Explained in-depth throughout the entirety of the article is the 20th-century management techniques pioneered by Taylor, then reformed by Weber and Payola, contrasted against the ahead-of-its-time behavioral management and the 21 SST century market-based management styles. Credit will of course be given were earned to the first style since it is focused on a centralized, bureaucratic method that worked extremely well in the Industrial Revolution time period. Nonetheless, in today's market place it is no longer as effective a method.
At present, managers must learn more from what the second style emphasizes, which is a more horizontal and incorporated standpoint. Robert Alger follows the behavioral method. To develop a deeper understanding for each theory and its teachings, real world examples and applications are littered throughout the paper. Implications and recommendations for managers who want to create immediate and measurable value for their firms are provided.
Order custom essay Sample Paper Historical and Modern Management Practices with free plagiarism report
In order to fully assess the different qualities of these various forms of management and properly discern and dissect the characteristics of each, it is imperative that the definition of what a manager actually is and does is first defined.
The position of manager, in any organization, is responsible for allocating the resources of the firm in the most efficient and effective ways International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences. Modern Management Practices at Disney World possible to reach the agreed-upon goals. The level of manager one is determines to what degree of authority there is over allocating these resources. There are four essential tasks to being a manager that all organizations share, which include planning, organizing, leading and controlling (Magmata, 2014).
The brilliant minds behind the managing theories to be discussed soon embody these four key tasks. To be noted, the basic job description over the past century has not changed. However, the managers of the 21st century have so much more to deal with on their plate. Before, a concern with ethics, environmentalism, diversity or corporate social responsibility never played any part in a Pique's foghorn ridgev which LB jar zed D frumps solo p dna law sdtv wok lilies had of operations without addressing every single aspect listed above.
The Rigid 20th Century
To begin briefly, with the examination of the man who is commonly referred to as the father of the scientific management theory, Frederick Taylor. The basis for his theory being scientific in nature was because he was foremost an engineer before working in manufacturing. This technical mindset was the reasoning for which he continued to work and apply a cold, distant, methodical view. His purpose in developing this method LLC WOK PLUG 'IV was in regards to his job as a steel manufacturing anger.
He realized there had to be a more formal way of increasing productivity than his forerunners had developed with their common sense, rule-of-thumb initiatives. In turn, came his techniques for these scientific methods, which is defined as the systematic study of relationships between people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the workplace to increase efficiency . Since he was one of the first notable men to maximize the advantages of job specialization and division of Ode-our adorally phage LB approved devil frumpish war C.V
Taylor sets a Modern Management Practices at Disney World 4 clear and easy outline to organizing the workplace in four simple principles. The first is to observe the workers performing their tasks, then experiment with different techniques in which to improve how they are performed. Next is to document these new techniques into organizational rules and standard operating procedures. The last two principles are then to select those techniques best suited for each task and create a fair price in which to reward the employees for a job well done.
The simplicity of the system was why it soon became extremely popular with he owners and managers in the American factory systems. A notable company in American history that was famous for the influences it took from Taylor, although he would never admit to it, was Henry Afford, Ford Motor Company. According to Sward (as cited in Peterson, 2002, p. 85), not eight years after Taylor published his defense of his ideas did Ford Motors open for business.
Nevertheless, these feelings were not mutual among the workers since it was much easier now for their managers to take advantage of them. George and Jonesgo on to further describe Weak khz cirri_johnny's sorrowfully laughing crew iraqi grog jaw prior zorn war gar ex. Kiddy war. do it without any pay raise or bonus . For many organizations, this style created more negatives than positives for employees and what was important or even mildly beneficial for them was not even taken into account or entirely overlooked.
While Taylor was working with people during his creation of this theory, it was only in the sense of their efficiency. He was seeing them as breathing machines, not human beings. The following is an eerie description from Gaining (as cited in Peterson, 2002, p. 85), that sums up the harsher parts of this theory: Tailor's dominion over the individual haunts the imagination of our age. For it conjures up the specter of one human being exacting his will on another.
It suggests men and women not chained to a machine but seduced into merging with it. International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, At roughly the same time, although just across the pond, the foundations for administrative management Ugh eels odl war hawkish the main objective was still centered on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of production. Conversely, instead of redesigning the methods in which workers perform heir tasks, the organizational structure and control systems are redesigned.
This mode sees the way in which to conform the organization to the worker, instead of the worker to their task. Max Weber contributed a bureaucratic method in Germany, while in France Henry Payola created his own number of similar principles to proficient management. Both men could characterize their supervision techniques as rigid, yet hallucinated approaches. Max Weber was the man who came up with the principles of bureaucracy in the early 'IV which is a formal system of organization and administration designed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
Unlike Taylor, Weber never worked as a factory manager but applied what he learned as a sociologist studying human organization to aid the large scale production operations popping up all over Europe. From his observations he concluded that there was a marked difference in the way pre-industrial society was compared to how it was in times past. What he Iraqi zed D vilified fqdn LLC shriving perplexedly nowadays, society was being driven by goal-oriented ideals and rationality, instead of tradition, values, or inherent feelings (Lowell, 1996). Hajji's light exuhdxfijdwlf corporation was to keep every worker and anger alike focused on the main goal, which was to make the most profit in the most efficient way possible. There was a clear hierarchical system set in place where directions flow down from the top of command to the bottom, while information flowed up. Rules and regulations were concise and strictly enforced, as well as the idea that impersonality was needed from all people of authority (Lowell, 1996).
Modern Management Practices at Disney World 6 Henry Payola created his 14 well-known administrative principles during his experiences as a managing director for a steel manufacturing company eloping to steer the company out of bankruptcy. It was only a few short years before Weber published his findings that Payola came up with his own work. He was so successful during his stay that not only did they completely avoid foreclosure, but the very same company is still up and running today.
The administrative principles listed in no particular order are as follows: a division of labor, a clear line of authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interests to general interests, centralization, chain of command, order, equity, stability of tenure of response, remuneration of personnel, esprit De corps, and initiative (Schmeltzer, 201 2, up. 32-34). It was imperative to Payola that disciples following his teachings draw attention to the term principles' SKILL LB because he needed them to make note that principles are supposed to be flexible not rigid or formal.
Lee Schmeltzer (2012) goes in great depth to describe nature. Among his most important points was that these were more like guidelines, they must be easily adaptable to changing circumstances, modifiable when necessary, and unique to different situations. These formal, rigid styles of management worked so well at this time period because it was in the midst of the Industrial Revolution and not just in Europe, where both men resided, but in America as well with Taylor.
Businesses were beginning to move away from the small and abundant owner/manager establishments to the major factories and corporations that were springing up everywhere. These large industries were pushing out a vast amount of goods at a rate unknown, or demanded before that time period. Thus, in order to increase the quantity of commodities to be produced, at an economical level, managers needed a ell-organized and International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, ), formal guide to work with.
Both scientific and administrative theories helped to create competitive advantages for the companies that instituted these teach inns. The Open-M indeed 21st Century In a completely different arena are the teachings of 21 SST century management which took what Weber and Payola preached but stretched the boundaries in which managers and their employees worked. Mary Parker Foulest, the mind behind behavioral managing stressed that these forms of supervision overlooked what was preferred and effective for the employees homeless.
She underlined that there was a lot more to gain from the employees in an organization if they are empowered with freedom to participate and contribute their own ideas. Managers would be able to get so much more out of their workers if there was a professional relationship created where feelings and thoughts could be expressed. This standpoint could not be emphasized enough since it was common knowledge at the time that those employees being taken advantage of in an organization practicing scientific management frequently kept the knowledge they possessed from heir bosses to protect their jobs and pay . Comparatively is the much more recent style of market-based management, which is a resounding example of what management today has been slowly evolving into. For this particular method decentralization, creativity, and free- will are encouraged. Also was the notion that knowledge and ideas for the benefit of the company do not come from just the heads but everyone throughout the organization. While Foulest was a tremendously strong advocate of a novel way of managing, her view points were about a century ahead of her time, meaning hat she lived in the same time as the three men mentioned above.
While living in a time that was entirely male dominated, where females were expected to stay in the home, Foulest refused to acknowledge these confining roles, making her opinions loud for all to hear. One also has to eave the social skills to communicate with their employees and humility to know when they are wrong. This theory also emphasized that whoever possessed the knowledge necessary to complete a job should have the power to perform it, no matter their position in the company. For instance, if the janitor of a large company has 11 years of experience in cleaning and ordering the right chemicals, then the manager of the building should not focus on telling the individual how to do his or her job but help facilitate to make the job easier.
Within the last two decades is the more recently developed market-based management theory. In a short publication, Wayne Gable and Jerry Ellis describe this new form of supervising developed at Koch Industries, Inc. The rationalization behind this particular theory was to Government of management systems' *DEED Ellis, 1993). Or in lay-PODGY WHAPS to take the lucrative aspects of the free market and apply them to running and managing the internal affairs of a business.
Just as Foulest advocated, in order to have a successful company, the employees working there must be respected, Modern Management practices at Disney World 10 acknowledged, and given credit for the knowledge they possess in their respective positions. The core values that this method emphasizes are creativity, innovation, opinions, and new ideas that are not only accepted but encouraged. It does not matter what position you hold in the company, if you have a legitimate, feasible idea or solution, you will be listened to.
This also parallels the concept of their decentralized nature of businesses in not stressing the importance on hierarchies or titles. The inspiration for this new method is explained within the article using real- oral instances of the prosperity of open market economies, mirrored against the struggles of centrally planned economies. Ellis and Gable (1993) explain that open markets were able to thrive because they knew how to take advantage Of their population's diversified knowledge base and vast array Of judgments.
Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?