Evolution of Management Style at Galaxy Toys

Management as a discipline is generally concerned with the art and science of getting a group of people to achieve a defined goal or objective (Griffin, 2008). The discipline has evolved significantly over the last one century or so (Roth, 1998). In the first half of the 20th century, emphasis was largely placed on structure, authority, and production; with little or no attention to employees (Adetule, 2011). There has, however, been a tremendous shift of management focus from structure and authority to people (employees) over the years (Griffin, 2008). The evolution of management theory over time depicts the ever changing role of managers or leaders in organizations. Each management orientation or school of thought, however, presents its own merits and demerits. With reference to Galaxy Toys, Inc., an American toy manufacturing company, this case study provides an analysis of how the style of management in the organization has evolved from the mid-20th century to the 21st century. The case study particularly identifies two management theories that depict the organization's style of management in the late 1960s as well as the late 1980s and early 1990s. Attention is also paid to the organization's style of management in the 21st century.

Background

Galaxy Toys Inc. is a toy manufacturing company mainly serving the U.S. market. With more than five decades in operation, the organization produces a wide variety of toys for children. The organization's operations are based in various parts of the U.S. This case study, however, focuses on the Ohio branch, where Bart Aldrin has served as the shipping manager since 1969. During Bart's reign, the orientation of management at the organization has shifted from production focus to people focus against the backdrop of changes in the organization's internal and external environments. With Bart set to retire in the foreseeable future, his position will be taken over by Joyce Barnhart, whose style of management must resonate with 21st century managerial thinking.

Part One

The theory that best describes Bart's style of management when he first joined Galaxy is the scientific management theory, which was developed during the late 19th century and early 20th century. A seminal figure in the development of this theory was Fredrick W. Taylor. Taylor asserted that production efficiency could be achieved by reducing the amount of time and effort each worker spent in producing a single unit of output (Griffin, 2008). He believed that division of labor and greater specialization could enhance efficiency; and that the most efficient way of dividing labor was through scientific techniques as opposed to intuitive or informal knowledge (Sheldrake, 2003).

Taylor's theory was particularly based on four principles: 1) examine how workers carry out their tasks; 2) devise new ways of carrying out tasks and codify the new ways into written rules and procedures; 3) assign tasks to workers based on the task's needs and the employee's skills and abilities, and train workers to carry out the task as per the written rules and procedures; and 4) define the acceptable performance level for any given task and establish a performance-based compensation system (Adetule, 2011). In essence, Taylor's theory advocated for increasing productivity via raising worker efficiency. The theory dominated management discourse and practice for virtually the first half of the 20th century.

Bart's ability to plan daily work and provide detailed instructions to workers that helped optimize the manner in which tasks were performed largely mirrors the first and second principles of the scientific management theory. These principles emphasize the importance of selecting the best method of performing a given task and matching tasks with workers' skills and abilities using scientific techniques. Bart's attention to implementing processes for training employees to perform their specialized sequence of motion also embodies the third principle of Taylor's theory, which places emphasis on the scientific development and education of workers. His approach to management was instrumental in enhancing production operations and shipping processes at the organization.

Taylor's theory made an important contribution to the field of management and organizational theory. The theory particularly shifted the manager's role from an ordinary (unspecialized) supervisor to a specialized foreman adequately capable of overseeing every step of the production process (Griffin, 2008). Today, it is not uncommon for managers to thoroughly evaluate tasks and develop work systems that guarantee maximum operational efficiency. Overall, Taylor's theory transformed managerial thinking and set the basis for the development of several other management approaches in subsequent decades.

A major shift was observed in Bart's style of management in the late 1980s and early 1990s mainly due to factors such as increased competition, technological advancements, a shift in employee workplace values, as well as workers increased preference and demand for unionization, involvement in decision-making, and work-life balance. These shifts led to a greater focus on employees as far as management approach was concerned. The theory that best describes this style of management is the behavioral theory, which places emphasis mainly on employees and human relations as opposed to productivity (Adetule, 2011). The theory surfaced in the early 1920s and would shape managerial thought for the next six decades or so.

Behaviorists particularly criticized Taylor's theory and other classical schools of thought for their ignorance of the people aspect of organizations (Adetule, 2011). One of the prominent advocates of this school of thought was Elton Mayo. In his Hawthorne experiment, Mayo demonstrated the significance of working conditions and employee satisfaction in influencing organizational productivity (Cole, 2004). Mayo particularly asserted that the behavior of both managers and employees at the workplace was equally important in determining performance levels. As such, managers must have an understanding of the informal elements of the organization, particularly with regard to the feelings, values, thoughts, and behaviors of employees. Understanding these elements is integral to worker motivation, which in turn positively influences individual and group productivity.

Bart's change of management focus from productivity to employees marks a shift from the scientific school of thought to the behavioral school of thought. This shift is particularly embodied by increased willingness to listen to the ideas of employees as well as changes in working conditions. In essence, Bart and his colleagues came to the realization that employees constitute a vital asset of the organization and should, therefore, be treated in a more humane manner. Shifting to the behavioral style of management was important in helping the organization overcome competitive pressure.

The scientific school of thought and the behavioral school of thought are basically the opposite of each other. While the former places emphasis on productivity, the latter pays attention to employees. Each school of thought presents its own merits and demerits. For instance, while the scientific school of thought may increase productivity, it may cause job dissatisfaction as there is little or no attention to the physical, social, and emotional needs of employees (Griffin, 2008). On the other hand, critics of the behavioral school of thought argue that increasing attention to the people aspect of the organization may be detrimental to the fulfillment of organizational needs (Adetule, 2011). Even so, the behavioral school of thought appears more reasonable. When employees are taken care of, they are more likely to take care of the needs of the organization.

Part Two

From the above scenario, it can clearly be seen that management focus has shifted from productivity to employees over the years. It can as well as be seen that relying on a single approach often disadvantages either the organization or its workers. In other words, the scientific approach may be detrimental to the fulfillment of employee needs, while the behavioral approach may hamper productivity. It is, therefore, important to find a middle ground between the two approaches. This is particularly true in today's increasingly complex business environment. A blend of the two approaches has given rise to the systems approach, which views the organization as a complex system characterized by highly intertwined elements existing in both the internal and external environment (Griffin, 2008). In the 21st century, the needs of both the organization and workers are equally important. This implies that fulfilling needs in one part of the system while neglecting another affects the entire system.

As a 21st century manager, Joyce Barnhart must carefully balance between productivity and employees. While it is important to rely on scientific techniques to structure and measure work processes in the production and shipping departments of the organization, it is equally important to provide employees with the right working conditions, give them a chance to air their views, and cultivate closer relationships with them. It is also important for her to constantly remain aware of developments in the organization's operational environment. This would place her in a better position to respond to the needs of both the organization and workers. Without such an approach to management, Joyce may not effectively steer the production and shipping departments in the right direction.

References

Adetule, P. (2011). The handbook on management theories. Bloomington: Authorhouse.

Cole, G. (2004). Management theory and practice. London: Cengage Learning.

Griffin, R. (2008). Fundamentals of management. 5th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Roth, W. (1998). The evolution of management theory: past, present, future. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Sheldrake, J. (2003). Management theory. London: Thomson Learning.