Evolution of Management There Are Many Contributors Essay
- Length: 6 pages
- Sources: 5
- Subject: Leadership
- Type: Essay
- Paper: #587898
Excerpt from Essay :
Evolution of Management
There are many contributors to the field of management creating different management styles and theories. The major contributors to management thought are Frederick Taylor with the scientific management, as described in "Shop Management 1903," "Principles of Scientific Management, 1911" (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). This thought believes that the main concern for management is the increment of productivity and pay for employees, by applying scientific methods. The theory emphasizes on the use of science, creation of harmony and cooperation in groups, realizing maximum output, and improving workers. This management thought has other contributors like Henry Gantt (1901) who proposes harmony and cooperation between management and employees (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). In addition, are Frank Gillbreth (1900) pioneered the time and motion studies, while Lillian Gillbreth focused on human aspects in work, human needs, and personalities.
The second group of thought is the modern operational management theory postulated by Henri Fayol (1916). He is famous for the 14 management principles, the teaching of management, and division of work into commercial, technical, security, financial, managerial, and accounting. The third are the behavioral sciences with pioneers like Walter Dill (1911) that believed in the application of psychology in marketing, personnel, and advertising. Max Weber (1947) developed the theory of bureaucracy, Hugo MUnsterberg (1912) who applied psychology to management and industry. This also includes Elton Mayo who developed the Hawthorne studies and Roethlisberger F.J. (1933) with the influence of social relationships and attitudes on group performance. The forth is the systems theory developed by Chester Barnard (1938), that describes a manager's task as the maintenance cooperation, and the use of social systems in management. Others include Peter Drucker and Edwards Deming on quality control (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006).
Henri Fayol in "General and Industrial Management," tackles the fourteen principles of management (Daft & Lane, 2009). The first is unity of command, where each subordinate receives orders from only one superior. Division of work entails he specialization of managerial and technical work to increase productivity and efficiency. Unity of command requires the grouping of similar activities under one manager (Daft & Lane, 2009). Scalar chain is the extension of authority from top to bottom of an organization. Discipline is the application of obedience, and behavior that marks respect to the organization's codes and employees. Unity of direction is the unity in an organization towards one purpose, goal, and plan of activities (Daft & Lane, 2009). Subordination of a person's interest to the interest of the group requires the interests of individuals not to prevail over the interests of the whole organization. Remuneration of employees entails fair compensation at all levels of employment that is satisfactory to all. Centralization entails the natural sequence of organization, and order entails orderly rules, policies, actions, and instructions. Equity is the equal and fairness for all, as stability of tenure is the time for staff to adapt to work (Daft & Lane, 2009). Initiative is the zeal and enthusiasm of work at all levels by all employees, and esprit de corps is the harmony in the workforce, teamwork, and close relationships.
Henri Fayol's identifies the basic elements of management as organizing, commanding, planning, controlling, and coordinating. Fayol believes planning is the development of organizational structures and functions of command to execute plans, coordination makes sure plans, and resources work together. This is similar to organization of rules, plans, goals, and human resources, as control concerns itself with ensuring everything proceeds as planned.
The trait leadership approach focus on identifying innate characteristics and qualities by great political, social, and military leaders. These studies were popular in the 1900s, and identified core traits like achievement drive, honesty, integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, emotional maturity, knowledge, and creativity, and flexibility among others (Northouse, 2012). This theory is credited to Sir Galton Francis who believes that distinct psychological and physical traits account for effective leadership. The trait leadership theory is also associated to the Great Man Theory. However, the Great Man theory believes that leaders are born, and an inherited traits as proposed by Frederick Adams (1913) (Northouse, 2012).
The (1930) behavioral approach focuses on the behavior of leaders, how they act, and carry themselves. The theory was developed by Blake and Moulton in the 1960s, in an attempt to explore how managers use relationship behaviors and task behaviors in an organization (Northouse, 2012). The situational leadership approach calls for different styles of leadership for different situations. This theory was developed by Hersey, Blanchard and Reddin in the 1960s, leading to the path-goal theory. This examines how leaders utilize employee motivation in enhancing satisfaction and performance (Northouse, 2012). In addition, it led to the creation of the contingency theory of leadership. This focuses of the matching leadership style with specific situations. In the contingency theory, the leader can switch instinctively between different styles according to work and people.
Transformational leadership theory identifies that leaders can inspire and share a vision with employees. This thought was the creation of Burns (1978), and has changed over time with thinkers like Bass (1985). In this theory, the leader is highly visible, communicates, delegate responsibilities, and has enthusiasm that is infectious (Northouse, 2012).
Contingency Leadership Theories & Approaches
Contingency theory postulate that effective leadership is dependent on the interaction between characteristics of a situation, and certain leadership attributes. The theory suggests that variables in the situation like work setting and task specifics determine the behavior, traits, and effectiveness criteria of a leader (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). In this theory, theorists maintain that leadership behavior must respond to different situations differently. Therefore, this theory maintains a leader must factor in contextual factors in a situation like nature of work (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). They must also consider ability and availability of human resources, material resources, traits of followers, and characteristics of the organization. This theory is broadly based on the assumption that different leadership styles and traits are effective in different conditions or situations (Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006). This theory is different from Fiedler's contingency theory.
Fiedler's contingency theory, explains that the effectiveness of any leader in gaining high performance in a group is dependent on the motivational system of a leader. This is also dependent on the degree of the leader's control and influence over a situation (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). Fiedler's theory identifies three main situational factors as task structure, leader-member relations, and the leader's power. Therefore, the contingency theory postulates different leadership styles to suit different situations. However, Fiedler's contingency theory postulates that leadership style depends on the situational favorableness, their motivational system, and their ability to influence the situation (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). The contingency theory postulates, effective leadership is dependent on the relationship between leader's behavior, leader's personal characteristics, and factors in the situation (Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006). However, Fiedler's theory believes it is the relationship between task structure, leader's position power, and leader's motivational system.
Comparison of Fred Fiedler's Contingency Theory, Adair Action Centered Leadership Theory & Robert House's Path-Goal Theory.
Fiedler's theory postulates that leadership style depends on the situational favorableness, their motivational system, and their ability to influence the situation. This is different from Adair's Action-Centered leadership theory, or Robert House's Path-Goal theory. Adair's action-centered model identifies three important leadership responsibilities as team, individual, and task. This theory identifies that effective leadership is a leader's achievement of responsibilities involving the achievement of task, management of teams, and management of individuals (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). These theories are different Robert House's Path-goal theory, though it emanates from the contingency theory. House's theory identifies the main role of leadership is to motivate followers. This is through increasing a follower's personal benefits for reaching group's goal, and through clarifying a path to achieve these goals.
The three theories identify specific elements of leadership according to their postulation, but are distinctively different even for the contingency theories of Fiedler and House. Fiedler's main elements of leadership in his theory are the situational favorableness, their motivational system, and their ability to influence the situation. Fiedler's theory believes it is the relationship between task structure, leader's position power, and leader's motivational system determines effective leadership. Unlike this contingency theory, House's theory focuses on two main elements including, workplace, and follower characteristics (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). Follower characteristics involve the attitudes to their ability, and leader's power, their belief over control over events and situations. Workplace characteristics involve the type of task, group cohesion or harmony, and the leader's formal authority over the workplace. These elements are important for their interaction leads to four distinct leadership styles under the path-goal theory. These are directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles. The ability of House's path-goal theory to identify the interaction between key elements in creating leadership styles is a major difference with Fiedler and Adair's theory. Adair's leadership model identifies key elements of leadership as planning, controlling, initiating, supporting, evaluating, and informing. Planning entails the definition of tasks and setting of goals. Controlling is the maintenance of standards, decision-making, and ensuring progress in the workplace.…