INTRODUCTION
Management history should be understood by the managers as it helps them avoid mistakes that were made in the past and to understand the recent developments. Understanding various theories helps them in organising information and systematically solving problems. Both history and there together are a tool for managers to understand the recent developments and current situation. It also facilitates the speculation of risks and future implications.
During Industrial Revolution, there was an emergence of the factory system. In this system, a large number of workers were involved in variety of jobs. This led to problems for the managers as there was lack of coordination and supervision was difficult.
While considering the models of management, Adam Smith’s (1776) Rational Goals model plays a significant role. This theory suggests that the work should be broken down into several parts. According to Smith, this leads to efficiency as there is increased specialisation due to the division of work into various components. Charles Cabbage substantiated and developed his views about the theory.
Moving on to Taylor’s Scientific management, he observed the relationship between the workers and the production systems that were automated. He aimed at making each worker reach their maximum potential. It is a manager’s primary responsibility that he understands the production process. Taylor’s theory included five important principles. His main principle was there is a best way for performing every task. He also states that in order for an employee to be selected, he should be both physically and mentally capable. Following rules and procedures was considered as one of the main things that an employee should know. Incentives to encourage the employees to follow procedures was another principle. According to this theory, there was centralisation of power and authority. To promote accountability, Taylor also influenced the practice of book keeping.
Adam Smith, Babbage and Taylor believe that efficiency of the employees increased with repetitive work.
Lillian Gilberth emphasised on the psychological aspect of both management and workers. She thought if scientific management was properly applied, it could help the employees reach their maximum potential. In her book Psychology of Management (1914), she mentioned that appreciation helped improve the performance of the employees.
In Time and Motion study, work was observed and measured so that there can be an elimination of any wastage. Taylor believed that every employee would fit for a particular job role. Taylorism introduced different levels of management which required separation between both planning and execution (doing).
Though Taylor faced a lot of criticism, this theory had benefits such as increased uniformity in the design. Also, having one best way to perform a task made it easier to train unskilled labourers as they did only a small part of the production process. As the workers had pre-defined job roles, there was individualisation. The managers notices that controlling the quality standards was easier. In a manager’s perspective, Taylor’s principles increase efficiency as there is the concept of specialisation. It also shifted the control to the management. These principles stated by Taylor were further developed by Henry Ford. It can be said tat both Taylor andFord’ s work was complimentary to each other. This is because Taylor focused on diving the work among the labourers whereas Ford placed all the tasks in an order which would result in the most efficient way of assembling a product.
Disadvantages of Taylor’s principles, according to Karl Marx, can be said as lack of skills required. Due to this, the management could employ unskilled workers. This led to job losses for the skilled workers. Also, the workers were aware of only a small part of the production process and they were not fully aware of the production process as the complete control was lying with the management. The workers did not have any desire to improve their creativity as the work was pre-defined and they had to do it in only in that particular way.
Both Taylor and Ford believed that the workers were naturally lazy. They considered the work merely as an economic activity. In contrast to this, Marx believes that the workers are naturally creative. He considers work as a social activity instead of considering it just for the sake of monetary benefits.
As there is an increase in intense competition, capitalists aim at getting higher profits. This was increasing the pressure on the managers to achieve maximum efficiency and reduce costs. This in turn created pressure on the workers which led to conflicts between the workers and the management.
Karl Marx (1964) states that Taylorism and Fordism were deteriorating the worker- capitalist relationship. Focusing on better worker- capitalist relationship would increase the efficiency. He considered the relationship between management and workers unequal as wages, working hours, way in which target is to be achieved and everything else is decided by the management and the workers have no say in it no matter what.
Taylorism and Fordism are not applicable in a way that they both employ unskilled labour for a pre-defined task and there is only one best way to perform a task. Whereas, in case of CMI, employees are highly skilled. These theories might be applicable for industries involving physical labour such as manufacturing, assembling and so on. CMI is a creative industry and every client would have a different requirement. At CMI, creativity and Innovation are the key elements. Taylorism and Fordism led to dehumanising (Chaplin, Rivera and Huxley)and deskilling (Braveman).
George Ritzel noticed that McDonalds restaurant chain is very efficient and it uses techniques of scientific management such as assembly line and bureaucracy. He says that the society is McDonalised. However, this is not applicable while considering CMI as it is not an organisation that produces goods. Rather, it is a firm that specialises in providing services to corporate and media sector. (Daniel King text pg 99)
Braveman (1974) – deskilling thesis.
Work is lowered from creative skills to pre-designed structure. He says that there is organisational deskilling which means the workers are not aware of the full production process. Technological deskilling means tasks are designed beforehand and this is leading to loss of creativity. Another drawback of the scientific management principles, according to him, is the work being done by employees can be replaced by machines due to the automation. This might lead to loss of jobs.
Karl Marx and Braveman hold the same view regarding the conflict of interest between the management and the workers.
Weber’s bureaucracy focuses on three elements namely specialisation, hierarchy and impersonal rationality. Bureaucratic organisation refers to separation of managerial and administrative work into various functions. These are coordinated by a combination of rules and procedures. Also, there is a vertical chain or a top to bottom hierarchical approach. Bureaucracy is decentralised as every employee takes some type of decision. However, it is centralised in a way that all the major decisions are taken by the management. Though few thinkers feel that centralised decision making is controlling, it certainly has some benefits or advantages. When there is a centralised body that takes key decisions often, the decisions will be consistent and fast. This centralised body would make decisions after considering the feedback which in turn, leads to a bigger picture. This approach was criticised to be rigid and impersonal.
Taylor, Fayol and Weber had similar views regarding few principles such as a hierarchical structure where the control lies with the management, division of work which results in specialisation, formal employee-employer relationships, a certain set of rules and procedures and predictability of the quality and standards of the output.
Contingency theory focuses on the importance of decentralised organisation. According to this theory, decentralisation is necessary for achieving diverse goals of the organisation.
(Braverman, 1999)
(Taylor, 2012)
(Hyötyläinen, 2015)
References
Braverman, H. (1999). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review, pp.92-94.
Hyötyläinen, T. (2015). Steps to improved firm performance with business process management. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, pp.56-57.
Taylor, F. (2012). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Dover Publications, pp.30-40. CONCLUSION
The techno-cultural critically examines the connections among social, technical and interpretative issues (Jackson and Philip, 2005). Jiang et al. (1998) and Kendra and Taplin (2004) state that managers do not need intense technical training whereas Bassellier et al. (2001) believe that it is important for the manager to have this knowledge. Markus (2000) argues that the management should have knowledge about the requirements and type of system that is most appropriate. This, according to her, would lead to successful implementation of techno-change.
Project managers and Consultants act as knowledge brokers (Bessant & Rush, 1995; Hargadon, 1998) who contribute to organisational performance (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2001). Researchers across various disciplines have found that performance of an individual correlates positively with the amount of information he or she receives, up to a certain point (Eppler and Mengis, 2004). Beyond this point, the individual’s performance will rapidly decline, described by an inverted-u curve (Chewning and Harrell, 1990). Information overloading is considered as a challenge. In the knowledge economy, information is presumably people’s most valuable commodity (Hemp, 2000). However, overload often leads to stress, inefficiency, and mistakes that can result in poor decisions, bad analysis, and/or miscommunication (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). Etzel and Thomas (1996) went so far as to suggest that the individual should use her brain more effectively, i.e., improve her memory, rather than rely so heavily on technology. Of course, all of the information received is not necessarily relevant.