Trends in management 1

Trends in Management, Organization and Strategy

Name

Course Name and Code

Instructor’s Name

Date
 Trends in management 2

Introduction

The exploration and study of organization management was initiated in the late 19 th century and

has progressed through several steps and stages. Scholars and other practitioners working in

different management fields and in different eras have continuously worked hard focusing on

what they believed to be important good management practices. It is evident that evolution of

today’s management thinking dates back into the 19th century and developed in the 20th century

(McClelland, 1961). The foundation of today’s organization developed during mid 19th century

with regard to the rise of factory system particularly in the textile industry where automation and

mass production was essential for productivity. The 20th century witnessed tremendous

management revolution from the classical theory to the Japanese management approach. This

paper seeks to discus major trends in approaches to organization and management since the

beginning of 20th century.

The Classical School

During the early 20th century calls for the development of comprehensive management practices

were eminent. The classical school of management discovered this need and worked to come up

with theories and models that could improve effective management in organizations. Not only

did they focus on developing a comprehensive management theory, but they also sought to

improve tools that managers need in dealing with organizational challenges. Owing to this, the

classical school developed the bureaucratic management, administrative management, and

scientific management theories. These theories will be discussed independently.

Bureaucratic Management

This management style is based on Max Weber view that early organizations were inefficiently

managed whereby management decisions were based on personal relationships and loyalty. He
 Trends in management 3

believed in the institutionalization of power and authority within the organization (Herbert,

1957). Given these facts, he came up with a bureaucracy model of management that was based

on normative rules, and the right of those promoted to authority to issue commands (legal

authority). The bureaucracy model is characterized with: a well defined hierarchy, division of

labour and specialization, rules and regulations, impersonal relationship between managers and

employees, competence, and records. In addition, Weber believed that manager’s authority in

relation to the organization should not be based on tradition or charisma but on the position held

by managers in the organizational hierarchy (Herbert, 1957).

This model was adopted across the world by many organizations. However, the system is

criticized for its inflexibility, unresponsiveness, and lack of effectiveness. Regardless of this, it is

important to note that Weber’s ideas formed the basis of modern organization management

theory.

Scientific management

During the late 19th century, management decisions were arbitrary and employees worked at

extremely slow rate. The scientific management model was improvised to change the mind sets

of workers. Basically, this model can be defined as the systematic study of work methods in

order to improve efficiency (Fredrick, 1967). This approach emphasizes the empirical research

for developing an elaborate and comprehensive management solution. The scientific

management principles should be applied by managers in specific ways. The contributors to the

scientific management theory are Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and

Henry Gantt.

The principles of scientific management entail; applying scientific procedures to work in order to

establish the best methods of accomplishing a given task. Secondly, employees should be
 Trends in management 4

scientifically selected basing on their qualifications and trained for them to perform in an optimal

manner. Thirdly, there should be genuine cooperation between the management and the

employees with regard to mutual self-interest. Finally, the model suggests that the management

must or should take complete responsibility for planning the work while employees are supposed

and should implement the management’s plans (Fredrick, 1967).

The scientific model had great impact on organization management practices in the early 20 th

century; however, it does not represent the whole management theory. The model has also

contributed greatly to the development of management; many organizations have relied on the

latter especially in human resource management and industrial engineering. Tenets of scientific

management are valid and still in use in present times (Fredrick, 1967).

Administrative management

In this particular model the management focuses on the management processes and principles of

management. The model provides a general approach to management. Henry Fayol argued that

management is a universal process that entails functions like planning, organizing, commanding,

coordinating and controlling (Henri, 1919). He believed that managers at all levels performed

these functions and that these functions distinguished management as a distinct discipline of

study that is different from accounting, finance, and production. Fayol believed that management

theories could be developed and taught to others. In this regard, he developed fourteen

management principles that include: division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline,

unity of command, unity of direction, remuneration of personnel, centralization, scalar chain,

order, equity, and stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and team spirit (Henri, 1919).

Despite the criticism of the administrative management of being rigid and not flexible given that

the functional approach to management has been questioned, the model has greatly influenced
 Trends in management 5

the management theory and practices. It is evident that the functional approach to management

still dominates many organizations in terms of organizing management knowledge.

Behavioural movement

The study of organizational behaviour and behavioural science came into play in the mid 20th

century. This theory is concerned with applying conceptual and analytical tools to problem

understanding and predicting behaviour in the workplace (Chester, 1964). The classical

management theories helped tremendously in placing management objectives in the

organization’s perspective, however, they failed to address organizational personnel challenges.

For instance, they ignored employee motivation and behaviour. Owing to this, many theorists

including Mary Parker, Douglas McGregor, Chris Agyris, Fredrick Herzberg and Herbert Simon

together with other psychologists decided to research on organizational behaviour rather than

studying individual behaviour (Chester, 1964).

The study of organizational behaviour recommended that it is imperative that management

practitioners to understand human behaviour. This will enable them to create relationship

between worker attitudes and productivity. Behavioural science and organizational behaviour

studies contributed greatly to the study of management by focusing on personality, attitudes,

values, motivation, group behaviour, leadership, communication, and conflict management.

Human relations movement

Strong criticism of classical management theories culminated into deeper consideration of the

needs of employees and the role of management as the sole provider of these needs. The two

renowned organizational theorists in human relations movement are Abraham Maslow and

Douglas McGregor. Maslow for instance developed motivation theory with regard to human

needs. He noted that human needs are never completely satisfied, human behaviour is purposeful
 Trends in management 6

and is motivated by need of satisfaction, and lastly human needs can be classified according to a

hierarchical structure of importance from the lowest to highest (Maslow, 1970). Maslow believed

human needs can hierarchically be classified into five specific groups. And in order to achieve

successive levels of satisfaction of the hierarchy, lower levels must be satisfied first. The

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes; psychological needs, safety need, belongingness and love,

self esteem, and self actualization (Maslow, 1970). This theory help mangers to visualize that

employee motivation is a crucial factor in production.

McGregor on the other hand believes that there are two basic kinds of managers. Theory X,

describes those managers who view employees to be lazy, untrustworthy and unable to assume

responsibilities (Douglas, 1960). Theory Y, describe those managers who view employees to be

trustworthy and capable of assuming their responsibilities when they are highly motivated

(Douglas, 1960). These theories have great influence on the management theory and practices as

contemporary management pay more attention to human resource management, organizational

behaviour, and applied psychology in the workplace.

Contemporary management

It is evident that many management theories have been developed since the onset of the 20 th

century. Management research and practices are constantly evolving and new advancements in

the study of management are evident. Contemporary approaches include Total Quality

Management and the Learning organization. Total Quality Management is a philosophy to

management that is inclined towards managing the entire organization in order to deliver goods

and services to customers. It was first implemented in Japan after World War 1. TQM has four

elements, employees who are vital in preventing quality problems before they occur, customer

focus; the organization must work to identify customer needs and wants after which they must
 Trends in management 7

deliver goods and services that satisfy these needs. Benchmarking means; the organization must

seek out other organizations that perform specific functions effectively and use them as a

standard or benchmark to judge their own performance. Lastly, continuous improvement,

organizations must be committed to incremental changes and improvement over time in all

sectors of the organization. Contemporary management theories do not offer a complete theory

of management, but they have offered great insights into the management field.

System Theory

The system approach to management tries to integrate the various management theories and

come up with one coherent and cohesive management theory. A common functional system

where all organizational activities are grouped into processes such as inputs, homeostasis,

parameters, processing, outputs, and feed back characterizes the system theory. In this regard

organizational systems can be described in terms of operations, production, finance, marketing,

and personnel subsystems (Likert, 1967). This theory provides mangers with tools for analysing

organizational dynamics without relying on a specific theory about how the organization is to be

managed. The recognition of systems theory that all organizations consist of processing inputs

and outputs, with internal and external systems and subsystems, is helpful in providing a

functional overview of any organization.

The contingency approach

This theory emphasizes the recognition of the significance of specific individual manager in any

given situation. It is basically based on the manager’s power and control over a situation and the

degree of uncertainty in any given situation. In the contingency approach, the manager is

supposed to come up with an appropriate management solution with regard to organizational

 Trends in management 8

environment. This theory is devoid of management principles rather it depends on the experience

and manager’s judgment in a given organizational environment (Likert, 1967).

Japanese management

Japanese Management styles are well described by William Ouchi where theory Z and the M-

Form society with regard to management are explained. The ability to increase productivity of

Japanese organizations brought Japanese management into play. The success of this model is

directly linked to the trust that Japanese management has in its employees (Ouchi, 1984). High

levels of trust gives employees an opportunity to make decisions with regard to the tasks

assigned to them. This theory advocates for the concept of intimacy in its managerial

relationships, for instance, personal relationships are highly valued, respected and rewarded.

At organizational level, large Japanese companies have a balance between teamwork and

individual effort (M-Form organizations) (Ouchi, 1984). This is a combination of a large

decentralized organization and each unit competes with other units in order to obtain budgetary

resources based upon earnings, while at the same time, they draw upon the same centralized

corporate services. In essence it is a loose-tight organization where individual initiative is

rewarded and at the same time being controlled at a centralized corporate management system.

The Japanese organizations have a social memory; as in, the previous employee efforts receive

future rewards regardless of the employee being productive or not. The past employee

contribution gives the organization a form of endowment (Ouchi, 1984). Through Japanese

Management, employee loyalty is insured while at the same time acting as a role model for

present employees. With regard to Japanese school of management, personnel policies that

provide investment in human capital endow the organization with resources necessary to achieve

increased productivity (Ouchi, 1984)

 Trends in management 9

Conclusion

From the above discussion, organization management has come a long way and the general

theory of management development is yet to be achieved. Many researchers and scholars have

plaid a big role to bring management theory this far. Management models that integrate

organizational goals and employee welfare are result into increased productivity. The Japanese

Management system is currently the most preferred model as employee welfare is at the core of

organization’s ultimate performance.

 Trends in management
10

Bibliography

Chester B, 1964. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p.

165.

Douglas M., 1960. The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Frederick W.T., 1967. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company,

Henri F., 1919. General and Industrial Management, Constance Storrs (trans.). London: Pitman

& Sons, Ltd., 1, pp. 19-42.

Herbert A. S., 1957. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, pp. 44.

Herzberg, F. Mausner, B and Snydrman, B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.

(Herzberg, et al, 1959)

Likert, R. 1967. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, p. 46.

Ouchi, W. G. 1984. The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand Company,