Evolution of Management Theories

There has been a continuous evolution of management theories.

Early management theory consisted of numerous attempts at getting to know the newcomers to industrial life at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century in Europe and United States.

Management theories are as follows:

1.      Classical organization theory

2.      Scientific management

3.      Contingency Approach

4.      System Approach

                  

The figure below shows the evolution of management theories.

  

Fedrick W Taylor (1986-1915) rested his philosophy on four basic principles.

1. The development of a true science of management so that the best method for performing each task could be determined.

2. The Scientific selection of workers so that the each workers would be given responsibility for the task for which he or she was best suited.

3. The scientific education and development of workers.

4.      Intimate friendly cooperation between management and labor.

With this, Scientific management theory also came into existence.

1. Scientific management theory arose in part from the need to increase productivity.

2. In the US especially, skilled labor was in short supply at the beginning of the twentieth century.

3. The only way to expand the productivity was to raise the efficiency of workers.

4. Therefore , Fredick W.Taylor,Henry Gantt,and Frank and Lillian Gilberth devised the body of principles known as Scientific management theory.

 Contributions of scientific management theory

– The modern assembly line pours out finished products faster than Taylor could ever imagined.

– This production “Miracle” is just one legacy of scientific management.

– In addition its efficiency techniques have been applied to many tasks in non-industrial organizations ranging from fat food service to the training of surgeons.

• Limitations of scientific management theory

Although Taylor's method led to dramatic increase in productivity and higher pay in number of instance.

Workers and unions began to oppose his approach because they feared that working harder or faster would exhaust whatever work was available Causing layoffs.

Moreover, Taylors system clearly meant that time was of the essence.

His critics objected to the speed up condition that placed undue pressure on employees to perform at faster and faster levels.

The emphasis on productivity and by extension profitability led some managers to exploit both the workers and customers.

As a result more workers joined unions and thus reinforced a pattern of suspicious and mistrust that shaded labour relations for decades.

Henri fayol (1841-1925) is generally hailed as the founder of the classical management school – not because he was the first to investigate managerial behaviour but because he was the first to systematize it.

Fayol believed on the following:

a.    Division of labor

The most people specialize the more efficiency they can perform their

work. This principle is epitomized by the modern assembly line.

b.   Authority

Managers must give orders so that they can get things done.

c.      Discipline

Members in an organization need to respect the rules and agreement that govern the organization .

d.   Unity of commands

Each employee must receive instruction from one person.

More than one manager conflict in instruction and confusion of authority would result.

e.    Unity of direction

Those operations with in the same organization which have the same objective should be directed by only one manager using one plan.

For example the personnel department in the company should not have two directors each with a different hiring policy.

f.     Subordination of individual interest to common good

In any undertaking the interest of employees should not take the precedence over the interest of organization as a whole.

g.   Remuneration:

Compensation of work done should be common to both employees and employers.

THE CONTINGENCY APPROACH

The contingency approach sometimes called (situation approach) was developed by the managers, consultants and researchers who tried to apply the concepts of the major schools to the real life.

When methods highly effective in one situation failed to work in other situation, they sought an explanation.  

For example why did an organization development work brilliantly in one situation and fail miserably in another. The contingency approach had a logical answer to such question. Results differ because

• Situation differs. A technique that works in one case will not work in other.

• According to the contagious technique the managers’ job is to find which technique will work in a particular situation, under particular circumstances and at a particular time.

• This theory best contributes to attainments of management goals, where workers need to be encouraged for increasing productivity.

SYSTEM APPROACH

• The system approach to management views the organizations as a unified, purposeful system composed of integral parts.

• This approach gives managers a way of looking at the organization as a whole and as a part of the larger external environment.

• Systems theory tells us that the activity of any segment of an organization affects, in varying degree the activity of every other segment.

• Production managers in a manufacturing plant, for example, prefer long uninterrupted production runs of standardized products in order to maintain maximum efficiency and low costs.

• Marketing managers on the other hand who want to offer customers quick delivery of a wide range of products would like a flexible manufacturing schedule that can fill special order on short notice.

• Systems oriented production managers make scheduling decisions only after they have identified the impact of these decisions on other department and on the entire organization.

• The point of system approach is that managers cannot wholly with in the traditional organization chart. They must mesh their department with the whole enterprise.

• To do that they have to communicate not only with other employees and departments, but frequently with representative of other organization as well.

• Clearly, systems managers grasp the importance of the webs of business relationship to their efforts.

Evolution of management theories is still in progress and new theories are bound to come in future.

 

THREE MONKS (A Chinese tale to teach teamwork)

Three Monks is a Chinese animated short video, released back in early 80's . It is one of the most famous and beloved kid tales in China. It is still used widely in Chinese schools to teach moral lessons to students in primary schools. The clip has won awards at film festivals throughout the world. A note about the columns of text that appear at the beginning (English translation): The first column reads, "one monk fetches water to drink", the second column reads, "two monks carry water to drink", and the third one merely says, "three monks". The unfinished sentence reflects the film's central question, which is whether the three main characters will learn to work together so that they can all have water to drink.

Synopsis of the Video 

The story revolves around three monks who come to live at the top of a mountain. The first monk had to fetch water from the foot of the mountain, using a yoke and two buckets.  That provided him with enough water for his personal needs and to water his small vegetable garden. 

One day, he was joined by an older monk.  Their combined attempts to bring water up the mountain together, using a pole and a bucket carried between them, was not very successful; and each felt it was the other’s responsibility to fetch more water, so neither went.  The plant kept in front of the Buddha began to die. 

Then a third monk arrived, and the situation worsened.  As each monk refused to give in, or compromise his stance in any way, the situation became worse, and none of them was even able to concentrate on their meditation.

Then one day, disaster struck and a big fire was caused by a small mouse in the monastery. At time of disaster all of them realize the importance of co-operation and Synergy.

Analysis of the Video  

Three Monks when interpreted, explains the virtues of teamwork.

The red monk gets to the temple first and initiates individual responsibility for the water. He fetches water himself for the almost dead plant at the Buddha’s statue. It grows and the statue smiles at him – a visual that suggests that the monk is doing what he should be doing.

The monk as long as he was alone, thought of work as worship and used to do all his work alone. Each monk graciously gathers water from the river his first day at the temple. However, after they realise the taste of someone else doing the work, they want less and less to do for themselves. They do not see how unjust it is to expect others to do work that benefits you while you stand idle. They would rather steal water from the Buddha statue’s plant than get it themselves. When all three of them selfishly refuse to get the water, they are trapped in a deadlock which can only be relieved by retribution: The Fire.

When the monks finally notice the fire, they set out to work hard and restore balance in the temple by putting out the fire together. They each play their own role, just as every living thing in nature is called to do, and they manage to save the temple, thereby achieving new levels of Resource Management and efficient use of Human Capital.  They decide on a fair, balanced, and intelligent solution to their water gathering problems and the Buddhist temple is at harmonious peace once again. The new solution involved using a pulley to fetch water which is much more efficient and can be coordinated easily.

Learning from the video

1.       Discipline and Team Work:

When the third monk went downhill to fetch water for the first time, he came back and drank water all by himself, exhibiting a selfish tendency not aligned to the goals of the team i.e. To have water stored at all times. This led to further animosity among the 3 monks and the task never got completed. Hence even in an organization, selfish motives should be discouraged. There should be a discipline in the workings of the organization, which can be enforced only through management. A team working towards a common goal is the best direction to head to.

2.       Process improvement:

Management is both about people and processes. But for processes to work and achieve results, the preliminary thing is establishing a well-defined method. Once an efficient method is established, one can work towards people management, but not vice versa. 

For the film, we try do a Productivity analysis according to which getting 1 bucket shared by the two monks is a much better proposition. Just to make it clearer, here is a table illustrating the productivity statistics in either case. Assuming 1 Man uses 1 unit of energy to lift 1 bucket.

Event	Output (No. of buckets)	Input(Worker Energy units)	Productivity = Output/Input
1 Man – 2 buckets	2	2	1
2 Men – 1 bucket	1	0.5	2
3 Men – No bucket	0	NA	0

 

Productivity is Important. Productivity is about how well an organization converts resource inputs into goods or services. Workplace productivity is about how firms can utilize labour and skills, innovation, technology and organizational structure to improve the quantity and quality of their output.

3.       Complex Problems, Simple Solutions: Innovation

There should be an innovative approach to solve any problem. This should be the motto of decision making for any manager or team member in an organization. This also highlights the need of engineering brains in management arena. The productivity analysis as shown above is one method. Innovative thinking is also one of the main requirements.

4.       Division Of Work and Synergy among roles:

As soon as the new monk entered, the old monk tried to put the whole responsibility on the new monk hence trying to avoid any efforts. Consider a similar situation in any organization, if that is done every employee will have to spend more time in learning new things than implementing the things that he already has learnt so minimizing possible output. So, effective division of labour and synergy among the roles is important.