Purpose and History of Management - Coursework Example

Individual Essay – Who Needs Managers? Name: Institution: Table of Contents Introduction 3 An Overview of Management 4 Purpose and History of Management 5 Scientific Management 5 Bureaucratic and Administrative Management 6 Human Relations Management 7 Impact of Environment on Management 7 Components of the General Environment 7 Components of the Specific Environment 8 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction Management is a concept that has been evolving over time. In the early days of its inception, most theorists and organizations seemed to advocate for the traditional form of management in which the top management was the overall decision maker and was responsible for virtually every bit of the day-to-day running of the organization. In this form of management, the employees were only but implementers of the decisions and objectives set by the top management. In the recent years, however, things have changed. Management is rapidly taking a different form in which managers are adopting a hands-off approach where employees are being allowed to literally take charge of the running of the organization. All the manager has to do is set up proper structures, delegate, and also inspire the employees to see and help pursue the vision and mission conceptualized by both the manager and their employees. In this modern management approach, it is assumed and expected that employees are fully involved in their work and are capable to manage themselves well even in the absence of their manager(s) (Flores & Utley, 2000). This paper, therefore, presents a discussion on the statement, “Employee involvement programs stress that substantial amounts of the work done by managers is unnecessary because it simply supports a command and control approach to management which is not needed when employees are involved in their work and are capable of self-managing” as adopted from Lawler (1994). Specifically, the paper takes an overview of management as a concept, discusses the purpose and historical evolution of the concept of management, and the impact the environment has on management. An Overview of Management Different scholars have defined management differently depending on their perspective of what the concept of management actually entails. According to Adetule (2011), management may be defined as a mechanism through which people are coordinated and facilitated to achieve the set objectives and goals of an organization. A simple but comprehensive definition of management was coined by Mary Parker Follett in which she defined management as a system in which people are used to accomplish tasks in an organizational setting (McLean, 2005). Management involves four main functions i.e. planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Planning refers to the selection of activities to be done for organizational success, explaining the technique of accomplishing those tasks, and setting the timelines for their accomplishment. Organizing, on the other hand, refers to the process of delegating duties to various individuals or teams within an organization. Leading, however, is the provision of guidance to individuals and teams in the organization on how the set objectives and goals can be accomplished. Finally, controlling may be defined as the evaluation of the success so far, measuring any deviations, and proposing corrective mechanisms if need be. Ideally, therefore, it is expected that the role of a manager entails accomplishing all the aforementioned four functions of management i.e. planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Traditional mechanisms of management tended to focus more on organizing, planning, and controlling leaving out leadership. With the recent employee involvement programs, though, there has been need for managers to value, motivate, and inspire employees into management. This is where leadership becomes relevant as a function of management in today’s management practices (Aktouf, 1992). When hiring for managers, companies look for a combination of certain critical skills. These are the technical skills, human skills, conceptual skills, and ambition to manage. It is unfortunate, however, that some managers go against what they are expected to do by being insensitive to others, arrogant, overambitious, and to some extent over-managing (Cheng, Sculli, & Chan, 2001). Purpose and History of Management As was rightly mentioned in the introductory remarks, management has evolved over time into the modern day management where most managers are adopting a hands-off approach of management. According to Adetule (2011), this evolvement can be traced back to as early as 5000 BC through to the Agrarian Revolution, then Industrial Revolution and finally to the modern systems. This history is discussed hereunder under three categories i.e. scientific management, bureaucratic and administrative management, and human relations management. Scientific Management With its pioneer being Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Scientific Management was first coined in 1911 during the infamous Industrial Revolution. Taylor believed in testing every single available management option using scientific techniques before which one can settle of the most efficient one. According to Locke (1982), Taylor devised four main principles of management. First, any work to be performed requires subdivision into smaller tasks each of whose science is established. The second principle was the selection and training of employees based on a scientific mechanism. Thirdly, the principle was the enhancement of harmony between employees and the management so that work may flow as efficiently as possible. The final principle was the breakdown of work meant for managers and that meant for employees such that neither party does the other party’s work (Locke, 1982). Other theorists in scientific management are Lillian and Frank Gilbreth (a couple) and Henry Gantt. Lillian and Frank Gilbreth proposed that the duration within which an employee completed a task should dictate the payments such a worker actually receives from the company. Henry Gantt, on the other hand, used his Gantt Chart to actually show the timelines within which tasks in a given project could be completed (Wren, Bedeian, & Wren, 2009). His approach was no different from Taylor’s in the sense that it encouraged the scientific selection, training, and remuneration of employees. Bureaucratic and Administrative Management The United States military is a classic example of a bureaucratic management. According to Max Weber (1864 – 1920), this theory of management entails a management approach where an organization is broken down into hierarchies, usually from top – down. This theory of management also involved certain strict rules that were laid down for everyone to follow in performing their tasks. Bureaucratic Management Theory was founded on 6 main principles i.e. equitable division of labour, chain of command, distinction between individual and organizational property, adherence to strict rules, and merit-based appraisals (Koontz, 1962). Administrative management, on the other hand, was developed by a French Engineer Henry Fayol with its emphasis being in the principles of management. As a matter of fact, Henry Fayol is behind the four functions of management i.e. planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. The administrative management approach is founded on fourteen principles i.e. Division of Work, Authority, Discipline, Unity of Command, Unity of Direction, Subordination of Individual Interests, Remuneration, Centralization, Scalar Chain, Order, Equity, Stability of Tenure of Employees, Initiative, and Esprit de Corps (McLean, 2005). Human Relations Management The three main contributors in the Human Relations Management are Mary Parker Follett, Elton Mayo, and Chester Barnard. Of the trio, Mary P. Follett stood out the most in this management approach. According to her, proper organizational management is a product of valuing employees’ input and working with them (coactiveness) rather than working over them (coerciveness). In the Hawthorne Studies, Elton Mayo also established that human factors were weightier than the physical work designs such as lighting. Chester Barnard, on his part, believed that anyone in management position deserves respect and authority. According to him, such authority does not show autocratic management (McLean, 2005). Impact of Environment on Management According to Mary Parker Follett, management refers to the art of getting things done through other people. In her management theory, managers do not necessarily need to work, but rather they should treat their subordinates well so they can work even in the absence of the managers (Koontz, 1961). Environmental factors, however, impact on how far the manager can get things done through other people as discussed hereunder. Components of the General Environment The general environment is made up of four main components. First, the economic component refers to the economic situation of at a given time. An economic downturn may discourage access to credit hence hindering expansion, while economic boom may reduce unemployment hence increasing business spending. The second component is technology which reduces labour cost while boosting productivity. Thirdly, the socio-cultural component may either discourage or promote business growth e.g. a culture that discourages population control means increased cheap labour force hence increasing productivity. The political component means compliance to the rule of law failure to which the performance of a manager may be tainted due to the poor corporate reputation (Cheng, Sculli, & Chan, 2001). Components of the Specific Environment For a specific environment, there are five components that affect the manager’s ability to get things done through people. One, the customer factor affects the marketability of the organization’s products and services. Two, the competitor component affects the innovativeness of an organization and its ability to sell its products and services. Three, the supplier component influences the organization’s to continuously get supplies. Finally, the industry regulation component and the advocacy groups imply ethical organizational operations hence a reputation in ethics (Flores & Utley, 2000). Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, the modern management approaches have been characterized by more of a hands-off approach where owing to the fair treatment of employees, they can be trusted with work even in the manager’s absence. While it may be argued that such a move makes the manager redundant in a way, it has proven to yield better results, especially in the recent years where human relations management approach is rapidly taking shape. References Adetule, J. (2011). Handbook on management theories. Bloomington: Author House. Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and Theories of Organizations in the 1990s: Towards a Critical Radical Humanism? Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 407–31. Cheng, T., Sculli, D. & Chan, F. (2001). Relationship Dominance – Rethinking Management Theories from the Perspective of Methodological Relationalism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(2), 97–105. Flores, G. N. & Utley, D. R. (2000). Management Concepts in Use – a 12-year Perspective. Engineering Management Journal, 12(3), 11–17. Koontz, H. (1962). Making Sense of Management Theory. Harvard Business Review, 4(2), 59-112 Koontz, H. (1961). The Management Theory Jungle. Journal of the Academy of Management, 3(1), 23-72. Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: are they compatible? The Academy of Management Executive, 8(1), 68-76. Locke, E. A. (1982). The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 14–24. McLean, J. (2005). Management Techniques and Theories. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 3(2005), 17-26. Wren, D. A., Bedeian, A. G., & Wren, D. A. (2009). The evolution of management thought. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. Read More