Development of Management Theories

Introduction 

Organizational management is a field of study that has changed and evolved with time. Different times in history have seen the development of management theories that went on to revolutionize how businesses and organizations managed. Notably, the theories were products of their time and place in history and therefore reflect the thought process of their developers. Several theories have been developed, but only a few have managed to stand the test of time and have their principles govern managers for decades. Such theories pass as milestones in the development of management because of the success managers have had employing their principles. The five theories that will be discussed in the paper include the scientific management theory by Frederick Taylor, organizational development theory by Kurt Lewin, Frederick Herzberg theory of hygiene and motivational factors, Fayolism by Henry Fayol and Bureaucratic management by Max Webber.

The first significant management theory that brought lasting changes in management was the scientific management theory by Frederick Taylor in 1909. The scientific theory was developed based on four key principles. Firstly, each task had to be studied and understood properly to come up with the best way of completing it. Secondly, the job assignment process should ensure that each worker is assigned a task that he/she can perform best based on their skills and ability. Thirdly, close monitoring of the workers should be done as a means of ensuring concentration among workers and finally, training should be a constant process to have workers with updated skills (Taylor, 2006). The three principles were included in the theory with the aim of reducing the time taken to complete one project in an organization. In addition, the theory advocates for a division between the management and labour so as the management can focus on planning and training.  

At the time the theory was developed, skilled labourers dominated the job market. The theory became important because it provided principles that ensured each piece of work is done using the most efficient way possible. At the same time, scientific methods in academia and other aspects of life were prevalent, which led Frederick Taylor to see the need to apply the same on management. The scientific theory had the main advantage of efficiency as it focused on developing the most efficient way to complete each task. Another advantage that sprang from the efficiency it brought was customer satisfaction. Because the best way to accomplish each task in the production process was used, the products were of high quality. However, the theory had the main advantage of ignoring the human side of the worker and treating them as machine-like creatures. Secondly, the theory had the limitation of huge capital requirement for management processes. The requirements of the theory such as research on the most efficient ways of performing tasks requires financial resources from the management (Taylor, 2006). Finally, the theory had the limitation of discouraging teamwork in an organization because of its promotion of specialization and employment of experts.

Another significant management theory was called “organizational development” and was developed by Kurt Lewin in 1930. The theory was developed during world war 1 and focused mainly on implementing organizational change. The importance of the theory was huge because of the organizational needs that arose as a result of the war. Organizations at the time were forced to employ mostly women because most men were sent to fight for their respective countries. Therefore, the sudden need for change made the theory popular as most managers required the principles it laid out for changing an organization. The three main stages of implementing changes in an organization as provided in the theory included unfreezing, changing and refreezing. Unfreezing involved getting the employees in the organization to accept the need for change and prepare for it. The second step involves implementing the envisioned change using the agreed strategy, and the third step involves cementing the changes into the organization by integrating them with the organizational culture (Muldoon, 2018). The theory had the major advantage of enabling change in an efficient way whenever a manager recognized a need for change in their organization. However, on the negative side, the theory was criticised for being too complicated because of the steps it advised managers to take to implement the change they wanted.

Thirdly, in 1959, Frederick Herzberg developed a management theory known as hygiene and motivational factors. The theory based its principles mostly on the psychological health of the worker and what mental factors drive them can produce the best work for the organization. At the time the theory was developed, the field of psychology was making significant strides towards the advancement of the knowledge of the human mind. As a result, the theory received widespread reception and was embraced as revolutionary. In the theory, Frederick Herzberg theorized that all workers have different motivational factors that make them perform at their peak (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 2011). Understanding these factors, he theorized, is the key to effective management. The most notable advantage the theory was that it prioritized the needs of the employees first because profit is a by-product of a motivated employee. On the other hand, the theory had the disadvantage of focusing solely on motivational fact forgetting that motivation is not all that produces efficiency in an employee.

The fourth theory of management that caused significant changes in business management in Fayolism. The theory was developed by Henri Fayol aimed at administrative management and was responsible for introducing the five basic functions of management and fourteen principles of management. The principles and functions were designed to enable management to interact with the workforce in a manner that gets the objective achieved and increases the satisfaction levels of the workers. At the time Fayol wrote and published the papers that later became the theory, industrialization was at its peak having begun decades earlier. Fayol worked as a miner and a mine administrator, an occupation which enabled him to learn the principles of administration in an industrialized economy which he later developed into a theory (Reid, 1995). The industrialization that characterized the era made the theory acceptable to many because it advised mainly on managing an industry-oriented organization.

Most organizations at the time were engaged in manufacturing and production of goods, a setup which called for administrative management like the one advocated for by the theory. The theory was credited with the advantage of promoting team-work and a good working relationship between the manager and the employees. Another advantage that led to the popularization of the theory was that of fair compensation. In the theory, Fayol noted that there are other ways in which an employee can be compensated that does not involve money but builds motivation (Reid, 1995). Methods such as off days and promotion lead to a good relationship between the management and the employees. However, its main disadvantage was the fact that its principles leads to the subordination of the employees` private lives to the prosperity of the organization.

The fifth important management theory is that of bureaucratic management developed by a German scientist by the name Max Webber. The theory lays stress on the structure of the organization and the distribution of duties. Impersonality and a strict division of labour and specialization is at the heart of management based on this theory. the authorship of the theory was hugely influenced by the time during which it was developed. In 1905, at the time of the theory`s development, there was a widespread belief in class and societal hierarchies. The belief led to the acceptance of the theory in the field of management because it advocated for a strict hierarchy within the organization (Robert, Adrian, & Alexander, 2018). On the positive side, the theory could instil stun discipline in an organization and set in motion development based on adherence to rules and regulations. On the negative side, the theory had the limitation of impersonality and wastage of time within the organization because the information had to follow the established channels at all time. Additionally, the theory was criticized for limiting innovation and creativity because all employees were expected to carry out their tasks following a strict procedure laid out by the organization.

Conclusion 

All the five theories as discussed above have had tremendous impact on the science of management. As established, they all had advantages that worked in favour of the organizations in which they were applied. Their difference in terms of perspective towards management were informed by their respective historical context. It is the different historical contexts that influenced the authors of the theories and guided them towards developing the theories with varying principles. In brief, the theories have each had their impact in advancing the knowledge of management to what it is today.

References 

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2011).  The motivation to work . Transaction Publishers.

Muldoon, J. (2018). Kurt Lewin: Organizational change.  The Palgrave Handbook of Management History , 1-18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62348-1_32-1 

Reid, D. (1995). Fayol: From experience to theory.  Journal of Management History (Archive) ,  1 (3), 21-36.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13552529510095134 

Robert, L., Adrian, C., & Alexander, K. (2018). Max Weber: Victim of ethnocentric mishandling, or how Weber became a management consultant.  Handbook of Bureaucracy , 41-64.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093291-4 

Taylor, F. W. (2006).  The principles of scientific management . Cosimo.