Five Principles of Management

In the contemporary age, management theory pertaining to proper management practice has undergone evolution. The ‘classical’ theories of management cropped up somewhere during the early years of the previous century. They include the scientific model of management that deals with matching activities with individuals for maximizing efficiency, and the administrative theory of management that emphasizes the identification of principles to help formulate the most effective management and organizational system.

The behavioral theories of management were proposed prior as well as subsequent to World War II, and revolve around the way leaders ought to control and lead employees for achieving improved performance. The theory of management science, which was formulated in the World War II era, has increased in significance with scholars coming up with rigorous quantitative and analytical methods for aiding managers in measuring and controlling corporate performance.

Lastly, management theories were also formulated in the 60s and 70s for explaining the impact of external environmental factors on management and overall corporate operations (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d). Scientific Management Theory Contemporary management commenced its evolution towards the close of the 19th century, following the massive Industrial Revolution of the West. Huge factories replaced the small workshops that were operated by skilled labor manufacturing products without machines (crafts-style manufacturing).

The factories employed several hundred or several thousand semi-skilled and even unskilled workers to control the advanced manufacturing machinery and tools. A large number of these factory supervisors and managers only possessed technical knowledge, thereby being ill-equipped to deal with the social issues bound to arise when individuals are made to work in large teams (as is typical for a shop or factory system).

Thus, managers started seeking novel means of managing corporate resources, and turned their focus to improving task-employee mix efficiency (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d.). Frederick Taylor (1856–1915) is credited with outlining scientific management techniques and systematically studying individual-task associations to redesign work processes, with an aim to achieve increased efficiency. According to the theorist, the efficiency of the manufacturing process would increase if the efforts and time devoted by individual workers towards producing one output unit (i.e., one finished product or service) decreased.

Further, he observed that increased labor division and specialization could also contribute to increasing efficiency. The basis for this system was production-line time researches. Rather than depending on conventional work techniques, Taylor scrutinized and clocked the movements of steel workers on a succession of tasks. Based on time study, the theorist broke down individual jobs into smaller parts, followed by determining the most efficient and swiftest way to perform individual parts of those jobs (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d.).

By the year 1910, Taylor’s scientific management system had grown in popularity and was devotedly and comprehensively employed in several instances. The efforts of the theorist have had a lasting impact on manufacturing system management. Both manufacturing and service organizations’ managers now undertake a meticulous analysis of the main tasks which need to be carried out and attempt at developing work systems which facilitate highly efficient organizational operation.

But in several firms in that age, managers were selective when it came to employing the novel scientific management principles, leading to problems. For instance, scientific management helped improved performance in certain firms; however, instead of sharing the gains in performance with the workforce (via, for instance, bonuses, as recommended by the theorist), managers simply foisted more work onto their subordinates. Thus, scientific management proved disadvantageous to several workers, leaving them distrusting their employers who were perceived to be uncaring when it came to the workforce’s well-being.

Such dissatisfaction among the workforce resulted in workforce resistance towards novel scientific management methods; occasionally, employees even held back their knowledge of the job from their superiors for protecting their wages and jobs (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d.). Administrative Management Theory When scientific managers were busy analyzing the task-individual mix for achieving efficiency improvements, other scholars had turned their focus to administrative management, which revolved around developing a corporate structure that resulted in superior effectiveness and efficiency.

Corporate structure may be defined as a system of authority and task relationships controlling the way personnel employ resources for accomplishing corporate goals. Of the two major views pertaining to the development of effective corporate administration systems contributed by the European continent, one was put forward by the famous German sociology professor, Max Weber (1864–1920) (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d.). Weber penned his Theory of Bureaucracy text during the era of Germany’s Industrial Revolution.

For aiding his country in managing its emerging industrial enterprises during an age when Germany was aiming for achieving power in the international playfield, the theorist came up with the bureaucracy concept, which was a formal administrative and organizational system aiming at ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. In his view, firms adopting each of the 5 principles would be successful in establishing bureaucracy which would bring corporate performance improvements.

Rules, norms and SOPs (standard operational procedures) offer behavioral guidelines for attaining performance improvements as they delineate the ideal means of completing corporate tasks. Position specifications and utilizing SOPs and rules for regulating task performance aid managers in organizing and controlling employees’ work. In a similar way, equitable and just policies for employee recruitment and promotion decrease stress, enhance the feeling of security, and prompt employees to work ethically and promote organizational interests. But inefficient bureaucracy management can lead to several issues.

In certain instances, leaders make the bureaucratic red tape overly cumbersome, discouraging organizational change and rendering the decision-making process ineffectual and time-consuming. Overreliance of management on rules for resolving issues and inadequate reliance on their personal judgment and competencies renders their behavior inflexible. One major challenge organizational leaders face is: using bureaucratic principles to benefit the company instead of causing it harm (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d.).

Behavioral Management Theory Early behavioral management theories revolved around management’s personal behavior for motivating personnel, urging them to give their best performance, and dedicating themselves to accomplishing corporate objectives (Appendix A: The Evolution of Management Theory, n.d). Human Relations Theory – by Elton Mayo Fredrick Roethlisberger and Elton Mayo, a couple of Harvard Business School researchers, performed a sequence of researches from 1927 to 1932 and contributed to the formulation of the human relations management theory.

The two were employed by Western Electric for analyzing personnel response to their physical work environment and ascertaining optimum work conditions. One point to note is: the Hawthorne researches took place during the great depression, contrary to Taylorism that emerged in an era of individualism, social merit and competition. Importance was given to individuals and their self-interest.

Economic changes resulted in a social ethic atmosphere, widening management philosophy’s role where the belief was that yield and efficacy was linked to the workforce’s sense of security, belongingness and accomplishment. Mayo’s efforts are a marker skilfully analyzing employee behavior and establishing that organization constitutes a set of relationships of an informal nature at several levels, with a key element being communication (Narula, n.d). The seven-year-long experiment revealed numerous psychological and sociological factors that contributed significantly to organization, besides physical conditions.

Mayo’s model diverged from conventional models in its basic organizational approach. Mayo’s definition of organization was: a social individual system encompassing formal structure, intergroup relationships and informal linkages. The ‘human’ factor represents the most salient organizational and production activity factor. Thus, managers ought to possess basic and relevant knowledge regarding human behavior. The human relations facet of a company necessitates a grasp of individual behavior, support and knowledge. Mayo’s theory promoted the human nature vision within corporations.

Mayo has contributed significantly to providing insights into industrial organization and labor. The Hawthorne experiment represents a breakthrough and historic study in the area of administrative thought, supporting interdependence rather than individualism, and collaboration instead of competition. These experiments paved the way for the social management theories. The novel theoretical framework addressed social requirements. Evolving needs and a complex industrial community resulted in a theory that gave importance to social ethic (Narula, n.d). The human relations approach was strongly criticized after informal corporate relationships replaced employee unions.

Critics emphatically maintained that unions’ place in industrial society was being ignored. The approach is frequently considered anti-union and pro-management. Also, apparently, the conclusions made from a small number of researches had several voids. Mayo’s notion of creating entirely conflict-free companies was regarded as ‘utopian’, and thus impractical, since tension and discord is unavoidable when humans interact for prolonged periods of time. Thus, an attempt ought to be made towards developing technological and social outlets and dimensions not focusing on conflict-free conditions (Narula, n.d).

Management Science theory Management Science or the quantitative management approach has its roots in preliminary applications of classical theories’ scientific management principles. Owing to contemporary organizational complexities, present-day managers need to be equipped with increased amounts of quality information for effective decision-making. The above approach recommends quantitative technique employment for facilitating decision making.

In spite of the large quantities of information to be studied and the complex computations that ought to be performed, high –speed and –performance computers and various quantitative instruments have been employed for data analysis. The approach grew in popularity in the World War II era when Operations Research Teams (interdisciplinary scientific teams) sought solutions to the numerous complex war-related issues. The teams devised mathematical models for simulating actual problems, changed variables’ values within the model, studied change impacts, and provided decision-making authorities with a rational base.

The approach widely utilized simulation models, linear programming, inventory control, quality control, queuing theory, and other tools. Emphasis was given to rational, fact-based decision-making. Objective rationality was defined as the capacity and readiness to adopt a reasonable, systematic, scientific and unbiased technique to relate ends and means and visualize the overall decision environment. Its aim was managerial process rationalization and quantification. It aided disciplined thinking, and the attainment of perfection and accuracy through quantitatively expressing facts’ and variables’ interrelationships.

Though the theory is widely applicable in the areas of control and planning, it is not possible to quantify and rationalize every managerial process. Organization, leadership and staffing that are human rather than technical areas were not benefited by the theory, which constitutes its main limitation (Sridhar, 2011). Also, the theory overlooks non-quantifiable aspects and human relationships, besides other management skills. Lastly, it is unable to account for personnel attitudes and behavior.

Organizational Environment Theory A key management thought milestone occurred when scholars went beyond studying management influence of personnel behavior and began analyzing how they could control a corporation’s association with the external environment. The external environment constituted a set of conditions and forces beyond corporate boundaries impacting managerial capability of acquiring and utilizing resources (Clem & Mujtaba, 2010). Contingency Theory During the 60s, American theorists, Jay Lorsch and Paul Lawrence, and British theorists, G.M. Stalker and Tom Burns, separately developed the contingency theory.

Understanding the corporate need for valuable resource acquisition, the theory’s basic premise is: no single best way exists when it comes to organizing: Management control systems and corporate structures are subject to and rely on a firm’s external environmental characteristics. The degree of environmental change represents a key external environmental aspect impacting a firm’s resource acquisition capability.

Corporate environmental changes include: technological changes that may result in new product development (e.g., CDs) or extant products’ disappearance (e.g., 8-track tapes); unstable economic situations;.