IntroductionThe evolution of management thought and the patterns of management analysis-The purpose of this paper are to give a basic understanding in evolution of management thoughts and the patterns of management analysis. It is a compilation of resources that explain what management is different levels of management, what tasks are essential for managers. It also includes recent changes in management practices along with and explanation of challenges for management in a global environment. Throughout this paper we will gain a basic understanding of the evolution of management thought and the different theories involving management.

We will give a brief overview on :

* Scientific management theories of Frederic Taylor and his major followers * The social-man concepts of Mayo and his colleagues and the social system theory of Chester Barnard.  * Explain the nature of the management theory jungle  * Discuss the managerial roles  * Recognize some recent contribution to management thought

Despite the inexactness and relative crudity of management theory and science, the development of thought on management dates back to the days when people first attempted to accomplish goals by workimg together in groups. Although modern operational-management theory dates primarily from the early twentieth century, there was serious thinking and theorizing about managing many years before.

While this chapter can do little more than sketch some of the high spots in the emergence of management thought, it is worthwhile for persons interested in management to know something of the background of the evolution of management thought. Even limited knowledge can help one appreciate the many insights, ideas, and scientific underpinnings that preceded the upsurge in management writing during recent years. Familiarity with the history of management thought may help you avoid rediscovering previously known ideas.

You will see that the many different contributions of writers and practitioners have resulted in different approaches to management, and these make up a “management theory jungle.” Later in this chapter you will learn about the different patterens of management analysis and what can be done to untangle the jungle.

Scientific Management

Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), lead developer of scientific management. Scientific management, also called Taylorism, was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas.Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality;

1

empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.

Scientific management's application was contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent, detail-oriented management from mere misguided management also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers.

While the terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are often treated as synonymous, an alternative view considers Taylorism as the first form of scientific management, which was followed by new iterations; thus in today's management theory, Taylorism is sometimes called (or considered a subset of) the classical perspective (meaning a perspective that's still respected for its seminal influence although it is no longer state-of-the-art). Taylor's own early names for his approach included "shop management" and "process management". When Louis Brandeis popularized the term "scientific management" in 1910, Taylor recognized it as another good name for the concept, and he used it himself in his 1911 monograph.

The field comprised the work of Taylor; his disciples (such as Henry Gantt); other engineers and managers (such as Benjamin S. Graham); and other theorists, such as Max Weber. It is compared and contrasted with other efforts, including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank Gilbreth, Sr. and Lillian Moller Gilbreth (whose views originally shared much with Taylor's but later evolved divergently in response to Taylorism's inadequate handling of human relations). Taylorism proper, in its strict sense, became obsolete by the 1930s, and by the 1960s the term "scientific management" had fallen out of favor for describing current management theories. However, many aspects of scientific management have never stopped being part of later management efforts called by other names. There is no simple dividing line demarcating the time when management as a modern profession (blending art, academic science, and applied science) diverged from Taylorism proper. It was a gradual process that began as soon as Taylor published (as evidenced by, for example, Hartness's motivation to publish his Human Factor, or the Gilbreths' work), and each subsequent decade brought further evolution.

Taylor’s Principles

Taylor was a mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. Taylor is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was one of the first management consultants and director of a famous firm. In Peter Drucker's description,

Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. On Taylor's 'scientific management' rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Taylor,

2

though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of the science of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since – even though he has been dead all of sixty years.

Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.

2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.

3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete task" (Montgomery 1997: 250).

4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.

Future US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his argument for the Eastern Rate Case before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910. Brandeis argued that railroads, when governed according to Taylor's principles, did not need to raise rates to increase wages. Taylor used Brandeis's term in the title of his monograph The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911. The Eastern Rate Case propelled Taylor's ideas to the forefront of the management agenda. Taylor wrote to Brandeis "I have rarely seen a new movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one." Taylor's approach is also often referred to as Taylor's Principles, or, frequently disparagingly, as Taylorism.

Followers of Taylor

Henry L. Gantt

Henry Laurence Gantt, A.B., M.E. (May 20, 1861 – November 23, 1919) was an American mechanical engineer and management consultant who is best known for developing the Gantt chart in the 1910s.

Gantt charts were employed on major infrastructure projects including the Hoover Dam and Interstate highway system and continue to be an important tool in project management.

Biography

Gantt was born in Calvert County, Maryland. He graduated from McDonogh School in 1878 and then went on to attend and graduate from Johns Hopkins University in 1880. After graduation, he went back to teach at the McDonogh school for three years. He subsequently went on to graduate from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, awarded a Masters of Engineering degree.

3

In 1884 he first began work as a Mechanical Engineer with Pool and Hunt of Baltimore. In 1887, he joined Frederick W. Taylor in applying scientific management principles to the work at Midvale Steel and Bethlehem Steel—working there with Taylor until 1893. In his later career as a management consultant—following the invention of the Gantt chart—he also designed the 'task and bonus' system of wage payment and additional measurement methods worker efficiency and productivity.

In 1916, influenced by Thorsten Veblen he set up the New Machine, an association which sought to apply the criteria of industrial efficiency to the political process.

With the Marxist Walter Polakov he led a breakaway from the 1916 ASME conference to discuss Gantt's call for socialising industrial under the control of managers and Polakov's analysis of inefficiency in the industrial context.

Henry Gantt is listed under Stevens Institute of Technology alumni.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) awards an annual medal in honor of Henry Laurence Gantt.

Work

Henry Gantt's legacy to production management is the following:

The Gantt chart: Still accepted as an important management tool today, it provides a graphic schedule for the planning and controlling of work, and recording progress towards stages of a project. The chart has a modern variation, Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT).

Industrial Efficiency: Industrial efficiency can only be produced by the application of scientific analysis to all aspects of the work in progress. The industrial management role is to improve the system by eliminating chance and accidents.

The Task And Bonus System: He linked the bonus paid to managers to how well they taught their employees to improve performance.

The social responsibility of business: He believed that businesses have obligations to the welfare of the society in which they operate.

Gantt charts

Gantt created many different types of charts. He designed his charts so that foremen or other supervisors could quickly know whether production was on schedule, ahead of schedule, or behind schedule. Modern project management software includes this critical function even now.

Gantt (1903) describes two types of balances:

the "man’s record", which shows what each worker should do and did do, and

4

the "daily balance of work", which shows the amount of work to be done and the amount that is done.

Gantt gives an example with orders that will require many days to complete. The daily balance has rows for each day and columns for each part or each operation. At the top of each column is the amount needed. The amount entered in the appropriate cell is the number of parts done each day and the cumulative total for that part. Heavy horizontal lines indicate the starting date and the date that the order should be done. According to Gantt, the graphical daily balance is "a method of scheduling and recording work". In this 1903 article, Gantt also describes the use of:

"production cards" for assigning work to each operator and recording how much was done each day.

In his 1916 book "Work, Wages, and Profits" Gantt explicitly discusses scheduling, especially in the job shop environment. He proposes giving to the foreman each day an "order of work" that is an ordered list of jobs to be done that day. Moreover, he discusses the need to coordinate activities to avoid "interferences". However, he also warns that the most elegant schedules created by planning offices are useless if they are ignored, a situation that he observed.

In his 1919 book "Organizing for Work" Gantt gives two principles for his charts:

one, measure activities by the amount of time needed to complete them; two, the space on the chart can be used to represent the amount of the activity that should

have been done in that time.

Gantt shows a progress chart that indicates for each month of the year, using a thin horizontal line, the number of items produced during that month. In addition, a thick horizontal line indicates the number of items produced during the year. Each row in the chart corresponds to an order for parts from a specific contractor, and each row indicates the starting month and ending month of the deliveries. It is the closest thing to the Gantt charts typically used today in scheduling systems, though it is at a higher level than machine scheduling.

Gantt’s machine record chart and man record chart are quite similar, though they show both the actual working time for each day and the cumulative working time for a week. Each row of the chart corresponds to an individual machine or operator. These charts do not indicate which tasks were to be done, however.

A novel method of displaying interdependencies of processes to increase visibility of production schedules was invented in 1896 by Karol Adamiecki, which was similar to the one defined by Gantt in 1903. However, Adamiecki did not publish his works in a language popular in the West; hence Gantt was able to popularize a similar method, which he developed around the years 1910–1915, and the solution became attributed to Gantt. With minor modifications, what originated as the Adamiecki's chart is now more commonly referred to as the Gantt Chart.

5

Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr.

Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. (July 7, 1868 - June 14, 1924) was an early advocate of scientific management and a pioneer of motion study, but is perhaps best known as the father and central figure of Cheaper by the Doze

Biography

Born in Fairfield, Maine to John Hiram and Martha (née Bunker) Gilbreth, had no formal education beyond high school. He began as a bricklayer and became a building contractor, an inventor, and finally a management engineer. He eventually became an occasional lecturer at Purdue University, which houses his papers. He married Lillian Evelyn Moller on October 19, 1904 in Oakland, California; they had 12 children, 11 of whom survived him. Their names were Anne, Mary (1906–1912), Ernestine, Martha, Frank Jr., William, Lillian, Frederick, Daniel, John, Robert and Jane.

Gilbreth discovered his vocation when, as a young building contractor, he sought ways to make bricklaying (his first trade) faster and easier. This grew into a collaboration with his eventual spouse, Lillian Moller Gilbreth, that studied the work habits of manufacturing and clerical employees in all sorts of industries to find ways to increase output and make their jobs easier. He and Lillian founded a management consulting firm, Gilbreth, Inc., focusing on such endeavors.

They were involved in the development of the design for the Simmons Hardware Company's Sioux City Warehouse. The architects had specified that hundreds of 20-foot (6.1 m) hardened concrete piles were to be driven in to allow the soft ground to take the weight of two million bricks required to construct the building. The "Time and Motion" approach could be applied to the bricklaying and the transportation. The building itself was also required to support efficient input and output of deliveries via its own railroad switching facilities.

Gilbreth served in the U.S. Army during World War I. His assignment was to find quicker and more efficient means of assembling and disassembling small arms.

According to Claude George (1968), Gilbreth reduced all motions of the hand into some combination of 17 basic motions. These included grasp, transport loaded, and hold. Gilbreth named the motions therbligs, "Gilbreth" spelled backwards with the th transposed. He used a motion picture camera that was calibrated in fractions of minutes to time the smallest of motions in workers.

George noted that the Gilbreths were, above all, scientists who sought to teach managers that all aspects of the workplace should be constantly questioned, and improvements constantly adopted. Their emphasis on the "one best way" and the therbligs predates the development of continuous quality improvement (CQI) (George 1968: 98), and the late 20th century understanding that repeated motions can lead to workers experiencing repetitive motion injuries.

6

Gilbreth was the first to propose serve as "caddy" (Gilbreth's term) to a surgeon, by handing surgical instruments to the surgeon as called for. Gilbreth also devised the standard techniques used by armies around the world to teach recruits how to rapidly disassemble and reassemble their weapons even when blindfolded or in total darkness.

Lillian Moller Gilbreth

Lillian Evelyn Moller Gilbreth (May 24, 1878 – January 2, 1972) was an American psychologist and industrial engineer. One of the first working female engineers holding a Ph.D., she is arguably the first true industrial/organizational psychologist. She and her husband Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. were efficiency experts who contributed to the study of industrial engineering in fields such as motion study and human factors. The books Cheaper by the Dozen and Belles on Their Toes (written by their children Ernestine and Frank Jr.) are the story of their family life with their twelve children, and describe how they applied their interest in time and motion study to the organization and daily activities of such a large family.

Biography

Gilbreth was born in Oakland, California on May 24, 1878. She was the second of ten children of William Moller, a builder's supply merchant; and Annie Delger. Both parents were of German descent. She was educated at home until she was nine years old, when her formal schooling began at a public elementary school, where she was required to start from the first grade (although she was rapidly promoted through the grades).She attended Oakland High School, where she was elected vice president of her senior class; she graduated with exemplary grades in May 1896.

Gilbreth started college at the University of California, Berkeley shortly after, commuting by streetcar from her parents' Oakland home. She graduated from the University of California in 1900 with a bachelor's degree in English literature and was the first female commencement speaker at the university. She originally pursued her master's degree at Columbia University, where she was exposed to the subject of psychology through courses under Edward Thorndike. However, she became ill and returned home, finishing her master's degree in literature at the University of California in 1902. Her thesis was on Ben Jonson's play Bartholomew Fair.

Gilbreth completed a dissertation and attempted to obtain a doctorate from the University of California in 1911, but was not awarded the degree due to noncompliance with residency requirements for doctoral candidates; this dissertation was later published as The Psychology of Management. Instead, since her immediate family had relocated to New England by this time, she attended Brown University and earned a Ph.D in 1915, having written a second dissertation on efficient teaching methods called "Some Aspects of Eliminating Waste in Teaching". It was the first degree granted in industrial psychology.

She died on January 2, 1972 in Phoenix, Arizona.

7

Work

Lillian Gilbreth combined the perspectives of an engineer, a psychologist, a wife, and a mother; she helped industrial engineers see the importance of the psychological dimensions of work. She became the first American engineer ever to create a synthesis of psychology and scientific management.

Psychology in scientific management

She and her husband were certain that the revolutionary ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor, as Taylor formulated them, would be neither easy to implement nor sufficient; their implementation would require hard work by both engineers and psychologists to make them successful. Both Lillian and Frank Gilbreth believed that scientific management as formulated by Taylor fell short when it came to managing the human element on the shop floor. The Gilbreths helped formulate a constructive critique of Taylorism; this critique had the support of other successful managers.

Her work included the marketing research for Johnson & Johnson in 1926 and her efforts to improve women’s spending decisions during the first years of the Great Depression. She also helped companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Macys with their management departments. In 1926, when Johnson & Johnson hired Lillian as a consultant to do marketing research on sanitary napkins., the firm benefited in three ways. First, it could use her training as a psychologist in measuring and the analysis of attitudes and opinions. Second, it could give her the experience of an engineer who specializes in the interaction between bodies and material objects. Third, she would be a public image as a mother and a modern career woman to build consumer trust.

Fayolism

Fayolism was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized the role of management in organizations, developed around 1900 by the French management theorist Henri Fayol (1841–1925). It was through Fayol's work as a philosopher of administration that he contributed most widely to the theory and practice of organizational management.

Research and Teaching of Management

Fayol believed by focusing on managerial practices he could minimize misunderstandings and increase efficiency in organizations. He enlightened managers on how to accomplish their managerial duties, and the practices in which they should engage. In his book General and Industrial Management (published in French in 1916, then published in English in 1949), Fayol outlined his theory of general management, which he believed could be applied to the administration of myriad industries. His concern was with the administrative apparatus (or functions of administration), and to that end he presented his administrative theory, that is, principles and elements of management.

8

His theories and ideas were ideally a result of his environment; that of a post revolutionized France in which a republic bourgeois was emerging. A bourgeois himself, he believed in the controlling of workers in order to achieve a greater productivity over all other managerial considerations. However, through reading General and Industrial Management, it is apparent that Fayol advocated a flexible approach to management, one which he believed could be applied to any circumstance whether in the home, the workplace, or within the state. He stressed the importance and the practice of forecasting and planning in order to apply these ideas and techniques which demonstrated his ability and his emphasis in being able to adapt to any sort of situation. In General and Industrial Management he outlines an agenda whereby, under an accepted theory of management, every citizen is exposed and taught some form of management education and allowed to exercise management abilities first at school and later on in the workplace.

"Everyone needs some concepts of management; in the home, in affairs of state, the need for managerial ability is in keeping with the importance of the undertaking, and for individual people the need is everywhere in greater accordance with the position occupied. '- excerpt from General and Industrial Management

Fayol's Principles of Management

During the early 20th century, Fayol developed 14 principles of management in order to help managers manage their affairs more effectively. Organizations in technologically advanced countries interpret these principles quite differently from the way they were interpreted during Fayol's time as well. These differences in interpretation are in part a result of the cultural challenges managers face when implementing this framework. The fourteen principles are: (1) Division of work, (2) Delegation of Authority, (3) Discipline, (4) Chain of commands, (5) Congenial workplace, (6) Interrelation between individual interests and common organizational goals, (7) Compensation package, (8) Centralization, (9) Scalar chains, (10) Order, (11) Equity, (12) Job Guarantee, (13) Initiatives, (14) Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps.

Fayol's Elements of Management

Within his theory, Fayol outlined five elements of management that depict the kinds of behaviors managers should engage in so that the goals and objectives of an organization are effectively met. The five elements of management are:

1. Planning: creating a plan of action for the future, determining the stages of the plan and the technology necessary to implement it.

2. Organizing: Once a plan of action is designed, managers need to provide everything necessary to carry it out; including raw materials, tools, capital and human resources

3. Command: Managers need to implement the plan. They must have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel.

4. Coordination: High-level managers must work to "harmonize" all the activities to facilitate organizational success. Communication is the prime coordinating mechanism.

9

5. Control: The final element of management involves the comparison of the activities of the personnel to the plan of action, it is the evaluation component of management.

Industrial Psychology 

A branch of applied psychology devoted to the psychological aspects and laws of human labor. Industrial psychology came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at a time when industrial production was expanding, new types of labor and common occupations were emerging, and greater demands were being made on the individual.

The emergence of industrial psychology is linked to the beginning of the scientific organization of labor. At first, the most important problem faced by industrial psychology was that of vocational selection. An analysis of differences in the productivity of workers who had received approximately the same training led to the thought that more or less stable individual differences existed with regard to vocational aptitude. Special tests were created to evaluate this aptitude quantitatively and carry out vocational selection. It became necessary to study thoroughly the psychology of various occupations. This led to the discovery that differences in dispositions, interests, and motivations impel individuals to prefer a given profession. Special career guidance bureaus were organized to assist adolescents in choosing a profession. A special branch in industrial psychology was created: vocational guidance and consultation. Specialized research was conducted on the development of the professional skills and qualities that are important for various types of work. This branch of industrial psychology seeks to provide recommendations for improving teaching methods and implementing various training and exercise programs.

Another important branch of industrial psychology studies variations in efficiency due to fatigue and the daily activity cycle. It also seeks to determine optimal work schedules so as to minimize variations in work productivity and quality throughout the workday, workweek, and so on. Contemporary industrial psychology is developing special methods to measure fatigability and the decrease of efficiency. In this respect, industrial psychology is closely related to the physiology of labor. It has accumulated a wealth of material on efficiency and fatigability and on how the individual is influenced by working conditions, the nature of operations performed, the monotony or danger of work, unusual and extreme working conditions, the individual’s motivation, and the development of the individual’s needs and capacities in the collective labor process.

Industrial psychology seeks the rational restructuring of various professions, articulation of the most psychologically beneficial way a profession’s component operations can be put together, and formulation of the scientific basis of expedient automation; this is all very important in raising the productivity of labor. Industrial psychologists coordinate their efforts with specialists in mechanization and automation. The study of the psychological factors leading to accidents has led to the creation of special methods to effect vocational selection and prevent accidents by means of special exercise and training techniques.

10

A number of special directions in the psychology of professions have emerged, including the psychology of aviators, cosmonauts, transport operators, assembly-line workers, and agricultural workers. These directions emerged after the study of the psychological characteristics of specific types of work, compilation of detailed descriptions of professions and professional activity that evaluate how a person’s mental characteristics and capacities are utilized, and determination of professionally desirable personality traits.

Both experimental and analytical methods play an important role in industrial psychology. One method involves special exercises that make use of various devices to simulate the basic characteristics of a given profession. Methods of variational statistics also play an important role.

In view of the contemporary scientific and technological revolution, industrial psychology is called on to study the new conditions and forms of human labor, as well as possible stimulating factors. It is also called on to study new professions and the requirements of labor employing advanced technology. Industrial psychology is closely linked to the sociology of labor, social psychology, engineering psychology, organizational and economic psychology, economics, industrial ethics, biotechnology, the physiology and hygiene of labor, cybernetics, administrative disciplines, applied mathematics, qualimetry, and technical aesthetics.

Hugo Münsterberg

Hugo Münsterberg (June 1, 1863 – December 19, 1916) was a German-American psychologist. He was one of the pioneers in applied psychology, extending his research and theories to Industrial/Organizational (I/O), legal, medical, clinical, educational and business settings. Münsterberg encountered immense turmoil with the outbreak of the First World War. Torn between his loyalty to America and his homeland, he often defended Germany's actions, attracting highly contrasting reactions.

Biography

Hugo Münsterberg was born into a Schill Jewish family in Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) an east Prussian port city. His father Moritz (1825–1880) was a successful lumber merchant who came from Breslau in the middle of the 19th century. His mother, Minna Anna Bernhardi (1838–1875) was a recognized artist and musician, was Moritz's second wife, and the niece of his first, Rosalie Weinberg (1830–1857). Both his mother and his father died before he was 20 years old. Moritz had two sons with Rosalie, Otto (1854–1915) and Emil (1855–1915), and two with Anna, Hugo (1863–1916) and Oscar (1865–1920). The four sons remained close, and all of them became successful in their chosen careers. A neo-Renaissance villa in Detmold, Germany, that Oscar lived in from 1886-1896 has recently been renovated, and opened as a cultural center.

11

Industrial psychology

Münsterberg was an admirer of Frederick Winslow Taylor to whom he wrote to in 1913: “Our aim is to sketch the outlines of a new science, which is to intermediate between the modern laboratory psychology and the problem of economics.” Industrial psychology was to be “independent of economic opinions and debatable . . . interests.” Münsterberg's works Vocation and Learning (1912) and Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913) are usually considered the beginning of what would later become known as industrial psychology. His books dealt with many topics including hiring workers who had personalities and mental abilities best suited to certain types of vocations as the best way to increase motivation, performance, and retention, methods of increasing work efficiency, and marketing and advertising techniques. [1] (349) His paper Psychology and the Market (1909) suggested that psychology could be used in many different industrial applications including management, vocational decisions, advertising, job performance and employee motivation.

In Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913) Münsterberg addressed many different topics that are very important to the current field of industrial psychology. His objective was "to sketch the outlines of a new science which is to intermediate between the modern laboratory psychology and the problems of economics: the psychological experiment is systematically to be placed at the service of commerce and industry." He selects three points of view that he believes are of particular importance to industrial psychology and seeks to answer those questions. These three questions include "how we can find the men whose mental qualities make them best fitted for the work which they have to do; secondly, under what psychological conditions we can secure the greatest and most satisfactory output of work from every man; and finally, how we can produce most completely the influences on human minds which are desired in the interest of business." In other words, we ask how to find "the best possible man, how to produce the best possible work, and how to secure the best possible effects."

To Münsterberg the most pressing question was the "selection of those personalities which by their mental qualities are especially fit for a particular kind of economic work."Basically fitting the person with the correct skill set with the correct position to maximize their productivity, and to select those that have "fit personalities and reject the unfit ones." He gives many reasons why its difficult to select or place the correct person to any given vocation for many reasons and says that certain qualities cannot be taken alone to determine a persons fit for a position including their education, training, technical abilities, recommendation of previous employers, personal impressions of the person "the mental dispositions which may still be quite undeveloped and which may unfold only under the influence of special conditions in the surroundings; but, on the other side, it covers the habitual traits of the personality, the features of the individual temperament and character, of the intelligence and of the ability, of the collected knowledge and of the acquired experience. All variations of will and feeling, of perception and thought, of attention and emotion, of memory and imagination." That in reality having confidence in those prior factors is completely unfounded because he believes that "A threefold difficulty exists. In the first place, young people know very little about themselves and their abilities. When the day comes on which they discover their real strong points and their weaknesses, it is often too late. They have usually been drawn into the current of a particular vocation, and have given too much

12

energy to the preparation for a specific achievement to change the whole life-plan once more. The entire scheme of education gives to the individual little chance to find himself. A mere interest for one or another subject in school is influenced by many accidental circumstances, by the personality of the teacher or the methods of instruction, by suggestions of the surroundings and by home traditions, and accordingly even such a preference gives rather a slight final indication of the individual mental qualities. Moreover, such mere inclinations and interests cannot determine the true psychological fitness for a vocation."

Münsterberg points out that wandering from one job to another is more common in America and notes that this does have certain advantages including "that a failure in one vocation does not bring with it such a serious injury as in Europe, but it contributes much to the greater danger that any one may jump recklessly and without preparation into any vocational stream." Therefore he sought to find a psychologically scientific way of vocational guidance. He describes how two such systems have come to rise in America that attempt to guide young students as they leave school to they chosen vocation, and a newer system marked by a movement toward scientific management in commerce and industry.

This second newer system started in Boston and is essentially a form of career guidance for children. A member of the community would call a meeting of all the neighborhood boys who were to leave elementary school at the end of the year and discuss with them whether they had any reasonable plans for the future. It was clear that the boys knew little of what they wanted to do or what would be expected of them in the real world, and the leader was able to give them, especially in one-one-one conversations, valuable advice. They knew too little of the characteristic features of the vocations to which they wanted to devote themselves, and they had given hardly any attention to the question whether they had the necessary qualifications for the special work. From this experience an office "opened in 1908, in which all Boston children at the time when they left school were to receive individual suggestions with reference to the most reasonable and best adjusted selection of a calling. There is hardly any doubt that the remarkable success of this modest beginning was dependent upon the admirable personality of the late organizer, who recognized the individual features with unusual tact and acumen. But he himself had no doubt that such a merely impressionistic method could not satisfy the demands." Münsterberg identified three main reasons why this worked: first, because they analyzed the objective relations of the hundreds of different accessible vocations, as well as, the children's economic, hygienic, technical, and social elements that should be examined so that every child could receive valuable information as to the demands of the vocation and what opportunities could be found within that vocation. Second, that the schools would have to be interested in the question of vocational choice so that observations of an individual child could be made about their abilities and interests. And finally, what he believed to be the most important point, "the methods had to be elaborated in such a way that the personal traits and dispositions might be discovered with much greater exactitude and with much richer detail than was possible through what a mere call on the vocational counselor could unveil." Münsterberg believes that these early vocational counselors point towards the spirit of the modern tendency toward applied psychology, and that the goal can only be reached through exact, scientific, experimental research, "and that the mere naïve methods -- for instance, the filling-out of questionnaires

13

which may be quite useful in the first approach -- cannot be sufficient for a real, persistent furtherance of economic life and of the masses who seek their vocations."

The question of selecting the best possible man for a particular vocation for Münsterberg comes down to making the process very scientific, trying to create tests that limit the subjectivity that is possible through more traditional techniques of introspection, and instead using measurements of ones personality, intelligence and other inherent personality traits to try to find the best possible job for every individual.

Münsterberg also explored under what psychological conditions that an employer can secure the most and highest quality output of work from every employee by looking at the effects the effects of changing the work space environment, what can possibly effect workers production, problems of monotony in factory and other vocations that involve tedious repeated tasks and how to avoid these situation, studied attention and fatigue in the workplace, and the Physical and social influences on the working power.

Finally investigating how a company can secure the best possible effects in terms of sales. Münsterberg talks about ways to study the satisfaction of economic demands, experiments with discovering the effectiveness of advertisements, the psychology of buying and selling, and in the end discusses the future development of economic psychology.

GEORGE ELTON MAYO

George Elton Mayo (26 December 1880, Adelaide - 7 September 1949, Guildford, Surrey) was an Australian psychologist, sociologist and organization theorist.

He lectured at the University of Queensland from 1911 to 1923 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, but spent most of his career at Harvard Business School (1926 - 1947), where he was professor of industrial research. On 18 April 1913 he married Dorothea McConnel in Brisbane, Australia. They had two daughters, Patricia and Gael.

Research

Mayo is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement, and was known for his research including the Hawthorne Studies and his book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933). The research he conducted under the Hawthorne Studies of the 1930s showed the importance of groups in affecting the behavior of individuals at work. Mayo's employees, Roethlisberger and Dickson, conducted the practical experiments. This enabled him to make certain deductions about how managers should behave. He carried out a number of investigations to look at ways of improving productivity, for example changing lighting conditions in the workplace. What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the work group. Where norms of cooperation and higher output were established because of a feeling of importance, physical conditions or financial incentives had little motivational value. People will form work groups and this can be used by management to benefit the organization.

14

He concluded that people's work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content. He suggested a tension between workers' 'logic of sentiment' and managers' 'logic of cost and efficiency' which could lead to conflict within organizations.

Disagreement regarding his employees' procedure while conducting the studies:

The members of the groups whose behavior has been studied were allowed to choose themselves.

Two women have been replaced since they were chatting during their work. They were later identified as members of a leftist movement.

One Italian member was working above average since she had to care for her family alone. Thus she affected the group's performance in an above average way.

Summary of Mayo's Beliefs:

Individual workers cannot be treated in isolation, but must be seen as members of a group.

Monetary incentives and good working conditions are less important to the individual than the need to belong to a group.

Informal or unofficial groups formed at work have a strong influence on the behavior of those workers in a group.

Managers must be aware of these 'social needs' and cater for them to ensure that employees collaborate with the official organization rather than work against it.

Mayo's simple instructions to industrial interviewers set a template and remain influential to this day:

A. The simple rules of interviewing:1. Give your full attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so.2. Listen - don't talk.3. Never argue; never give advice.4. Listen to: what he wants to say; what he does not want to say; what he cannot say without help.5. As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern that is being set before you. To test, summarize what has been said and present for comment. Always do this with caution - that is, clarify but don't add or twist.

Hawthorne effect

The Hawthorne effect (commonly referred to as the observer effect) is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior, which is being experimentally measured, in response to the fact that they know that they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

15

History

The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger when analysing older experiments from 1924–1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown in them.

This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination. In these lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity. Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies[citation needed]. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned.

Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.

Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the present day.

Relay assembly experiments

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) assembling telephone relays.

Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each worker dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity. Some of the variables were:

giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.

providing food during the breaks shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour

went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to

16

adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually.

Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo, was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Bank wiring room experiments

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on. The study was conducted by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.

Interpretation and criticism

H. McIlvaine Parsons argues that in the studies where subjects received feedback on their work rates, the results should be considered biased by the feedback compared to the manipulation studies. He also argues that the rest periods involved possible learning effects, and the fear that the workers had about the intent of the studies may have biased the results.

Parsons defines the Hawthorne effect as "the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do" [i.e. learning effects, both permanent skill improvement and feedback-enabled adjustments to suit current goals]. His key argument is that in the studies where workers dropped their finished goods down chutes, the "girls" had access to the counters of their work rate.

It is possible that the illumination experiments were explained by a longitudinal learning effect. It is notable however that Parsons refuses to analyse the illumination experiments, on the grounds that they have not been properly published and so he cannot get at details, whereas he had extensive personal communication with Roethlisberger and Dickson.

17

But Mayo says it is to do with the fact that the workers felt better in the situation, because of the sympathy and interest of the observers. He does say that this experiment is about testing overall effect, not testing factors separately. He also discusses it not really as an experimenter effect but as a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. A lot to do with feeling free, not feeling supervised but more in control as a group. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel this way: that conditions were really different. The experiment was repeated with similar effects on mica-splitting workers.[citation needed]

Richard E. Clark and Brenda M. Sugrue (1991, p. 333) in a review of educational research say that uncontrolled novelty effects cause on average 30% of a standard deviation (SD) rise (i.e. 50%-63% score rise), which decays to small level after 8 weeks. In more detail: 50% of a SD for up to 4 weeks; 30% of SD for 5–8 weeks; and 20% of SD for > 8 weeks, (which is < 1% of the variance).

Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan has described the Hawthorne effect as 'a glorified anecdote,' saying that 'once you have got the anecdote, you can throw away the data.'"

Harry Braverman points out in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century that the Hawthorne tests were based on industrial psychology and were investigating whether workers' performance could be predicted by pre-hire testing. The Hawthorne study showed "that the performance of workers had little relation to ability and in fact often bore an inverse relation to test scores...". Braverman argues that the studies really showed that the workplace was not "a system of bureaucratic formal organisation on the Weberian model, nor a system of informal group relations, as in the interpretation of Mayo and his followers but rather a system of power, of class antagonisms". This discovery was a blow to those hoping to apply the behavioral sciences to manipulate workers in the interest of management.

The Hawthorne effect has been well established in the empirical literature beyond the original studies. The output ("dependent") variables were human work, and the educational effects can be expected to be similar (but it is not so obvious that medical effects would be). The experiments stand as a warning about simple experiments on human participants viewed as if they were only material systems. There is less certainty about the nature of the surprise factor, other than it certainly depended on the mental states of the participants: their knowledge, beliefs, etc.

Research on the demand effect also suggests that people might take on pleasing the experimenter as a goal, at least if it does not conflict with any other motive, but also, improving their performance by improving their skill will be dependent on getting feedback on their performance, and an experiment may give them this for the first time. So you often will not see any Hawthorne effect—only when it turns out that with the attention came either usable feedback or a change in motivation.

18

Adair (1984) warns of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it. He argues that it should be viewed as a variant of Orne's (1973) experimental demand effect. So for Adair, the issue is that an experimental effect depends on the participants' interpretation of the situation; this is why manipulation checks are important in social sciences experiments. So he thinks it is not awareness per se, nor special attention per se, but participants' interpretation that must be investigated in order to discover if/how the experimental conditions interact with the participants' goals. This can affect whether participants believe something, if they act on it or do not see it as in their interest, etc.

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1992) ch.11 also reviews and discusses the Hawthorne effect.

In a 2011 paper, economists Steven Levitt and John A. List claim that in the illumination experiments the variance in productivity is partly accounted for by other factors such as the weekly cycle of work or the seasonal temperature, and so the original conclusions were overstated.If so, this confirms the analysis of SRG Jones's 1992 article examining the relay experiments.

Chester Barnard

Chester Irving Barnard (November 7, 1886 – June 7, 1961) was an American business executive, public administrator, and the author of pioneering work in management theory and organizational studies. His landmark 1938 book, The Functions of the Executive, sets out a theory of organization and of the functions of executives in organizations. The book has been widely assigned in university courses in management theory and organizational sociology.[2]

Biography

In his youth, Barnard worked on a farm, then studied economics at Harvard University, earning money selling pianos and operating a dance band. Harvard denied him a BA because of a technicality, but a number of universities later granted him honorary doctorates.

Barnard joined the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (now AT&T) in 1909. In 1927, he became president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company. During the Great Depression, he directed the New Jersey state relief system.[2] He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1939.[3] He was president of the United Service Organizations (USO), 1942-45. Upon retiring from business, he served as president of the Rockefeller Foundation, 1948–52, and as chairman of the National Science Foundation, 1952-54. End 1950s he was among the first members of the Society for General Systems Research.

Work

Barnard looked at organizations as systems of cooperation of human activity, and noted that they are typically short-lived. It is rare for a firm to last more than a century. Similarly most nations last for less than a century. The only organization that can claim a substantial age is the Roman Catholic Church. According to Barnard, organizations are not long-lived because they

19

do not meet the two criteria necessary for survival: effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness is defined the usual way: as being able to accomplish stated goals. In contrast, Barnard's meaning of organizational efficiency differed substantially from the conventional use of the word. He defined efficiency of an organization as the degree to which that organization is able to satisfy the motives of the individuals. If an organization satisfies the motives of its members while attaining its explicit goals, cooperation among its members will last.

Barnard was a great admirer of Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) and he and Parsons corresponded persistently. The two scholars would send manuscripts for commentary to each other and they would write long letters where they engage in a common theoretical discussion. The first correspondence between Barnard and Parsons began in the end of the 1930s and it persisted essentially to Barnard’s death in 1961.

Mintzberg's Management Roles

Identifying the Roles Managers Play

As a manager, you probably fulfill many different roles every day.

For instance, as well as leading your team, you might find yourself resolving a conflict, negotiating new contracts, representing your department at a board meeting, or approving a request for a new computer system.

Put simply, you're constantly switching roles as tasks, situations, and expectations change.

Management expert and professor, Henry Mintzberg, recognized this. He argued that there are ten primary roles or behaviors that can be used to categorize a manager's different functions. In this article we'll examine these roles, and we'll see how you can use your understanding of them to improve your management skills.

The Roles

Mintzberg published his Ten Management Roles in his book, "Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations," in 1990.

The ten roles are:

Figurehead. Leader. Liaison. Monitor. Disseminator. Spokesperson. Entrepreneur.

20

Disturbance Handler. Resource Allocator. Negotiato -

The 10 roles are then divided up into three categories, as follows:

Category Role

Interpersonal FigureheadLeaderLiaison

Informational MonitorDisseminatorSpokesperson

Decisional EntrepreneurDisturbance HandlerResource AllocatorNegotiator

Let's look at each of the ten roles in greater detail.

Interpersonal Category

The roles in this category involve providing information and ideas.

1. Figurehead – As a manager, you have social, ceremonial and legal responsibilities. You're expected to be a source of inspiration. People look up to you as a person with authority, and as a figurehead.

2. Leader – This is where you provide leadership for your team, your department or perhaps your entire organization; and it's where you manage the performance and responsibilities of everyone in the group.

3. Liaison – Managers must communicate with internal and external contacts. You need to be able to network effectively on behalf of your organization.

Informational Category

The roles in this category involve processing information.

4. Monitor – In this role, you regularly seek out information related to your organization and industry, looking for relevant changes in the environment. You also monitor your team, in terms of both their productivity, and their well-being.

21

5. Disseminator – This is where you communicate potentially useful information to your colleagues and your team.

6. Spokesperson – Managers represent and speak for their organization. In this role you're responsible for transmitting information about your organization and its goals to the people outside it.

Decisional Category

The roles in this category involve using information.

7. Entrepreneur – As a manager, you create and control change within the organization. This means solving problems, generating new ideas, and implementing them.

8. Disturbance Handler – When an organization or team hits an unexpected roadblock, it's the manager who must take charge. You also need to help mediate disputes within it.

9. Resource Allocator – You'll also need to determine where organizational resources are best applied. This involves allocating funding, as well as assigning staff and other organizational resources.

10. Negotiator – You may be needed to take part in, and direct, important negotiations within your team, department, or organization.

McKinsey 7S Framework

Visual representation of the model

22

The McKinsey 7S Framework is a management model developed by well-known business consultants Robert H. Waterman, Jr. and Tom Peters (who also developed the MBWA-- "Management By Walking Around" motif, and authored In Search of Excellence) in the 1980s. This was a strategic vision for groups, to include businesses, business units, and teams. The 7S are structure, strategy, systems, skills, style, staff and shared values.

The model is most often used as a tool to assess and monitor changes in the internal situation of an organization.

The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can be used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change.

Whatever the type of change – restructuring, new processes, organizational merger, new systems, change of leadership, and so on – the model can be used to understand how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact of changes made in one area is taken into consideration.

OBJECTIVE OF THE MODEL (To analyze how well an organization is positioned to achieve its intended objective)

Usage

Improve the performance of a company Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy

The Seven Interdependent Elements

The basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful

Hard Elements

Strategy Structure Systems

Soft Elements

Shared Values Skills Style

23

Staff

THE EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT

Are you a new style or an old style Manager

Management philosophies and organizational forms change over time to meet new needs. This exercise helps students determine their primary management style as either Theory X (old style) or Theory Y (new style).

Management and Organization

An historical perspective on management provides a context or environment in which to interpret current opportunities and problems. Studying management history is a way to achieve strategic thinking, see the big picture, and improve conceptual skills. The first step is to explain the social, political, and economic forces that have influenced organizations and the practice of management.Social forces refer to those aspects of a culture that guide and influence relationships among people. What do people value? What do people need? What are the standards of behavior among people? These forces shape the social contract, the unwritten, common rules and perceptions about relationships among people and between employees and management. A significant social force today is the changing attitudes, ideas, and values of Generation X and Generation Y employees—young, educated, and technologically adept. Career life cycles are getting shorter, with workers changing jobs every few years. There is a growing focus on work/life balance, reflected in telecommuting and other alternative work arrangements.Political forces refer to the influence of political and legal institutions on people and organizations. Political forces include basic assumptions underlying the political system such as the desirability of self-government, property rights, contract rights, and justice. People are demanding empowerment, participation, and responsibility in all areas of their lives. On a global scale, growing anti-American sentiments in many parts of the world create challenges for United States companies and managers.Economic forces pertain to the availability, production, and distribution of resources in a society; organizations require resources to achieve their objectives. The economy of the United States and other developed countries is shifting with the sources of wealth, distribution and decision-making.

24

The newly emerging economy is based largely on ideas, information, and knowledge; supply chains have been revolutionized by digital technology. Another trend is the importance of small and mid-sized businesses. However, a massive economic shift is not without upheavals. In 2000, stock prices fell, especially for dot.coms, and lay-offs were widespread.Management practices and perspectives vary in response to these social, political, and economic forces. During hard times, managers look for new ideas to help them cope.

Management Scientific Perspective

The management science perspective emerged after World War II. It applied math, statistics, and other quantitative techniques to managerial problems.Operations research consists of mathematical model building and other applications of quantitative techniques to managerial problems.Operations management refers to the field of management that specializes in the physical production of goods and services using quantitative techniques to solve manufacturing problems.Some of the more commonly used methods are forecasting, inventory modeling, linear and nonlinear programming, queuing theory, scheduling, simulation, and break-even analysis.Information Technology (IT) is the most recent subfield of the management science perspective, often reflected in management information systems. IT has evolved to include intranets and extranets, and software programs that help managers estimate costs, plan and track production, manage projects, and allocate resources. Most organizations have departments of information technology specialists to help them apply management science techniques to complex organizational problems.

IMPORTANCE OF MANAGEMENT

a. Optimum utilisation of resources: Management facilitates optimum utilisation of

available human and physical resources, which leads to progress and prosperity of a

business enterprise. Even wastages of all types are eliminated or minimized.

b. Competitive strength: Management develops competitive strength in an enterprise. This

enables an enterprise to develop and expand its assets and profits.

c. Cordial industrial relation: Management develops cordial industrial relations, ensures

better life and welfare to employees and raises their morale through suitable incentives.

d. Motivation of employees: It motivates employees to take more interest and initiatives in

the work assigned and contribute for raising productivity and profitability of the

enterprise.

25

e. Introduction of new techniques: Management facilitates the introduction of new

machines and new methods in the conduct of business activities. It also brings useful

technological developments and innovations in the management of business activities.

f. Effective management: Society gets the benefits of efficient management in terms of

industrial development, justice to different social groups, consumer satisfaction and

welfare and proper discharge of social responsibilities.

g. Expansion of business: Expansion, growth and diversification of a business unit are

possible through efficient management.

h. Brings stability and prosperity: Efficient management brings success, stability and

prosperity to a business enterprise through cooperation among employees.

i. Develops team spirit: Management develops team spirit and raises overall efficiency of a

business enterprise.

j. Ensures effective use of managers: Management ensures effective use of managers so

that the benefits of their experience, skills and maturity are available to the enterprise.

The very survival of an enterprise depends on its management. Ineffective management

leads to disastrous consequences. According to George Terry, "Ineffective management cuts

at the very roots of economy of an enterprise’s. This suggests the importance of efficient

management. In brief, management occupies a unique position in the functioning of business

enterprises. Its importance and positive role is accepted in all sector-private, public, joint

and co-operative. Management is like a human brain. It is an integral aspect of business

itself.The importance of management is not fully realised in many developing countries. The

economic progress of western countries is not merely due to abundant material resources but

because they are efficiently managed and utilised. In other countries, resources are not

utilised fully and properly due to lack of managerial skills. This suggests that management is

a key factor in the working of business enterprises. There is no substitute to efficient

management. An inefficiently managed business enterprise has no place in the present

complex and competitive business world groups.

MANAGEMENT IN THE FUTURE

26

In the next couple of decades, management theory and practice is bound to change in order to

meet the complex and ever changing environmental variables. The phenomenal growth in

multinational and transnational operations, fast changing technology, increasing complexity of

decision making, dynamic social and economic environment, globalisation of business and

elastic project organisations and task groups will significantly influence the future managerial

world and managerial tasks. There are successful business and management leaders publishing

their memories and offering their experience to the world. There is great increase in the number

of business schools. Management education is bank ably providing expertise to nonage the

business and this trend is likely to continue. Career paths are likely to be based on expertise

alone. Managers will be under pressure to develop this expertise and apply it in an ever-

widening range of situations rather than their ability to survive the bureaucratic jungle. They

will have to combine their personal, professional and operational qualities and capacities to the

satisfaction of employers and the society. The future must be considered as an opportunity and

not a problem.

The future business environment will he dominated by information technology (IT),

globalisation, material and energy shortages, problems of pollution and ecological balance,

consumerism, inflation and R & D. The costs of employing expert managers are regarded as an

investment for effective business performance. Management is a designated expertise,

increasingly professionalized and is likely to progress to a highly organised status. It is assumed

that young people will choose management as an occupation and will progress from lower to

middle and from middle to top management positions. An ever-greater range of knowledge is

available to all aspects of business and management.

Some forces/factors that are likely to have an impact upon management in future are as

mentioned below:-

a. Emergence of knowledge society.

b. Development of socially concerned Humanistic society.

c. Widespread application of information technology (IT)

d. Transition from industrial to service economy.

e. Growing use of innovations and R & D.

f. Social accountability of business.

27

g. Satisfaction of human and social values in man-machine system.

h. Liberalization and Globalisation of the business

DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT

Management thought has a long history. It is as old as human civilization itself. Management in

one form or the other has been a significant feature of economic life of mankind throughout

ages. Management thought is an evolutionary concept It has develop along with and in line with

the growth of social, political, economic and scientific institutions. Management thought has its

origin in the ancient times. It developed gradually along with other socioeconomic

developments. The contributor’s to management though are many. They include Management

philosophers, management practitioners and scholars. Modem management is based on the solid

foundations laid down by management thinkers from the early historical period.

Summary

Many writers and practitioners have contributed to the development of management thought.

Frederick Taylor’s concern was productivity improvement through the application of the

scientific method. Henry Gantt developed the Gantt chart. He focused on the selection of

workers and cooperation between labor and management. Frank Gilbreth is known for his time

and motion studies, while Lillian Gilbreth focused on the human aspects work. Henri Fayol,

“the father of modern management theory,” formulated fourteen principles of management.

Hugo Munsterberg applied psychology to industry and management, while Walter Dill Scott

applied it to advertising, marketing, and personnel management. Max Weber is known for his

theory of bureaucracy. Vilfredo Pareto is considered “the father of the social systems approach.”

Elton Mayo and F.J. Roethlisberger became famous through their studies of the impact of the

social attitudes and relationships of work groups on performance. Chester Barnard suggested a

comprehensive social systems approach to managing. There are many theories about

management, and each contributes something to our knowledge of what managers do and the

managerial roles approach and 7-S approach were discussed in greater detail. The operational,

or management process, approach draws from various “schools” and systematically integrates

them.

28

REFERENCES

[1] Weihrich, H. & Kooniz, H, 1993. “Management: A Global Perspective” McGRAW-Hill

publishers, 10th Edition, pp. 29-56.

[2] Evaluation of Management Thought: Chapter 2, 2013. [Internet]. Available at:

http://www.icmrindia.org/courseware/Introduction%20to%20Management/Evolution%20of

%20Management%20Chap2.htm , [Accessed 12 December 2014].

[3] Wren, D.A. & Bedeian, A.G, 2008. The Evaluation of Management Thought. [Internet].

Available at: http://amle.aom.org/content/10/2/353.full, [Accessed 12 December 2014].

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55