History and Evolution of Management Theories

Ancient Origins of Management Practice

Historical records show that people always organized themselves in order to work together toward a common objective and coordinated their efforts to achieve it (Accel-Team 2004). It was not until the latter part of the 19th century that the concept of scientific management entered history during the Industrial Revolution, but management skills existed long before that era. Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, ancient Chinese erected the Great Wall of China, the Mesopotamians irrigated their lands and walled their cities, and the Romans of old constructed their roads, aqueducts, and notably Hadrian's Wall — none of which would have been possible without established and superb management standards on the part of their leaders (Accel-Team) and massive obedience and coordination among their followers. The pyramids of Egypt, wonders of the world, each measure 75,600 square feet at the base, stand 480 feet high, and consist of more than two million blocks of stone, each weighing 2.5 tons. Each base is a perfect square, short of true perfection by only seven inches. That the ancient Egyptians accomplished this marvel without modern technology attests to superior management genius already in existence at the time.

The Chinese philosopher Mencius, who lived from 372 to 289 BC, already worked on conceptual models and systems representing an early type of production management technique. He identified the advantages of a division of labor, which the ancient Greeks themselves also recognized and practiced (Accel-Team). Classical records show that Greek soldiers were trained in the use of weapons and equipment during times of attack and sang work songs to reduce fatigue and enhance productivity. The Greeks, however, viewed work as something undignified and therefore avoided it as much as possible, directing their attention instead toward the arts, philosophy, and warfare (Accel-Team). The wealthy acquired slaves to perform demeaning labor, thus fueling the flourishing of slavery. This aversion to work persisted through the fall of the Roman Empire, and when development stagnated, feudalism replaced slavery. Work in those early times was considered a penalty for sin dating back to Adam and Eve — a view shared by pre-Reformation Christians in Europe.

It was essentially when Heinrich von Wych of France invented the mechanical clock in 1370 and Gutenberg invented the first printing press that true developments in scientific management began to evolve (Accel-Team). The mechanical clock measured the amount of work turned out, and the printing press enabled visual indirect communication. Gutenberg also hinted that creative thinking could be adopted as a method of study. In 1436, a Spanish visitor at the Arsenal of Venice observed an entire production line — including the cordage, ballistics, and mortars — with men at oars equipped from end to end, and ten fully armed galleys emerging between 3 and 9 o'clock (Accel-Team). The arsenal used standard parts; the bows of the warships carried all types of arrows and fittings to respond to all types of rudders and rigging. The deck parts were also interchangeable, in what appeared to be an early version of waste control (Accel-Team). This observation was made approximately 500 years before Henry Ford and his phenomenal Model T. The productivity level of galley manufacturing implied some work measurement and method study before facilities could be established, and it offered clues to a concerted effort at improving productivity — very likely in order to reduce costs, become competitive, and remain so (Accel-Team).

The Industrial Revolution and Classical Management

The construction of monastery stonework in the 15th century also evidences an orderly work style among monks, with clear standards for time, quality, and output (Accel-Team 2004). Attitudes toward work changed during the Reformation period when Martin Luther introduced a new belief that glorified work. Calvinism reinforced this new ethic by instilling the virtues of thrift and the honorable acquisition of wealth. The unpleasant view of work was thus reversed: labor became a dignified activity, and idleness something to deplore (Accel-Team). The Industrial Revolution subsequently brought large-scale business and a pressing need for professional managers, a need initially filled by military and church organizations of the time.

The Classical school of management thought appeared in and dominated the first decades of the 1900s (Allen 1998). It focused on efficiency and encompassed three distinct styles: bureaucratic, scientific, and administrative management. The bureaucratic style relied on a set of rational structuring guidelines — such as rules and procedures, organizational hierarchy, and a distinct division of labor. The scientific management style focused on finding the best way of performing tasks. The administrative management style placed emphasis on information flow in organizational operations (Allen).

Scientific Management and Key Contributors

In those years, Max Weber, the Father of Modern Sociology, proposed that bureaucracy was the most logical and rational structure for large organizations. A bureaucracy derives authority from law, procedures, rules, and other formal foundations, and imposes the positional authority of a superior over a subordinate from a legal basis. Bureaucracy assumed efficiency through clearly defined and specialized functions, the use of legal authority, a concrete hierarchy, written rules and procedures, technically trained administrators, positional appointments based on technical expertise, promotions based on competence, and clearly delineated career paths (Allen). Scientific management, by contrast, centered on the relationship between the laborer and the machine, seeking to maximize productivity by increasing the efficiency of the production process. It laid major stress on economizing time, human energy, and other resources of production, all of which had to be utilized according to precise instructions (Allen).

Frederick Taylor, the Father of Scientific Management, published his landmark work, The Principles of Scientific Management, in 1911. In it, he proposed work methods designed to increase productivity. Drawing on studies conducted at the Bethlehem Steel Company in Pittsburgh, Taylor examined the time and motion details of a job, identified a better way of performing it, and trained workers accordingly (Allen 1998). He also offered incentives by paying workers on a piece-rate basis to motivate greater output. He successfully applied his methods in experiments such as having a worker load pig iron onto a rail car (Allen).

In the early part of the 20th century, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth introduced a method focused on the elemental motions within work — how those motions were combined into methods of operation and the standard duration each motion or movement required (Allen 1998). Their objective was to design work methods that could estimate the duration of output in advance, rather than relying solely on empirical studies conducted by others. Frank was the father of time and motion studies and photographed individual physical labor movements, helping managers break a job into its component parts and streamline the entire process. His wife, Lillian, was a psychologist who wrote The Psychology of Work. The couple believed there had to be a "best way" to do something, to be replaced only when a genuinely better way was discovered or devised (Allen).

Henry Gantt developed and introduced the Gantt chart for scheduling many overlapping tasks over defined durations (Allen 1998). He suggested motivational schemes and placed stronger emphasis on the greater effectiveness of rewards for good work rather than punishment for poor work. His method also included a pay incentive system with guaranteed minimum wages and bonuses for those on fixed wages, and it underscored the significance of leadership qualities and management skills in making an industrial organization effective (Allen).