Table of Contents

1. 2. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................................ 1 POPULAR MANAGEMENT THOUGHTS: ................................................................................ 1 2.1. Adam Smiths Job Specialization ............................................................................................... 2 2.2. F.W. Taylors Scientific management......................................................................................... 3 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.3. Fundamentals of Scientific Management ....................................................................... 3 The Principles of Scientific Management ..................................................................... 10

Fayols Operational Management Theory ........................................................................... 11 Fayol 14 Principles of Management ............................................................................. 11

2.3.1 2.4. 2.5.

The Gilbreths Thoughts ...................................................................................................... 12 Henry Gantts Thoughts ...................................................................................................... 13

2.6. Munsterbergs Psychology of Management ............................................................................. 15 2.7. Hawthorne Effect ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.8. Mintzbergs Managerial Role Approach .................................................................................. 18 2.8.1. Interpersonal Category ...................................................................................................... 19 2.8.2. Informational Category ...................................................................................................... 19 2.8.3. Decisional Category ............................................................................................................ 20 2.9. 3. McKinseys 7-S Approach .................................................................................................... 20

USE & EFFECT : ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.1. Use & Effect of Adam Smiths Job Specialization ................................................................... 22 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. Use & Effect of F.W. Taylors Scientific management ........................................................ 23 Use & Effect of Fayols Operational Management Theory ................................................. 24 Use & Effect of The Gilbreths Thoughts ............................................................................ 25 Use & Effect of Henry Gantts Thoughts............................................................................. 26 Use & Effect of Hawthorne Effect........................................................................................ 29 Use & Effect of Mintzbergs Managerial Role Approach ................................................... 30 Use & Effect of McKinseys 7-S Approach .......................................................................... 31 Use & Effect of Munsterbergs Psychology of Management ............................................... 32

4.

CONCLUSION: ........................................................................................................................... 35

1. INTRODUCTION:
The driving force behind the evolution of management theory is the search for better ways to utilize organizational resources. Advances in management theory typically occur as managers and researchers find better ways to perform the principal management tasks: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling human and other organizational resources. In this assignment, we examine how management theory concerning appropriate management practices has evolved in modern times, and look at the central concerns that have guided its development. First, we examine the so-called classical management theories that emerged around the turn of the twentieth century. These include scientific management, which focuses on matching people and tasks to maximize efficiency; and administrative management, which focuses on identifying the principles that will lead to the creation of the most efficient system of organization and management. Next, we consider behavioural management theories, developed both before and after the Second World War, which focus on how managers should lead and control their workforces to increase performance. Then we discuss management science theory, which developed during the Second World War and which has become increasingly important as researchers have developed rigorous analytical and quantitative techniques to help managers measure and control organizational performance. Finally, we discuss business in the 1960s and 1970s and focus on the theories that were developed to help explain how the external environment affects the way organizations and managers operate. By the end, you will understand the ways in which management theory has evolved over time. You will also understand how economic, political, and cultural forces have affected the development of these theories and the ways in which managers and their organizations behave.

2. POPULAR MANAGEMENT THOUGHTS:

The evolution of modern management began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, after the industrial revolution had swept through Europe, Canada, and the United States. In the new economic climate, managers of all types of organizationspolitical, educational, and economicwere increasingly trying to find better ways to satisfy customers needs. Many major economic, technical, and cultural changes were taking place at this time. The introduction of steam power and the development of sophisticated machinery and equipment changed the way in which goods were produced, particularly in the weaving and clothing industries. Small workshops run by skilled workers who
1

produced hand-manufactured products (a system called crafts production) were being replaced by large factories in which sophisticated machines controlled by hundreds or even thousands of unskilled or semiskilled workers made products. Owners and managers of the new factories found themselves unprepared for the challenges accompanying the change from small-scale crafts production to large-scale mechanized manufacturing. Many of the managers and supervisors had only a technical orientation, and were unprepared for the social problems that occur when people work together in large groups (as in a factory or shop system). Managers began to search for new techniques to manage their organizations resources, and soon they began to focus on ways to increase the efficiency of the workertask mix. In this assignment we have discussed about some popular management theories and thoughts. The discussed theories are: 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. Adam Smiths Job Specialization F.W. Taylors Scientific management Fayols Operational Management Theory The Gilbreths Thoughts Henry Gantts Thoughts Munsterbergs Psychology of Management Hawthorne Effect Mintzbergs Managerial Role Approach McKinseys 7-S Approach

2.1. Adam Smiths Job Specialization

The famous economist Adam Smith was one of the first to look at the effects of different manufacturing systems. He compared the relative performance of two different manufacturing methods. The first was similar to crafts-style production, in which each worker was responsible for all of the 18 tasks involved in producing a pin. The other had each worker performing only 1 or a few of the 18 tasks that go into making a completed pin. Smith found that factories in which workers specialized in only 1 or a few tasks had greater performance than factories in which each worker performed all 18 pin-making tasks. In fact, Smith found that 10 workers specializing in a particular task could, between them, make 48 000 pins a day, whereas those workers who performed all the tasks could make only a few thousand at most.8 Smith reasoned that this difference in performance was due to the fact that the workers who specialized became much more skilled at their specific tasks, and, as a group, were thus able to produce a product faster than the group of workers who each had to perform many tasks. Smith concluded that increasing the level of job specialization the process by which a division of labour occurs as different
2

workers specialize in different tasks over timeincreases efficiency and leads to higher organizational performance. Based on Adam Smiths observations, early management practitioners and theorists focused on how managers should organize and control the work process to maximize the advantages of job specialization and the division of labour.

2.2. F.W. Taylors 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; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely 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. We can discuss the scientific management into two sections: 1) Fundamentals of Scientific Management, and 2) The Principles of Scientific Management.

2.2.1. Fundamentals of Scientific Management

Taylor argued that the principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee. He also showed that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. He argued that the most important object of both the employee and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him. The words maximum prosperity are used, in
their broad sense, to mean not only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.

In the same way maximum prosperity for each employee means not only higher wages than are usually received by men of his class, but, of more importance still, it also means the development of each man to his state of maximum efficiency, so that he may be able to do, generally
3

speaking, the highest grade of work for which his natural abilities fit him, and it further means giving him, when possible, this class of work to do. It would seem to be so self-evident that maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with maximum prosperity for the employee, ought to be the two leading objects of management, that even to state this fact should be unnecessary. And yet there is no question that, throughout the industrial world, a large part of the organization of employers, as well as employeee, is for war rather than for peace, and that perhaps the majority on either side do not believe that it is possible so to arrange their mutual relations that their interests become identical. The majority of these men believe that the fundamental interests of employeee and employers are necessarily antagonistic. Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa; and that it is possible to give the workman what he most wants--high wages--and the employer what he wants--a low labor cost--for his manufactures. In the case of a more complicated manufacturing establishment, it should also be perfectly clear that the greatest permanent prosperity for the workman, coupled with the greatest prosperity for the employer, can be brought about only when the work of the establishment is done with the smallest combined expenditure of human effort, plus natures resources, plus the cost for the use of capital in the shape of machines, buildings, etc. Or, to state the same thing in a different way: that the greatest prosperity can exist only as the result of the greatest possible productivity of the men and machines of the establishment--that is, when each man and each machine are turning out the largest possible output; because unless your men and your machines are daily turning out more work than others around you, it is clear that competition will prevent your paying higher wages to your workmen than are paid to those of your competitor. And what is true as to the possibility of paying high wages in the case of two companies competing close beside one another is also true as to whole districts of the country and even as to nations which are in competition. In a word, that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. Later in this paper illustrations will be given of several companies which are earning large dividends and at the same time paying from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. higher wages to their men than are paid to similar ,men immediately around them, and with whose employers they are in competition. These illustrations will cover different types of work, from the most elementary to the most complicated. If the above reasoning is correct, it follows that the most important object of both the workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of efficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him. These principles appear to be so self-evident that many men may think it almost childish to state them. Let us, however, turn to the facts, as they actually exist in this country and in England. The English and American peoples are the greatest sportsmen in the world. Whenever an American workman plays baseball, or an English workman plays cricket, it is safe to say that he strains
4

every nerve to secure victory for his side. He does his very best to make the largest possible number of runs. The universal sentiment is so strong that any man who fails to give out all there is in him in sport is branded as a quitter, and treated with contempt by those who are around him. When the same workman returns to work on the following day, instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can--to turn out far less work than he is well able to do--in many instances to do not more than one-third to one-half of a proper days work. And in fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible days work, he would be abused by his fellowworkers for so doing, even more than if he had proved himself a quitter in sport. Underworking, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full days work, soldiering, as it is called in this country, hanging it out, as it is called in England, ca canae, as it is called in Scotland, is almost universal in industrial establishments, and prevails also to a large extent in the building trades; and the writer asserts without fear of contradiction that this constitutes the greatest evil with which the working-people of both England and America are now afflicted. It will be shown later in this paper that doing away with slow working and soldiering in all its forms and so arranging the relations between employer and employee that each workman will work to his very best advantage and at his best speed, accompanied by the intimate cooperation with the management and the help (which the workman should receive) from the management, would result on the average in nearly doubling the output of each man and each machine. What other reforms, among those which are being discussed by these two nations, could do as much toward promoting prosperity, toward the diminution of poverty, and the alleviation of suffering? America and England have been recently agitated over such subjects as the tariff, the control of the large corporations on the one hand, and of hereditary power on the other hand, and over various more or less socialistic proposals for taxation, etc. On these subjects both peoples have been profoundly stirred, and yet hardly a voice has been raised to call attention to this vastly greater and more important subject of soldiering, which directly and powerfully affects the wages, the prosperity, and the life of almost every working-man, and also quite as much the prosperity of every industrial establishment in the nation. The elimination of soldiering and of the several causes of slow working would so lower the cost of production that both our home and foreign markets would be greatly enlarged, and we could compete on more than even terms with our rivals. It would remove one of the fundamental causes for dull times, for lack of employment, and for poverty, and therefore would have a more permanent and far-reaching effect upon these misfortunes than any of the curative remedies that are now being used to soften their consequences. It would insure higher wages and make shorter working hours and better working and home conditions possible. Why is it, then, in the face of the self-evident fact that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of the determined effort of each workman to turn out each day his largest possible days

work, that the great majority of our men are deliberately doing just the opposite, and that even when the men have the best of intentions their work is in most cases far from efficient? There are three causes for this condition, which may be briefly summarized as: First. The fallacy, which has from time immemorial been almost universal among workmen, which a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in throwing a large number of men out of work. The great majority of workmen still believe that if they were to work at their best speed they would be doing a great injustice to the whole trade by throwing a lot of men out of work, and yet the history of the development of each trade shows that each improvement, whether it be the invention of a new machine or the introduction of a better method, which results in increasing the productive capacity of the men in the trade and cheapening the costs, instead of throwing men out of work make in the end work for more men. The cheapening of any article in common use almost immediately results in a largely increased demand for that article. Take the case of shoes, for instance. The introduction of machinery for doing every element of the work which was formerly done by hand has resulted in making shoes at a fraction of their former labour cost, and in selling them so cheap that now almost every man, woman, and child in the working-classes buys one or two pairs of shoes per year, and wears shoes all the time, whereas formerly each workman bought perhaps one pair of shoes every five years, and went barefoot most of the time, wearing shoes only as a luxury or as a matter of the sternest necessity. In spite of the enormously increased output of shoes per workman, which has come with shoe machinery, the demand for shoes has so increased that there are relatively more men working in the shoe industry now than ever before. The workmen in almost every trade have before them an object lesson of this kind, and yet, because they are ignorant of the history of their own trade even, they still firmly believe, as their fathers did before them, that it is against their best interests for each man to turn out each day as much work as possible. Under this fallacious idea a large proportion of the workmen of both countries each day deliberately work slowly so as to curtail the output. Almost every labor union has made, or is contemplating making, rules which have for their object curtailing the output of their members, and those men who have the greatest influence with the working-people, the labor leaders as well as many people with philanthropic feelings who are helping them, are daily spreading this fallacy and at the same time telling them that they are overworked. A great deal has been and is being constantly said about sweat-shop work and conditions. The writer has great sympathy with those who are overworked, but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid. For every individual, however, who is overworked, there are a hundred who intentionally underwork--greatly underwork--every day of their lives, and who for this reason deliberately aid in establishing those conditions which in the end inevitably result in low wages. And yet hardly a single voice is being raised in an endeavor to correct this evil. As engineers and managers, we are more intimately acquainted with these facts than any other class in the community, and are therefore best fitted to lead in a movement to combat this fallacious idea by educating not only the workmen but the whole of the country as to the true
6

facts. And yet we are practically doing nothing in this direction, and are leaving this field entirely in the hands of the labor agitators (many of whom are misinformed and misguided), and of sentimentalists who are ignorant as to actual working conditions. Second. The defective systems of management which are in common use, and which make it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly, in order that he may protect his own best interests. As to the second cause for soldiering--the relations which exist between employers and employee under almost all of the systems of management which are in common use--it is impossible in a few words to make it clear to one not familiar with this problem why it is that the ignorance of employers as to the proper time in which work of various kinds should be done makes it for the interest of the workman to soldier. This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the natural instinct and tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering. Second, from more intricate second thought and reasoning caused by their relations with other men, which may be called systematic soldiering. There is no question that the tendency of the average man (in all walks of life) is toward working at a slow, easy gait, and that it is only after a good deal of thought and observation on his part or as a result of example, conscience, or external pressure that he takes a more rapid pace. There are, of course, men of unusual energy, vitality, and ambition who naturally choose the fastest gait, who set up their own standards, and who work hard, even though it may be against their best interests. But these few uncommon men only serve by forming a contrast to emphasize the tendency of the average. This common tendency to take it easy is greatly increased by bringing a number of men together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay by the day. Under this plan the better men gradually but surely slow down their gait to that of the poorest and least efficient. When a naturally energetic man works for a few days beside a lazy one, the logic of the situation is unanswerable. Why should I work hard when that lazy fellow gets the same pay that I do and does only half as much work? A careful time study of men working under these conditions will disclose facts which are ludicrous as well as pitiable. To illustrate: The writer has timed a naturally energetic workman who, while going and coming from work, would walk at a speed of from three to four miles per hour, and not infrequently trot home after a days work. On arriving at his work he would immediately slow down to a speed of about one mile an hour. When, for example, wheeling a loaded wheelbarrow, he would go at a good fast pace even up hill in order to be as short a time as possible under load, and immediately on the return walk slow down to a mile an hour, improving every opportunity for delay short of actually sitting down. In order to be sure not to do more than his lazy neighbor, he would actually tire himself in his effort to go slow. These men were working under a foreman of good reputation and highly thought of by his employer, who, when his attention was called to this state of things, answered: Well, I can keep them from sitting down, but the devil cant make them get a move on while they are at work. The natural laziness of men is serious, but by far the greatest evil from which both workmen and employers are suffering is the systematic soldiering which is almost universal under all of the
7

ordinary schemes of management and which results from a careful study on the part of the workmen of what will promote their best interests. The writer was much interested recently in hearing one small but experienced golf caddy boy of twelve explaining to a green caddy, who had shown special energy and interest, the necessity of going slow and lagging behind his man when he came up to the ball, showing him that since they were paid by the hour, the faster they went the less money they got, and finally telling him that if he went too fast the other boys would give him a licking. This represents a type of systematic soldiering which is not, however, very serious, since it is done with the knowledge of the employer, who can quite easily break it up if he wishes. The greater part of the systematic soldiering, however, is done by the men with the deliberate object of keeping their employers ignorant of how fast work can be done. So universal is soldiering for this purpose that hardly a competent workman can be found in a large establishment, whether he works by the day or on piece work, contract work, or under any of the ordinary systems, who does not devote a considerable part of his time to studying just how slow he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace. The causes for this are, briefly, that practically all employers determine upon a maximum sum which they feel it is right for each of their classes of employeees to earn per day, whether their men work by the day or piece. Each workman soon finds out about what this figure is for his particular case, and he also realizes that when his employer is convinced that a man is capable of doing more work than he has done, he will find sooner or later some way of compelling him to do it with little or no increase of pay. Employers derive their knowledge of how much of a given class of work can be done in a day from either their own experience, which has frequently grown hazy with age, from casual and unsystematic observation of their men, or at best from records which are kept, showing the quickest time in which each job has been done. In many cases the employer will feel almost certain that a given job can be done faster than it has been, but he rarely cares to take the drastic measures necessary to force men to do it in the quickest time, unless he has an actual record proving conclusively how fast the work can be done. It evidently becomes for each mans interest, then, to see that no job is done faster than it has been in the past. The younger and less experienced men are taught this by their elders, and all possible persuasion and social pressure is brought to bear upon the greedy and selfish men to keep them from making new records which result in temporarily increasing their wages, while all those who come after them are made to work harder for the same old pay. Under the best day work of the ordinary type, when accurate records are kept of the amount of work done by each man and of his efficiency, and when each mans wages are raised as he improves, and those who fail to rise to a certain standard are discharged and a fresh supply of carefully selected men are given work in their places, both the natural loafing and systematic soldiering can be largely broken up. This can only be done, however, when the men are thoroughly convinced that there is no intention of establishing piece work even in the remote future, and it is next to impossible to make men believe this when the work is of such a nature

that they believe piece work to be practicable. In most cases their fear of making a record which will be used as a basis for piece work will cause them to soldier as much as they dare. It is, however, under piece work that the art of systematic soldiering is thoroughly developed; after a workman has had the price per piece of the work he is doing lowered two or three times as a result of his having worked harder and increased his output, he is likely entirely to lose sight of his employers side of the case and become imbued with a grim determination to have no more cuts if soldiering can prevent it. Unfortunately for the character of the workman, soldiering involves a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive his employer, and thus upright and straightforward workmen are compelled to become more or less hypocritical. The employer is soon looked upon as an antagonist, if not an enemy, and the mutual confidence whichshould exist between a leader and his men, the enthusiasm, the feeling that they are all working for the same end and will share in the results is entirely lacking. The feeling of antagonism under the ordinary piece-work system becomes in many cases so marked on the part of the men that any proposition made by their employers, however reasonable, is looked upon with suspicion, and soldiering becomes such a fixed habit that men will frequently take pains to restrict the product of machines which they are running when even a large increase in output would involve no more work on their part. Third. The inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which are still almost universal in all trades, and in practicing which our workmen waste a large part of their effort. As to the third cause for slow work, considerable space will later in this paper be devoted to illustrating the great gain, both to employers and employeee, which results from the substitution of scientific for rule-of-thumb methods in even the smallest details of the work of every trade. The enormous saving of time and therefore increase in the output which it is possible to effect through eliminating unnecessary motions and substituting fast for slow and inefficient motions for the men working in any of our trades can be fully realized only after one has personally seen the improvement which results from a thorough motion and time study, made by a competent man. To explain briefly: owing to the fact that the workmen in all of our trades have been taught the details of their work by observation of those immediately around them, there are many different ways in common use for doing the same thing, perhaps forty, fifty, or a hundred ways of doing each act in each trade, and for the same reason there is a great variety in the implements used for each class of work. Now, among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade there is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest. And this one best method and best implement can only be discovered or developed through a scientific study and analysis of all of the methods and implements in use, together with accurate, minute, motion and time study. This involves the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts. This paper will show that the underlying philosophy of all of the old systems of management in common use makes it imperative that each workman shall be left with the final responsibility for doing his job practically as he thinks best, with comparatively little help and advice from the
9

management. And it will also show that because of this isolation of workmen, it is in most cases impossible for the men working under these systems to do their work in accordance with the rules and laws of a science or art, even where one exists. The writer asserts as a general principle (and he proposes to give illustrations tending to prove the fact later in this paper) that in almost all of the mechanic arts the science which underlies each act of each workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity. In order that the work may be done in accordance with scientific laws, it is necessary that there shall be a far more equal division of the responsibility between the management and the workmen than exists under any of the ordinary types of management. Those in the management whose duty it is to develop this science should also guide and help the workman in working under it, and should assume a much larger share of the responsibility for results than under usual conditions is assumed by the management. Taylor was writing at a time when factories were creating big problems for the management. Workmen were quite inefficient. According to Taylor, there were three reasons for the inefficiency. They were the: 1. Deceptive belief that a material increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would throw people out of work 2. Defective management systems, which made it necessary for each workman to soldier, or work slowly to protect his own best interests 3. Inefficient rule of thumb methods, which were almost universal in all trades, which cost much wasted effort Taylor argued that the substitution of scientific for rule of thumb methods would be benefit both employers and employees.

2.2.2. The Principles of Scientific Management

In this section, Taylor explained his principles of scientific management. 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 and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past the employee (or workmen) chose his own work and trained himself as best he could. 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. According to F. W. Taylor, the above combination of the initiative of the employee, coupled
10

with the new types of work done by the management, that makes scientific management so much more efficient than the old plans.

2.3.

Fayols Operational Management Theory

Working at the same time as Weber but independently of him, Henri Fayol (18411925), the CEO of Comambault Mining, identified 14 principles that he believed to be essential to increasing the efficiency of the management process. Some of the principles that Fayol outlined have faded from contemporary management practices, but most have endured. Fayol has been described as the father of modern operational management theory (George, p. 146). Although his ideas have become a universal part of the modern management concepts, some writers continue to associate him with Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor's scientific management deals with the efficient organisation of production in the context of a competitive enterprise that has to control its production costs. That was only one of the many areas that Fayol addressed. Perhaps the connection with Taylor is more one of time, than of perspective. According to Claude George (1968), a primary difference between Fayol and Taylor was that Taylor viewed management processes from the bottom up, while Fayol viewed it from the top down. George's comment may have originated from Fayol himself. In the classic General and Industrial Management Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the "bottom up." He starts with the most elemental units of activity -- the workers' actions -- then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy...(Fayol, 1987, p. 43)." He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of command (p. 44)." Fayol criticized Taylors functional management in this way. the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses(Fayol, 1949, p. 68.) Those eight, Fayol said, were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian (p. 68). This, he said, was an unworkable situation, and that Taylor must have somehow reconciled the dichotomy in some way not described in Taylor's works.

2.3.1 Fayol 14 Principles of Management

a. Specialization of labour. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods.
11

b. Authority. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. c. Discipline. No slacking, bending of rules. The workers should be obedient and respectful of the organization. d. Unity of command. Each employee has one and only one boss. e. Unity of direction. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. f. Subordination of Individual Interests. When at work, only work things should be pursued or thought about. g. Remuneration. Employees receive fair payment for services, not what the company can get away with. h. Centralization. Consolidation of management functions. Decisions are made from the top. i. Chain of Superiors (line of authority). Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization, like military j. Order. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place, and they must remain there. k. Equity. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) l. Personnel Tenure. Limited turnover of personnel. Lifetime employment for good workers. m. Initiative. Thinking out a plan and do what it takes to make it happen. n. Esprit de corps. Harmony, cohesion among personnel. It's a great source of strength in the organisation. Fayol stated that for promoting esprit de corps, the principle of unity of command should be observed and the dangers of divide and rule and the abuse of written communication should be avoided.

2.4.

The Gilbreths Thoughts

Two prominent followers of Taylor were Frank Gilbreth (18681924) and Lillian Gilbreth (18781972), who refined Taylors analysis of work movements and made many contributions to time-and-motion study.19 Their aims were to (1) break up into each of its component actions and analyze every individual action necessary to perform a particular task, (2) find better ways to perform each component action, and (3) reorganize each of the component actions so that the action as a whole could be performed more efficientlyat less cost of time and effort. The Gilbreths often filmed a worker performing a particular task and then separated the task actions, frame by frame, into their component movements. Their goal was to maximize the efficiency with which each individual task was performed so that gains across tasks would add up to enormous savings of time and effort. Their attempts to develop improved management principles were capturedat times quite humorouslyin the movie Cheaper by the Dozen, which depicts how the Gilbreths (with their 12 children) tried to live their own lives according to these efficiency principles and apply them to daily actions such as shaving, cooking, and even raising a family. Eventually, the Gilbreths became increasingly interested in the study of fatigue. They
12

studied how the physical characteristics of the workplace contribute to job stress that often leads to fatigue and thus poor performance. They isolated factors such as lighting, heating, the colour of walls, and the design of tools and machinesthat result in worker fatigue. Their pioneering studies paved the way for new advances in management theory. In workshops and factories, the work of the Gilbreths, Taylor, and many others had a major effect on the practice of management. In comparison with the old crafts system, jobs in the new system were more repetitive, boring, and monotonous as a result of the application of scientific management principles, and workers became increasingly dissatisfied. Frequently, the management of work settings became a game between workers and managers: Managers tried to initiate work practices to increase performance, and workers tried to hide the true potential efficiency.

2.5.

Henry Gantts Thoughts

Henry Gantt, an associate of Taylor's, developed the Gantt chart, a bar graph that measures planned and completed work along each stage of production. Based on time instead of quantity, volume, or weight, this visual display chart has been a widely used planning and control tool since its development in 1910. Henry Gantt (18611919) worked with Taylor at the Midvale Steel Company and was considered a Taylor disciple. Gantt felt the foreman should teach the workers to be industrious and cooperative which, in turn, would facilitate the acquisition of all other knowledge. Gantt also designed graphic aids for management called Gantt charts using horizontal bars to plan and control work. Similar to Taylor, Gantt called for the scientific study of tasks, movements, working conditions, and worker cooperation. He also focused on the connection between the involvement of management and financial interests. Gantts made three important contributions to early management thought, all of which are still of consequence. First, he was able to formulate a school of thought, which had a humanizing influence on management, emphasizing that work conditions need to produce favourable psychological effects on the worker. As a result of his research in that area come the Gantt chart. The chart became such a powerful analytical tool for managers that Gantts design of it remained virtually unchanged until the early 1990s when link lines were added to the task bars to depict more precise dependencies between tasks. And finally, the distribution of bonuses, which were first instituted by Gantt, has made holiday shopping a little easier for thousands of workers over the last century. A Gantt chart, similar to a bar chart, lists tasks down the left side and elapsed time is marked off across the top. This graphical depiction of the schedule will track the planning and coordination of work that must be completed to produce the defined product. Major task groupings are entered as general areas of work (summary tasks), and then broken down into bodies of work that can be completed independently. Project detail can be added to the smallest increment of definable tasks. As work is completed, the project manager receives updates from each person or resource working, and the plan is updated frequently and then progress is measured against the plan. The
13

Gantt chart reflects the entire schedule of work which might include duration, recourses milestones, etc. A Gantt chart can also provide performance and efficiency information that directly impacts reward systems of monetary compensation and promotion. Gantt underscored the necessity of service to the community. Until the mid-1990s, the project Gantt chart was managed with paper and pencil by a dedicated project update specialist whose only responsibility was to gather information, update the plan, and report to the project manager. Project management software provides the ability to link tasks in a series of dependencies that define the critical path through the project. The quality of the Gantt chart is only as solid as the information entered in to the software. Some people wonder if the time required to keep the plan up to date is really worth the effort, but when the plan falls more than three days out of date, the project manager gets dangerously close to missing deadlines that could delay the project. Every update to the project enhances the project managers awareness of every persons status, and the need to shift resources jumps to the attention of the one person who can keep the project moving forward. When each person provides an update, the project plan is updated, reports are run, and anomalies are reported quickly. Reports are available to show the critical path, dependencies, events on the timescale, and summaries for those who need less detailed information. The Gantt chart is versatile and timeless for use in every kind of project from building a house to constructing the tallest building and overhauling a computer system. The time required to build detail into the original plan and keep the plan updated throughout the project will provide all the information necessary keep the project on track. Gantt charts have become a common technique for representing the phases and activities of a project work breakdown structure (WBS), so they can be understood by a wide audience all over the world. A common error made by those who equate Gantt chart design with project design is that they attempt to define the project work breakdown structure at the same time that they define schedule activities. This practice makes it very difficult to follow the 100% Rule. Instead the WBS should be fully defined to follow the 100% Rule, then the project schedule can be designed. Although a Gantt chart is useful and valuable for small projects that fit on a single sheet or screen, they can become quite unwieldy for projects with more than about 30 activities. Larger Gantt charts may not be suitable for most computer displays. A related criticism is that Gantt charts communicate relatively little information per unit area of display. That is, projects are often considerably more complex than can be communicated effectively with a Gantt chart. Gantt charts only represent part of the triple constraints (cost, time and scope) of projects, because they focus primarily on schedule management. Moreover, Gantt charts do not represent the size of a project or the relative size of work elements, therefore the magnitude of a behindschedule condition is easily miscommunicated. If two projects are the same number of days behind schedule, the larger project has a larger impact on resource utilization, yet the Gantt does not represent this difference. Although project management software can show schedule dependencies as lines between activities, displaying a large number of dependencies may result in a cluttered or unreadable chart.
14

Because the horizontal bars of a Gantt chart have a fixed height, they can misrepresent the timephased workload (resource requirements) of a project, which may cause confusion especially in large projects. In the example shown in this article, Activities E and G appear to be the same size, but in reality they may be orders of different magnitude. A related criticism is that all activities of a Gantt chart show planned workload as constant. In practice, many activities (especially summary elements) have front-loaded or back-loaded work plans, so a Gantt chart with percent-complete shading may actually miscommunicated the true schedule performance status.

2.6. Munsterbergs Psychology of Management

Mnsterberg is noted for his influence on applied psychology, especially clinical, forensic and industrial psychology. His 1909 paper titled "Psychology and the Market" suggested that psychology could be used for a variety of industrial applications including management, vocational decisions, advertising, job performance and employee motivation. His research was later summarized in his book Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913), which suggested that hiring workers who had personalities and mental abilities best-suited to certain types of work was the best way to increase motivation, performance and retention. Hugo Mnsterberg is also well-known for his contributions to forensic psychology. His 1908 book On the Witness Stand detailed how psychological factors can influence the outcome of a trial. In the book, he discussed problems with eyewitness testimony, false confessions and interrogations. While his influence on psychology is without question, his views on women are frequently criticized. While he believed that women should receive a higher education, he felt that graduate studies were too difficult and demanding. He also suggested women should not be allowed to serve on juries because they were "...incapable of rational deliberation." His role as a self-appointed spokesman for Germany during the first World War made him a target of disdain among many and perhaps explains why his important legacy was dismissed and neglected for many years. As David Hothersall suggested, at the time of Mnsterberg's death he was "hated by more Americans than any psychologist before or since" (141). While many psychology history books devote little space to Mnsterberg and his influence, his ideas continue to shape and contribute to modern psychology. Although Mnsterberg devoted considerable attention in this work to problems of scientific management, including chapters on the economy of movement, the problem of monotony, and issues of attention and fatigue, his aim was much broader: 'to sketch the outlines of a new science which is to intermediate between the modern laboratory psychology and the problems of economics. With this book, in other words, Mnsterberg hoped to bring psychological science into the service of the marketplace. To secure this end, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency was divided into three large sections, one devoted to problems of selection, a second to issues of scientific management (although such
15

issues were defined psychologically rather than simply in terms of time and motion), and a third to the use of psychology to increase success in the marketplace. As Mnsterberg himself put it: 'We ask 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.' By the time Mnsterberg had become interested in problems of selection, the idea that the workplace ran more smoothly if people were well suited to their jobs was widespread. This was the basic principle underlying the vocational guidance movement that began with the work of Frank Parsons; a number of industries were already using specialized tests such as those for color blindness to weed out employees unfit for particular tasks; and as early as 1899 Taylor himself had urged the development of scientific methods for selecting especially able workers. Mnsterberg took the general problem of selection a step further by developing a series of experimental tests specifically designed to assess particular characteristics needed for specialized occupations. This was the general focus of the first section of Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. Here Mnsterberg discussed the problem of vocational guidance and selection as a component of scientific management, then described the tests that he himself had developed. On such test was designed to weed out accident prone trolley drivers by simulating conditions requiring rapid recognition of pedestrians, horses, and automobiles on a collision course with the trolley car; another assessed speed of decision making, which Mnsterberg considered to be an essential quality in a successful ship captain; and a third employed a battery of tests assessing memory, attention, intelligence, speed, and accuracy of reaction to select those who would make good telephone switchboard operators. In the second section of the book, Mnsterberg focused on general issues of labor management. While admitting that Taylorism represented progress in the rationalization of the workplace and agreeing wholeheartedly with Taylor's belief that management by tradition needed to yield to management by scientific observation and measurement, Munsterberg severely criticized the scientific management movement for failing to take the psychological characteristics of the worker adequately into account. To be successful, in other words, a scientific industrial psychology had, in Mnsterberg's view, to take the mental structure of the worker as seriously as it took the mechanics of work. Only in this way would 'mental dissatisfaction in the work, mental depression and discouragement...be replaced in our social community by overflowing joy and perfect inner harmony.' Finally, the last section of Psychology and Industrial Efficiency was devoted to ways in which the methods of scientific psychology could be used to improve success in the marketplace. Topics included the psychology of advertising, the perception of product displays, the design of trademarks and labels to maximize salience and recognition, and principles of effective salesmanship.

16

In the period immediately following publication, Mnsterberg's book was well received and widely read, even appearing briefly on the non-fiction best seller list. Its considerable importance stems from the fact that it served not only to systematize the newly emerging field of industrial psychology but to popularize the notion that scientific psychology had the potential to make a significant contribution to the betterment of everyday life.

2.7. Hawthorne Effect

Probably because of its radical nature, Folletts work was unappreciated by managers and researchers until quite recently. Instead, researchers continued to follow in the footsteps of Taylor and the Gilbreths. One focus was on how efficiency might be increased through improving various characteristics of the work setting, such as job specialization or the kinds of tools workers used. One series of studies was conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company.31 This research, now known as the Hawthorne studies, began as an attempt to investigate how characteristics of the work settingspecifically the level of lighting or illuminationaffect worker fatigue and performance. The researchers conducted an experiment in which they systematically measured worker productivity at various levels of illumination. The experiment produced some unexpected results. The researchers found that regardless of whether they raised or lowered the level of illumination, productivity increased. In fact, productivity began to fall only when the level of illumination dropped to the level of moonlight, a level at which presumably workers could no longer see well enough to do their work efficiently. The researchers found these results puzzling and invited a noted Harvard psychologist, Elton Mayo, to help them. Subsequently, it was found that many other factors also influence worker behaviour, and it was not clear what was actually influencing the Hawthorne workers behaviour. However, this particular effect which became known as the Hawthorne effectseemed to suggest that workers attitudes toward their managers affect the level of workers performance. In particular, the significant finding was that a managers behaviour or leadership approach can affect performance. This finding led many researchers to turn their attention to managerial behaviour and leadership. If supervisors could be trained to behave in ways that would elicit cooperative behaviour from their subordinates, then productivity could be increased. From this view emerged the human relations movement, which advocates that supervisors be behaviourally trained to manage subordinates in ways that elicit their cooperation and increase their productivity. The importance of behavioural or human relations training became even clearer to its supporters after another series of experimentsthe bank wiring room experiments. In a study of workers making telephone switching equipment, researchers Elton Mayo and F.J. Roethlisberger discovered that the workers, as a group, had deliberately adopted a norm of output restriction to protect their jobs. Workers who violated this informal production norm were subjected to sanctions by other group members. Those who violated group performance norms and performed above the norm were called ratebusters; those who
17

performed below the norm were called chiselers. The experimenters concluded that both types of workers threatened the group as a whole. Ratebusters threatened group members because they revealed to managers how fast the work could be done. Chiselers were looked down on because they were not doing their share of the work. Work-group members disciplined both ratebusters and chiselers in order to create a pace of work that the workers (not the managers) thought was fair. Thus, a work groups influence over output can be as great as the supervisors influence. Since the work group can influence the behaviour of its members, some management theorists argue that supervisors should be trained to behave in ways that gain the goodwill and cooperation of workers so that supervisors, not workers, control the level of work-group performance. One of the main implications of the Hawthorne studies was that the behaviour of managers and workers in the work setting is as important in explaining the level of performance as the technical aspects of the task. Managers must understand the workings of the informal organization, the system of behavioural rules and norms that emerge in a group, when they try to manage or change behaviour in organizations. Many studies have found that, as time passes, groups often develop elaborate procedures and norms that bond members together, allowing unified action either to cooperate with management in order to raise performance or to restrict output and thwart the attainment of organizational goals.32 The Hawthorne studies demonstrated the importance of understanding how the feelings, thoughts, and behaviour of work-group members and managers affect performance. It was becoming increasingly clear to researchers that understanding behaviour in organizations is a complex process that is critical to increasing performance.33 Indeed, the increasing interest in the area of management known as organizational behaviour, the study of the factors that have an impact on how individuals and groups respond to and act in organizations, dates from these early studies.

2.8. Mintzbergs Managerial Role Approach

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.
Mintzberg published his Ten Management Roles in his book, "Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations," in 1990.The ten roles are: 1. Figurehead. 2. Leader. 18

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Liaison. Monitor. Disseminator. Spokesperson. Entrepreneur. Disturbance Handler. Resource Allocator. Negotiator.

The 10 roles are then divided up into three categories, as follows: Category Role Interpersonal Figurehead Leader Liaison Informational Monitor Disseminator Spokesperson Decisional Entrepreneur Disturbance Handler Resource Allocator Negotiator Let's look at each of the ten roles in greater detail.

2.8.1. 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.

2.8.2. Informational Category

The roles in this category involve processing information.

19

1. 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. 2. Disseminator - This is where you communicate potentially useful information to your colleagues and your team. 3. 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.

2.8.3. Decisional Category

The roles in this category involve using information.
1. Entrepreneur - As a manager, you create and control change within the organization. This means solving problems, generating new ideas, and implementing them. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Negotiator - You may be needed to take part in, and direct, important negotiations within your team, department, or organization.

2.9. McKinseys 7-S Approach

While some models of organizational effectiveness go in and out of fashion, one that has persisted is the McKinsey 7S framework. Developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting firm, 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. The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment perspective is useful, for example to help you: y Improve the performance of a company. y Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company. y Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition. y Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy. The McKinsey 7S model involves seven interdependent factors which are categorized as either "hard" or "soft" elements: Hard Elements
20

Soft Elements

Strategy Structure Systems

Shared Values Skills Style Staff

"Hard" elements are easier to define or identify and management can directly influence them: These are strategy statements; organization charts and reporting lines; and formal processes and IT systems. "Soft" elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe, and are less tangible and more influenced by culture. However, these soft elements are as important as the hard elements if the organization is going to be successful. The way the model is presented in Figure 1 below depicts the interdependency of the elements and indicates how a change in one affects all the others.

Let's look at each of the elements specifically: y Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage over the competition. Actions a company plans in response to or anticipation of changes in its external environment. y Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to whom. Basis for specialization and co-ordination influenced primarily by strategy and by organization size and diversity. y Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members engage in to get the job done. Formal and informal procedures that support the strategy and structure. (Systems are more powerful than they are given credit)

21

y y

Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" when the model was first developed, these are the core values of the company that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic. Guiding concepts, fundamental ideas around which a business is built - must be simple, usually stated at abstract level, have great meaning inside the organization even though outsiders may not see or understand them. Style: the style of leadership adopted. The distinctive competences - what the company does best, ways of expanding or shifting competences Staff: the employees and their general capabilities. The people/human resource management - processes used to develop managers, socialization processes, ways of shaping basic values of management cadre, ways of introducing young recruits to the company, ways of helping to manage the careers of employees Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the company.

3.

USE & EFFECT :

3.1. Use & Effect of Adam Smiths Job Specialization

Smiths approach, as a moral philosopher, was to do nothing but observe everything, and in his case he took the long-view of history to explain how and why a section of humanity in Europe had created societies somewhat advantageous to the spread of opulence compared to the stagnant 18th-century societies of India and China (the latter in the 15th century was on the verge of becoming the worlds leading economy it had the technology - until it deliberately aborted its development on the instructions of a totalitarian emperor by cutting all links with other civilizations). Also, compared to the earlier societies (the Age of Hunters) of North and South America, the meanest labourer in 18th-century Scotland was considerably richer in his annual consumption of goods than the richest Indian (and African) Prince (Wealth Of Nations, I.i.11: pp 23-4). The difference in living standards (appalling as they may appear to appear to modern consumers) was down to the enhanced divisions of labour in Europe. Instead of being relatively independent of others each hunter going into the forest and with his own tools catching something for his family to eat, building his own shelter for the night and covering himself and his families with animal skins the initial division of labour came from the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. Some people made arrow heads and flights for their arrows, others exchanged game for arrow heads, and so on. In doing so they became less independent and more dependent on their fellows and the mothers of their children. The pin factory by no means is the most important aspect of the division of labour in Adam Smith's view, though it is important to indicate the productivity consequences of co-operative
22

labour, which is a singular matter of importance for the spread of opulence, especially among the lowest paid. Indeed, it is in productivity gains all along a final product's supply chain, and the many separate supply chains connected to points on it, that is main the source of economic growth and the spread of opulence, which constantly works away under the entrepreneurial drive and technological enhancement brought about by thousands of others.

3.2.

Use & Effect of F.W. Taylors Scientific management

Scientific management evolved in an era when mechanization and automation existed but had hardly gotten started, historically speaking, and were still embryonic. Two important corollaries flow from this fact: (1) The ideas and methods of scientific management were exactly what was needed to be added to the American system of manufacturing to extend the transformation from craft work (with humans as the only possible agents) to mechanization and automation; but also, (2) Taylor himself could not have known this, and his goals did not include the extensive removal of humans from the production process. During his lifetime, the very idea would have seemed like science fiction, because not only did the technological bridge to such a world not yet look plausible, but most people had not even considered that it could happen. Before digital computers existed, such ideas were not just outlandish but also mostly unheard of. Anyone who manages a large team of workers sees from experience that Taylor was correct that some workers could not be relied upon for talent or intelligence; today enterprises still find that talent is a scarce resource. But he failed to leave room in his system for the workers who did have talent or intelligence. Some of them would be duly utilized during the early phases (the studying and designing), but what about smart workers in years afterwards who would start out among the ranks of the drones? What opportunities would they have for career advancement or socioeconomic advancement? He also failed to properly consider the fate of the drone-ish workers themselves. Maybe they did lack the ability for higher-level jobs, but what about keeping them satisfied or placated in their existing roles? Taylorism took some steps toward addressing their needs (for example, Taylor advocated frequent breaks and good pay), but Taylor nevertheless had a condescending view of less intelligent workers, whom he sometimes compared to draft animals. And perhaps Taylor was so immersed in the vast work immediately in front of him (getting the world to understand and to implement scientific management's earliest phases) that he failed to strategize about the next steps (sustainability of the system after the early phases). Scientific management was naturally appealing to managers of planned economies, because central economic planning relies on the idea that the expenses that go into economic production can be precisely predicted and can be optimized by design. The opposite theoretical pole would be an extremist variant of laissez-faire thinking in which the invisible hand of free markets is the only possible "designer".

23

In the Soviet Union, Taylorism was advocated by Aleksei Gastev and nauchnaia organizatsia truda (the movement for the scientific organisation of labor). It found support in both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Gastev continued to promote this system of labor management until his arrest and execution in 1939.[22] Historian Thomas P. Hughes has detailed the way in which the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. Hughes quotes Joseph Stalin:American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles; which continues on a task once started until it is finished, even if it is a minor task; and without which serious constructive work is impossible. The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism. The German Federal Archives contain documentation created by the German Democratic Republic as it sought to increase efficiency in its industrial sectors. In the accompanying photograph, workers discuss standards that have recently been created specifying how each task should be done and how long it should take. By the 1950s, Taylor's original form of scientific management (and the name "scientific management" itself) had grown dated, but the goals and themes remained attractive and found new avatars. The workers in the photograph were engaged in a state-planned instance of process improvement, but they were essentially pursuing the same goals that were also contemporaneously pursued in the Free World by people like the developers of the Toyota Production System.

3.3.

Use & Effect of Fayols Operational Management Theory

Fayol's desire for teaching a generalized theory of management stemmed from the belief that each individual of an organization at one point or another takes on duties that involve managerial decisions. Unlike Taylor, however, who believed management activity was the exclusive duty of an organizations dominant class. Fayol's approach was more in sync with his idea of Authority which stated that the right to give orders should not be considered without the acceptance and understanding of responsibility. Noted as one of the early fathers of the Human Relations movements, Fayol expressed ideas and theories with practices which differed from Taylor in that they showed flexibility and adaptation as well as stressed the importance of Interpersonal Interaction among employees. Fayol believed that animosity and unease within the workplace occurred among employees in different departments often due to communication in writing; i.e. letters, (or in current times) emails. Among scholars of organizational communication and psychology, e-mails and letters as a form of communication in work are said to induce or solidify the idea of importance of an individual within the workplace and furthermore give way to selfish thinking which leads to arguments and conflict among employees.

24

Fayol expressed this idea in his book by stating," in some firms... employees in neighboring departments with numerous points of contact, or even employees within a department, who could quite easily meet, communicate with each other in writing... there is to be observed a certain amount of animosity prevailing between different departments or different employees within a department. The system of written communication usually brings this result. There is a way of putting an end to this deplorable system and that is to forbid all communication in writing which could easily and advantageously be replaced by verbal ones." While Fayol's theories are typically referred to as rigid and inflexible, it is practices and theories such as these which show flexibility in his theories of management. He developed and used theses ideas in order to diagnose a problem and eventually find solutions which provided methods to work around and fix these situations. This all led to his general idea of controlling employees in order to achieve increased productivity. Fayol also expressed ideas which would later on lead to influence Systems and Contingency theories. The two are said to have emerged as a result of management theorists' desire to integrate ideas of the human relation theories within management which is what Fayol's General theory of Management relied upon. Systems theory, first introduced in 1958 by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and later on published in 1968 attempts to understand organizations by comparing them to living organisms. Systems Theory is broken down into four distinct characteristics which reflect the biological resemblance between living organisms and organizations. First, Wholeness expresses the idea that an organization is a set of individual elements which are interdependent in the sense that the actions of one individual or group will affect the rest of the system or organization. The second is described as Hierarchy or the division of individuals into subsystems. This can be illustrated by groups within an organization. With regards to organisms, this could be called the organs of the body. Third, the organization may be regarded as, "Open or closed," in that systems can be characterized by their level of active exchange with the outside environment; successful organizations must be actively open . Lastly, open systems are characterized by two processes; maintenance and adaptation. Both of these processes act on Feedback to actions taken by the groups in order to maintain stability and adapt to environmental changes. Contingency Leadership Theory which was produced around the same time as Systems Theory, roughly states that no one leadership or management style is ideal and that the best leadership is that which reflects the internal and external environment of the organization. This is perhaps the most important concept that Fayol based his ideas around as well as the area where he and Taylor differ the most.

3.4.

Use & Effect of The Gilbreths Thoughts

25

Writing in The History of Management Thought, Claude George (1968) said that Gilbreth refined the hand motions into 17 basic motions. These included grasp, transport loaded, and hold. Gilbreth named the motions therbligs, which is Gilbreth spelled backwards with the th transposed. The emphasis on the one best way including the 17 basic motions seemingly overlooked the late 20th century understanding that repeated motions can lead to physical repetitive motion disorders of the worker. He also used a motion picture camera, that was calibrated in fractions of minutes to time the smallest of motions in workers. However, George also observed that the Gilbreths were above-all, scientists and who sought to teach managers that everything should be constantly questioned and feasibility and applicability should be discarded if an improvement is found. It is a quest for the one best way, that predates the development of continuous quality improvement (CQI). (Reference, (George, C. S. Jr. (1968). The History of Management Thought. Engle Wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. P. 98) During World War II, Gilbreth worked as a consultant to the government, helping both on military bases and in war plants, especially in overseeing their conversion from other factories. Gilbreth continued the work that she had started years earlier concerning the application of efficiency techniques to the lives of American homemakers. She wanted to create ways to save them time in energy. She was very successful, and even created some important inventions such as the foot-pedal trash can and shelves inside refrigerator doors. She had written two books on this subject: The Homemaker and Her Job (1927) and Living with Our Children (1928). These books show Lillian's acknowledgement that individual needs, fulfilment, and happiness be taken into account and integrated with management principles. In them, she "stressed her belief that homes should be happy places in which individuals can achieve fulfilment and a degree of freedom" and stated that "wives and mothers are entitled to share in this freedom and fulfilment, but this happy situation can be attained only if the responsibilities of the home are shared and efficiently handled. In other words, every housewife and mother needs to be an effective, efficient manager" (Kelly & Kelly, 1990, p. 122-123). Gilbreth's desire to apply efficiency techniques to homemakers' duties did not come solely from an interest in efficiency, but also from a desire that they gain some freedom and fulfilment.

3.5.

Use & Effect of Henry Gantts Thoughts

The project's summary and terminal elements, which combine to form the project's internal structure, are shown on the Gantt chart. Many charts will also depict the precedence rankings and dependencies of various tasks within the project. The charts can illustrate the start and finish project terminal elements in project management. It can also show summary elements and terminal dependencies. The smallest task tracked as part of the project effort is known as a terminal element. Gantt chart represents the tasks in most modern project scheduling packages. However other management applications use simpler communication tools such as message boards, to-do lists and simple scheduling etc., therefore, they do not use Gantt charts as heavily. The way to create this chart begins by determining and
26

listing the necessary activities. Next, sketch out how you expect the chart to look. List which items depend on others and what activities take place when. For each activity, list how many man-hours it will require, and who is responsible. Lastly, determine the throughput time. This technique's primary advantage is its good graphical overview that is easy to understand for nearly all project participants and stakeholders. Its primary disadvantage is its limited applicability for many projects, since projects are often more complex than can be effectively communicated with this chart. One of the biggest benefits of a Gantt chart is the tool's ability to boil down multiple tasks and timelines into a single document. Stakeholders throughout an organization can easily understand where teams are in a process while grasping the ways in which independent elements come together toward project completion. Teams can use Gantt charts to replace meetings and enhance other status updates. Simply clarifying chart positions offers an easy, visual method to help team members understand task progress. To see other ways to compile status information, check out these series of articles. Some teams or team members become more effective when faced with a form of external motivation. Gantt charts offer teams the ability to focus work at the front of a task timeline, or at the tail end of a chart segment. Both types of team members can find Gantt charts meaningful as they plug their own work habits into the overall project schedule. For project managers and resource schedulers, the benefits of a Gantt chart include the ability to sequence events and reduce the potential for overburdening team members. Some project managers even use combinations of charts to break down projects into more manageable sets of tasks. Sometimes, a lack of time or resources forces project managers and teams to find creative solutions. Seeing how individual tasks intertwine on Gantt charts often encourages new partnerships and collaborations that might not have evolved under traditional task assignment systems. Most managers regard scheduling as one of the major benefits of Gantt charts in a creative environment. Helping teams understand the overall impact of project delays can foster stronger collaboration while encouraging better task organization. Whether you use Excel to generate Gantt charts or you load tasks into a more precise chart generator, the ability to issue new charts as your project evolves lets you react to unexpected changes in project scope or timeline. While revising your project schedule too frequently can eliminate some of the other benefits of Gantt charts, offering a realistic view of a project can help team members recover from setbacks or adjust to other changes. For project managers handling complex assignments, like software publishing or event planning, the benefits of Gantt charts include externalizing assignments. By visualizing all of the pieces of a project puzzle, managers can make more focused, effective decisions about resources and timetables. Another one of the benefits of Gantt charts is the ability for teams members to leverage each others deadlines for maximum efficiency. For instance, while one team member waits on the outcome of three other tasks before starting a crucial piece of the assignment, he or she can perform other project tasks. Visualizing resource usage during projects allows managers
27

to make better use of people, places, and things. When project teams face major organizational change, documenting effort and outcomes becomes crucial to career success. Using Gantt charts during critical projects allows both project managers and participants to track team progress, highlighting both big wins and major failures. During professional review periods, team members who frequently exceed expectations can leverage this documentation into larger raises or bonuses.

28

3.6.

Use & Effect of Hawthorne Effect

Many types of research use human research subjects, and the Hawthorne effect is an unavoidable bias that the researcher must try to take into account when they analyze the results. Subjects are always liable to modify behavior when they are aware that they are part of an experiment, and this is extremely difficult to quantify. All that a researcher can do is attempt to factor the effect into the research design, a tough proposition, and one that makes social research a matter of experience and judgment. A 1978 study, to establish whether cerebella neurostimulators could mitigate the motor dysfunction of young adults with cerebral palsy found that the Hawthorne Effect adversely affected the findings. Objective testing showed that all of patients reported that their motor functions improved and that they were happy with the treatment. Quantitative methods, however, showed that there was little improvement, and researchers invoked the Hawthorne Effect as the main factor skewing the results. They believed that the extra attention given to the patients, by the doctors, nurses and therapists, was behind the reported improvements in the initial study. The Hawthorne Effect clearly points out that even controlled scientific studies which focus only on what is measurable may have inherent flaws. "Good" science must be designed in such a way to attempt to recognize and minimize the influence of effects such as Hawthorne as well as eliminating the effect of bias. Other phenomena such as the "placebo effect" may also exist but are so vague that their influence can not be predicted. In providing health care it has been found that the application of the Hawthorne Effect has been able to add to the patients good result as well as their satisfaction with the treatment. This simply means that the more attention provided by the practitioner to the patient the better the end result. It also helps to explain the dissatisfaction of individuals treated disrespectfully in socialized health care systems exemplified by Canada and England. For decades, the Hawthorne studies provided the rationale for human relations within the organization. Then two researchers (Franke, Kaul, 1978) used a new procedure called time-series analyses. Using the original variables and including in the Great Depression and the instance of a managerial discipline in which two insubordinate and mediocre workers were replaced by two different productive workers, with one who took the role of straw boss (see note below); they discovered that production was most affected by the replacement of the two workers due to their greater productivity and the affect of the disciplinary action on the other workers. The occurrence of the Depression also encouraged job productivity, perhaps through the increased importance of jobs and the fear of losing them. Rest periods and a group incentive plan also had a somewhat positive smaller effect on productivity. These variables accounted for almost all the variation in productivity during the experimental period. Early social sciences may have readily to embrace the original Hawthorne interpretations since it was looking for theories or work motivation that were more humane and democratic.
29

3.7.

Use & Effect of Mintzbergs Managerial Role Approach

You can use Mintzberg's 10 Management Roles model as a frame of reference when you're thinking about developing your own skills and knowledge. Figureheads represent their teams. If you need to improve or build confidence in this area, start with your image, behavior, and reputation. Cultivate humility and empathy, learn how to set a good example at work, and think about how to be a good role model. This is the role you probably spend most of your time fulfilling. To improve here, start by taking our quiz, How Good Are Your Leadership Skills? This will give you a thorough understanding of your current abilities. Next, learn how to be an authentic leader, so your team will respect you. Also, focus on improving your emotional intelligence - this is an important skill for being an effective leader. To improve your liaison skills, work on your professional networking techniques. You may also like to take our Bite-Sized Training course on Networking Skills. To improve here, learn how to gather information effectively and overcome information overload. Also, use effective reading strategies, so that you can process material quickly and thoroughly, and learn how to keep up-todate with industry news. To be a good disseminator you need to know how to share information and outside views effectively, which means that good communication skills are vital. Learn how to share organizational information with Team Briefings. Next, focus on improving your writing skills. You might also want to take our communication skills quiz, to find out where else you can improve. To be effective in this role, make sure that you know how to represent your organization at a conference. You may also want to read our articles on delivering great presentations and working with the media (if applicable to your role).To improve here, build on your change management skills, and learn what not to do when implementing change in your organization. You'll also need to work on your problem solving and creativity skills, so that you can come up with new ideas, and implement them successfully. In this role, you need to excel at conflict resolution and know how to handle team conflict. It's also helpful to be able to manage emotion in your team. To improve as a resource allocator, learn how to manage a budget, cut costs, and prioritize, so that you can make the best use of your resources. You can also use VRIO Analysis to learn how to get the best results from the resources available to you. Improve your negotiation skills by learning about Win-Win Negotiation and Distributive Bargaining. You might also want to read our article on role-playing - this technique can help you prepare for difficult negotiations.

30

3.8.

Use & Effect of McKinseys 7-S Approach

The 7-S model is a tool for managerial analysis and action that provides a structure with which to consider a company as a whole, so that the organization's problems may be diagnosed and a strategy may be developed and implemented. The 7-S diagram illustrates the multiplicity interconnectedness of elements that define an organization's ability to change. The theory helped to change manager's thinking about how companies could be improved. It says that it is not just a matter of devising a new strategy and following it through. Nor is it a matter of setting up new systems and letting them generate improvements. To be effective, your organization must have a high degree of fit, or internal alignment among all the seven Ss. Each S must be consistent with and reinforce the other Ss. All Ss are interrelated, so a change in one has a ripple effect on all the others. It is impossible to make progress on one without making progress on all. Thus, to improve your organization, you have to master systems thinking and pay attention to all of the seven elements at the same time. There is no starting point or implied hierarchy different factors may drive the business in any one organization. The Seven-Ss is a framework for analyzing organizations and their effectiveness. It looks at the seven key elements that make the organizations successful, or not: strategy; structure; systems; style; skills; staff; and shared values. Consultants at McKinsey & Company developed the 7S model in the late 1970s to help managers address the difficulties of organizational change. The model shows that organizational immune systems and the many interconnected variables involved make change complex, and that an effective change effort must address many of these issues simultaneously. 7-S Model A Systemic Approach to Improving Organizations. The 7-S model is a tool for managerial analysis and action that provides a structure with which to consider a company as a whole, so that the organization's problems may be diagnosed and a strategy may be developed and implemented. The 7-S diagram illustrates the multiplicity interconnectedness of elements that define an organization's ability to change. The theory helped to change manager's thinking about how companies could be improved. It says that it is not just a matter of devising a new strategy and following it through. Nor is it a matter of setting up new systems and letting them generate improvements. There is no starting point or implied hierarchy - different factors may drive the business in any one organization. Every model has its limitations, and the 7S is no exception. A major critique of McKinsey's 7S framework is to be found in Richard D'Aveni's book, HYPERCOMPETITION. The competitive environment is often moving so fast that the stability assumptions built into McKinsey's approach are dysfunctional, and that organizations need more speed, agility and capacity for coping with uncertainty to prosper. D'Aveni's "New 7S Framework" identifies Stakeholder Satisfaction, Strategic Soothsaying (good sense of where the world is going), Speed, capability to Surprise rivals, ability to Shift the Rules of competition, capable Signaling, and Simultaneous
31

and Sequential Strategic Thrusts that create momentum and follow-on as the newer, more contemporary approaches that allow a competitor to contend with today's more competitive environments - or to render the environment more competitive, so as to catch the opposition flatfooted. D'Aveni's fundamental model is that strategic competition is war, and like it may include strategic alliances, but it's mostly all against all. I think there is a risk of over-intellectualizing the issue. Part of the problem is that some people believe in the models / frameworks in an almost religiously fervent manner. The value of the models seems to be a mechanism to help think about the business and to evaluate weaknesses and opportunities. Too slavish an adherence to using the models at the operational level can result in an overly bureaucratic control system developing. 7S framework is helpful as a checklist, but no more.

3.9.

Use & Effect of Munsterbergs Psychology of Management

In Psychology and Industrial Efficiency Mnsterberg 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 particually 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 Mnsterberg 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
32

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 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." Mnsterberg 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." Therefor 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 a 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." Mnsterberg identified three main reason 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 car 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 maid 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
33

discovered with much greater exactitude and with much richer detail than was possible through what a mere call on the vocational counselor could unveil. Mnsterberg 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 nave methods -- for instance, the filling-out of questionnaires 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 Mnsterberg 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 and find the best possible job for every individual. Mnsterberg 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. Mnsterberg 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.

34

4.

CONCLUSION:

Changes in management practices occur as managers, theorists, researchers, and consultants seek new ways to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The driving force behind the evolution of management theory is the search for better ways to utilize organizational resources. Advances in management theory typically occur as managers and researchers find better ways to perform the principal management tasks: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling human and other organizational resources. In this assignment, we examine how management theory concerning appropriate management practices has evolved in modern times, and look at the central concerns that have guided its development. First, we examine the so-called classical management theories that emerged around the turn of the twentieth century. These include scientific management, which focuses on matching people and tasks to maximize efficiency; and administrative management, which focuses on identifying the principles that will lead to the creation of the most efficient system of organization and management. Next, we consider behavioural management theories, developed both before and after the Second World War, which focus on how managers should lead and control their workforces to increase performance. Then we discuss management science theory, which developed during the Second World War and which has become increasingly important as researchers have developed rigorous analytical and quantitative techniques to help managers measure and control organizational performance. Finally, we discuss business in the 1960s and 1970s and focus on the theories that were developed to help explain how the external environment affects the way organizations and managers operate. By the end of this chapter, you will understand the ways in which management theory has evolved over time. You will also understand how economic, political, and cultural forces have affected the development of these theories and the ways in which managers and their organizations behave.

35