study, which involves the careful timing and recording of the actions taken to perform a particular task. Once Taylor understood the existing method of performing a task, he tried different methods of dividing and coordinating the various tasks necessary to produce a finished product.
Usually this meant simplifying Jobs and having each worker perform fewer, more routine tasks, as at the pin factory or on Ford’s car assembly line. Taylor also sought ways to improve each worker’s ability to perform a particular task-?for example, by reducing the number of motions workers made to complete the task, by changing the layout of the work area or the type of tool workers used, or by experimenting with tools of different sizes. Principle 2: Codify the new methods of performing tasks into written rules and standard operating procedures.
Once the best method of performing a particular task was determined, Taylor specified that it should be recorded so that the procedures could be taught to all workers performing the same task. These rules could be used to standardize and simplify Jobs further-?essentially, to make Jobs even more routine. In this way, efficiency could be increased throughout an organization. Principle 3: Carefully select workers so that they possess skills and abilities that match the needs of the task, and train them to perform the task according to the established rules and procedures.
To increase specialization, Taylor believed workers had to understand the tasks that were required and be thoroughly trained in order to perform the tasks at the required level. Workers who could not be trained to this level were to be transferred o a Job where they were able to reach the minimum required level of proficiency. Principle 4: Establish a fair or acceptable level of performance for a task, and then develop a pay system that provides a reward for performance above the acceptable level.
To encourage workers to perform at a high level of efficiency, and to provide them with an incentive to reveal the most efficient techniques for performing a task, Taylor advocated that workers should benefit from any gains in performance. They should be paid a bonus and receive some percentage of the performance gains achieved through the more efficient work process. By 1910, Tailor’s system of scientific management had become known and, in many instances, faithfully and fully principles of scientific management selectively. This decision ultimately resulted in problems.
For example, some managers using scientific management obtained increases in performance, but rather than sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their performance increased, managers required them to do more work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in performance often meant fewer Jobs and a greater threat of layoffs, because fewer workers were needed.
In addition, the specialized, simplified Jobs were often monotonous and repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their Jobs. Scientific management brought many workers more hardship than gain, and left them with a distrust of managers who did not seem to care about their wellbeing. These dissatisfied workers resisted attempts to use the new scientific management techniques and at times even withheld their Job knowledge from managers to protect their Jobs and pay. Unable to inspire workers to accept the new scientific management techniques for performing tasks, some organizations increased the mechanization of the work process.
For example, one reason for Henry Ford’s introduction of moving conveyor belts in his factory was the realization that when a conveyor belt controls the pace of work (instead of workers setting their own pace), workers can be pushed to perform at higher levels-?levels that they may have thought were beyond their reach. Charlie Chaplin captured this aspect of mass production in one of the opening scenes of his famous movie, Modern Times (1936). In the film, Chaplin caricatured a new factory employee fighting to work at the machine imposed pace but losing the battle to the machine.
Henry Ford also used the principles of scientific management to identify the tasks that each worker should perform on the production line and thus to determine the most effective way to create a division of labor to suit the needs of a mechanized production system. From a performance perspective, the combination of the two management practices -?(1) achieving the right mix of worker-task specialization and (2) linking people and tasks by the speed of the production line-?makes sense. It produces the huge savings in cost and huge increases in output that occur in large, organized work settings.
The Gilbert’s Two prominent followers of Taylor were Frank Gilberts (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilberts (1878-1972), who refined Tailor’s analysis of work movements and made many contributions to time-and-motion study. Their aims were to (1) break up into each of its component actions and analyze every individual action necessary to perform a particular task, (2) find better ways to perform each component action, and (3) reorganize each of the component actions so that the action as a whole could be reformed more efficiently-?at less cost of time and effort.
The Gilbert’s often filmed a worker performing a particular task and then separated the task actions, frame by with which each individual task was performed so that gains across tasks would add up to enormous savings of time and effort. Their attempts to develop improved management principles were captured-?at times quite humorously-?in the movie Cheaper by the Dozen, which depicts how the Gilbert’s (with their 12 children) tried to live their own lives according to these efficiency principles and apply them to daily actions such as shaving, cooking, and even raising a family.
Eventually, the Gilbert’s became increasingly interested in the study of fatigue. They studied how the physical characteristics of the workplace contribute to Job stress that often leads to fatigue and thus poor performance. They isolated factors-? such as lighting, heating, the color of walls, and the design of tools and machines-?that result in worker fatigue. Their pioneering studies paved the way for new advances in management theory. In workshops and factories, the work of the Gilbert’s, Taylor, and many others had a major effect on the practice of management.
In comparison with the old crafts yester, Jobs in the new system were more repetitive, boring, and monotonous as a result of the application of scientific management principles, and workers became increasingly dissatisfied. Frequently, the management of work settings became a game between workers and managers: Managers tried to initiate work practices to increase performance, and workers tried to hide the true potential efficiency of the work setting in order to protect their own well-being.
Side by side with scientific managers studying the person-task mix to increase efficiency, other researchers were focusing on administrative management, the study f how to create an organizational structure that leads to high efficiency and effectiveness. Organizational structure is the system of task and authority relationships that control how employees use resources to achieve the organization’s goals. Two of the most influential views regarding the creation of efficient systems of organizational administration were developed in Europe.
Max Weber, a German professor sociology, developed one theory. Henry Payola, the French manager who developed model of management, developed the other. The Theory of Bureaucracy Max Weber (1864-1920) wrote at the turn of the twentieth century, when Germany as undergoing its industrial revolution. To help Germany manage its growing industrial enterprises at a time when it was striving to become a world power, Weber developed the principles of bureaucracy-?a formal system of organization and administration designed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
A bureaucratic system of administration is based on five principles. ; Principle 1: In a bureaucracy, a manager’s formal authority derives from the position he or she holds in the organization. Authority is the power to hold people accountable for their actions and to make decisions concerning the use of organizational resources. Authority gives managers the right to direct and control their subordinates’ behavior to achieve organizational goals.
In a bureaucratic system of administration, obedience is owed to a manager, not because of any personal qualities that he or she might possess-? such as personality, wealth, or social status-?but because the manager occupies a position that is associated with a certain level of authority and responsibility. ; Principle 2: In a bureaucracy, people should occupy positions because of their performance, not because of their social standing or personal contacts. This principle was not always followed in Weeper’s time and is often ignored today.
Some organizations and industries are still affected by social networks in which personal contacts and relations, not Job-related skills, influence hiring and promotional decisions. ; Principle 3: The extent of each position’s formal authority and task responsibilities, and its relationship to other positions in an organization, should be clearly specified. When the tasks and authority associated with various positions in the organization are clearly specified, managers and workers know what is expected of them and what tricky accountable for their actions when each person is completely familiar with his or her responsibilities. Principle 4: So that authority can be exercised effectively in an organization, positions should be arranged hierarchically, so employees know whom to report to and who reports to them. Managers must create an organizational hierarchy of authority that makes it clear who reports to whom and to whom managers and workers should go if conflicts or problems arise. This principle is especially important in the armed forces, ISIS, RACE, and other organizations that deal with sensitive issues involving possible ajar repercussions.
It is vital that managers at high levels of the hierarchy be able to hold subordinates accountable for their actions. ; Principle 5: Managers must create a well-defined system of rules, standard operating procedures, and norms so that they can effectively control behavior within an organization. Rules are formal written instructions that specify actions to be taken under different circumstances to achieve specific goals (for example, if A happens, do B). Standard operating procedures (Sops) are specific sets of written instructions about how to perform a certain aspect of a task.
A rule might state that at the end of the workday employees are to leave their machines in good order, and a set of SOPs then specifies exactly how they should do so, itemizing which machine parts must be oiled or replaced. Norms are unwritten, informal codes of conduct that prescribe how people should act in particular situations. For example, an organizational norm in a restaurant might be that waiters should help each other if time permits. Rules, sops, and norms provide behavioral guidelines that improve the performance of a bureaucratic system because they specify the best ways to accomplish organizational asks.
Companies such as McDonald’s and Wall-Mart have developed extensive rules and procedures to specify the types of behaviors that are required of their employees, such as, “Always greet the customer with a smile. ” Weber believed that organizations that implement all five principles will establish a bureaucratic system that will improve organizational performance. The specification of positions and the use of rules and SOPs to regulate how tasks are performed make it easier for managers to organize and control the work of subordinates.
Similarly, fair and equitable selection and promotion systems improve managers’ feelings of security, reduce stress, and encourage organizational members to act ethically and further promote the interests of the organization. If bureaucracies are not managed well, however, many problems can result. Sometimes, managers allow rules and SOPs -?”bureaucratic red tape”-?to become so cumbersome that decision making becomes slow and inefficient and organizations are unable to change. When managers rely too much on rules to solve problems and not enough on their own skills and Judgment, their behavior becomes inflexible.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment