Introduction
The practice of management can be traced back to the prehistoric era in Rome, Greece, and Mesopotamia. Nonetheless, the management of businesses, churches, and government remained relatively stable until the 18th century (Ackroyd, 2015). The Industrial Revolution played a major role in shaping the management of organisations and employees. Notably, the nature of employee-employer relationships is the main aspect of management practice that has changed since the industrial revolution or mid 18th cthe mid-18th18thSpecific problems within organisations motivated changes in management practices. For example, organisations experienced challenges maintaining effectiveness and efficiency in production during the Industrial Revolution. In addition, many organisations experienced wastages, losses, and a limited supply of workers (Wilson, 2010). Therefore, changes in management practices and the nature of employee-employer relations became necessary within organisations. The discussion in this paper seeks to demonstrate that the manner in which organisations are managed has changed significantly over time.
Scientific Management
Scientific management is the earliest known model applied in the management of organisations. It was developed by Fredrick Taylor, Henry Gantt, and Henry Fayol. Knights and Wilmott (2012) indicate that scientific management is referred to as Taylorism because Taylor contributed most to its development. Notably, Taylor started to apply the features of scientific management to practice in 1882. Wilson (2010) demonstrates that scientific management was motivated by the need to enhance the economic efficiency of organisational operations. For example, Taylor was convinced that economic efficiency would be achieved through an increase in labour productivity. Therefore, scientific management was developed to provide a framework for analyzing workflows to ensure that they are efficient and that employees are productive. Taylor came up with four main principles through which organisations would increase the efficiency of their operations. They are determining the best way, division of labour, giving monetary incentives, and selecting and training the best people (Linstead, Fulop and Lilley, 2009). Taylor argued that managers should use personal judgment, which he called a rule of thumb, to solve problems within their organisations. Knights and Wilmott (2012) add that scientific management is based on the premise that there is a specific best working method that should be applied by all workers to increase the efficiency of the organisation's operations.
Taylor developed specific techniques upon which the practice of scientific management was based. For example, he suggested the technique of functional foremanship to demonstrate that specialist foremen should supervise workers in different functional areas of an organisation (Wilson, 2010). Taylor also proposed the time study technique, which was meant to allow managers to calculate the time employees took to complete specific tasks. Knights and Wilmott (2012) explain that the time study technique was applied in determining the costs of labour and the number of workers an organisation needed to hire. Additionally, the scientific management model provided for the standardization of work activities. Therefore, working conditions and raw materials were standardized by organisations that applied the scientific management approach. Linstead et al. (2009) reveal that simplification is another vital technique in scientific management. This means that organisations focused on simplifying work with a view to improving the utilization of equipment and reducing inventories. Scientific management was criticized due to its overemphasis on worker productivity. Furthermore, workers were viewed as machines under scientific management. Therefore, there was a need to implement more changes in the management of organisations.
Fordism and Mass Production
Fordism was introduced around 1913 to replace scientific management. During this time, Taylor’s labour efficiency ceased to be the main focus of production firms in Europe. Instead, organisations found it necessary to change all production processes with a goal of developing assembly lines (Buchanan, 2010). Therefore, the main focus of organisations changed itomass production. Fordism was motivated by the need of organisations to meet the increasing demand for manufactured goods. Stacey (2016) reveals that Fordism was named after Henry Ford, who applied the principles of mass production in the manufacture of Ford Cars. Therefore, Fordism is a modern approach to the management of an organisation. It describes social and economic systems that pursue the goal of industrialization, standardization of work processes, mass production, and alignment of production processes to the objective of mass consumption (Buchanan, 2010).
The management of the organisation changed with the appreciation of technology and its integration into organisational operations. For instance, Fordism was characterised by the use of inflexible technologies for the manufacture of homogenous products (Thompson & McHugh, 2002). In addition, workers were expected to adhere to standardized work routines. This is because assembly lines were designed to produce similar products that were later assembled for the consumption of the masses. Therefore, Fordism provided for the homogenization of llabor Unlike Taylorism, Fordism did not emphasize training within organizations. This led to the de-skilling of the workforce (Buchanan, 2010). Thompson & McHugh (2002) reveal that the application of Fordism allowed organisations to benefit from economies of scale. Notably, it was during the application of Fordism in the management of organisations that labour unions started to appear. However, the labour unions of the time were highly bureaucratized. Stacey (2016) illustrates that, regardless of the bureaucracy of labour unions of the time, they successfully negotiated for uniform pay among workers in industries. Notably, there was a close correlation between wages, productivity, and an increase in profits. Instead of individualized training programs within organisations, Fordism was provided by mass education systems that were meant to meet the demand for workforce within industries. As service industries started to overtake manufacturing, Fordism increasingly became irrelevant. This means that the implementation of changes in the management of organisations was inevitable.
Bureaucratic Management
Max Weber developed the bureaucratic model of management to replace old organisational structures that characterised the industrial period. According to Weber, bureaucratic management would create opportunities for the development of rational business operations (Ackroyd, 2015). Therefore, Weber was opposed to management practices that were informed by the intentions or irrational judgment of managers and owners. Like Taylor, Weber supported the division of labour. Linstead, Fulop, and Lilley (2009) illustrate that specialization and division of labour were among the main characteristics of bureaucratic organisations. In addition, Weber demonstrated the importance of establishing a clear hierarchy of authority within an organisation. Ritzer (2010) reveals that bureaucratic organisations had both formal and informal relations among their people. Nonetheless, interpersonal relations within bureaucratic organisations were defined by position rather than personality traits. Furthermore, bureaucracy provided for the establishment of clearly defined regulations and rules that guided organisational operations and work relations (Ackroyd, 2015). Therefore, the rights of employees were clearly defined in bureaucratic organisations. The duties of employees were also clearly stipulated. Linstead et al. (2009) reveal that employees were mandated to adhere to the rules of bureaucratic organisations.
The management of organisations has changed significantly in terms of preferred methods of work. For example, bureaucratic management differed from Taylorism in the context of ascribed work methods. On the one hand, Taylorism stipulated that the best method should be applied in work activities. On the other hand, bureaucratic management provided for the application of different methods of work within each of the operational areas of an organisation (Ackroyd, 2015). Linstead et al. (2009) demonstrate that a lot of importance was attached to legal or bureaucratic power within bureaucratic organisations. In addition to legal authority, bureaucratic organisations were governed by charismatic and traditional authorities. However, bureaucratic management was criticized for its drawbacks, such as inflexible regulations and rules, lack of communication and coordination, delayed decision-making, and excessive bureaucracy (Ritzer, 2010). Therefore, subsequent management practices had to be changed to overcome the drawbacks of bureaucracy.
Human Relations
Human relations have been defined as the scrutiny of people’s matters that arise from organisational and interpersonal relationships (Dalton, Hoyle and Watts, 2011). It continues to be an important element in management. However, it was not so until the beginning of the 20th century. Before then, employee management was largely done with the locus of the organisation, and little or no attention was paid to the workers. In the early 1920s, the shift from classical theory of management was initiated as theorists began to put into consideration the needs of the employees socially (Dalton, Hoyl, et al., 2011). The consideration of the human side of an organisation was mainly the foundational basis of this shift. Theorists of classical management at the time took time to research how a certain job was done and the steps an employee took to complete it.
As the theory was still being looked into, it began to attract critics. Critics argued that the theory would have negative effects on the health of the employees (Dalton, Hoyle, and Watts, 2011). The theory was based on the assumption that employees and managers would meet halfway on their attitudes towards standardization. Taylor came up with this scientific management theory and developed some techniques that would be used to improve the work process efficiency. Critics were not satisfied with the attempt of standardizing the worker. They further noted that the worker needed to be looked at individually this marked the birth of the neoclassical theory of management.
The neoclassical theory of management revolved around the integration of the sciences of behavior into the management thought process (Landau, 2013). The anchorage for this was that the management would focus not on the structure or production but on getting the employees to do the work. Various studies were conducted with regard to the social factors affecting the employees. One of these studies was the Hawthorne study. This was a study that was conducted through a series of tests from 1924 to 1927. In 1928, Elton Mayo led part of the study and conducted the employee interview study,y where he interviewed over 21,000 workers (Landau, 2013). The study was to determine how factors around work impact the job satisfaction and morale of the workers. They concluded that if worker morale and satisfaction were considered by managers,s it would lead to more productivity. There are two sources of the neoclassical management theory. These are the behavioral movements and human resource movements.
The human relations movement advocated for employees being treated with proper respect. The theory slated the ‘cog’ mentality where employees were seen as mere replaceable cogs in the organisation. Today, human relations improve the rate of employee retention, it creates motivation which comes from interpersonal relationships in the organisation,s and it helps to foster creativity which translates into growth for the organisation (Landau, 2013). The theory in its entirety has been largely embraced and put to work by various organisations. It has also attracted some criticism (Landau, 2013).
New Work Practices
Organisations over the last two decades have embraced new work practices that strengthen them, positioning them for global competition (Wessner, 1999). Innovative management has led to the embracing of some new work practices. Some of these practices are taking the lead, implementation of technology, exercising environments that are innovation-friendly, the reward of creative talent, and the machinery to fine-tune ideas. The embrace of creative programs, daring in the experimentation of new ideas, application of metrics tools in their innovation, embracing of a leadership that inspires ideas, clear goals and visions which are shared, the design of a workplace that inspires innovation, trend-setting, lack of complacency in the organisation, and innovation as a core business value (Schein, 2010).
A new practice where major organisations are trend setters in their various markets has emerged (Champy, 1996). This practice helps the organisations to always be on high alert for opportunities that can be occupied. Once these opportunities are identified, limited time is wasted,d and the organisations draw and implement an entry strategy. This is a trend that has been witnessed a couple of times by various organisations (Wessner, 1999). At the beginning of the 20th century, ForMotors set the trend for bulk production of cars, and ever since,e it continues to grow as a strong and stable brand in the Auto industry. Facebook also set the pace for uploading pictures online and people liking them. After this became a trend, Instagram was launched and was later purchased so as to maintain that competitive advantage.
Daring in experimentation with ideas is another practice that has cropped up in the workplace. Organisations have become more daring in experimentation of new ideas. This has been a major dominant trait with technology organisations (Champy, 1996). Spotify, arms holdings, Shazam, and Dyson are among those utilizing this practice in the U.K. The implementation of technology in an organisation is primary for smooth and effective running. This practice has mainly been fueled by the digital revolution that continues to sweep across various markets. The implementation of technology through effective IT structures enables the smooth flow of information (Hall, 2003). This promotes better collaboration and engagement in the organisations. It also makes most of the organisations competent in the global and local markets.
Innovation has become a core pillar of most organisations. Research has shown that most of the companies that incorporate innovation as part of their core pillars are more likely to succeed in comparison to those that don’t. Most organisations continue to rely on innovation for growth prospects. This has led to the exercising work environments that are innovation-friendly. Mark Zuckerberg, as he was leading Facebook in its initial stage,s embraced this practi,ce and it has continued to propel Facebook to new heights. He initiated hackerthons (Hacking Marathons) where employees would create new features for the website, and that's how the like button was created. This practice helps to nurture innovation,n which translates to the growth of the organisation. The measurement of innovation through metric tools is another practice. This practice is characterised by three metric questions, which are: what amount of money is spent on training workers on innovation? What amount of time is dedicated to creativity sessions? And to what extent does the organisational structure support innovation?
The success of an organisation is inextricably bound together by the leadership that’s offered. A leader who inspires others in the organisation to be better and to work harder leads the organisation toward the path of success. The practice of embracing inspiring leadership in organisations has become a practice because employees need a leader they can look up to. Organisations lack complacency in their success, thus they are always looking towards growth and coming up with new ideas. These practices have been embraced by many organisations with the aim of maximizing the growth trajectory.
Management in Contemporary Organisations
Contemporary organisations are those that embrace specific organisational structures (George and Jones, 2006). These structures are team structure, matrix structure, boundaryless structure, autonomous internal unit’s structure, learning structure, and project structure. The management of these types of organisations is different from the management utilized in traditional organisations. In the team structure organisations, the organisation is divided into teams with each team working toward a common goal (George and Jones, 2006). The fact that the employees are divided into teams motivates them to work well because they are held accountable. A hierarchy is non-existent in this type of structure (Odagiri, 2017). Teams can embrace any work ethic they feel suits them.
In a boundaryless organisational structure, there is a lack of a defined design (McGuire, 1974). This makes the structure very flexible due to the lack of a defined line of command. There are very few employees in the organisation under permanent contracts (Odagiri, 2017). An autonomous structure is one where the organisation is comprised of various independent units which are decentralized (George and Jones, 2006). Thus, there is no central resource allocation or control. The various units have their own resources and control. In a learning organisational structure,e an organisation enjoys the capacity to consistently adapt, learn, and change. Organisations that use this type of structure create an integrated environment where employees learn from one another (McGuire, 1974). The project organisational structure is one where employees are continuously working on projects (Odagiri, 2017). Management is done through project managers because they work on certain projects as teams.
Changes in Organisational Culture
Organisational culture is the system of shared assumptions, beliefs,s and values which influence the way people behave in an organisation (Schein, 2010). Thus, in the dynamic world that exists today,y organisations must be able to embrace change (Bass and Deep, 1972). This is always done by changing the organisational culture for the purpose of re-invention. Organisationso, ns therefore, when the need arises, have to re-imagine the various strategies they embrace and even at times shift the business model to factor in new concepts (Bass and Deep, 1972).
Conclusion
The employees are an essential part of organisations. This has been noted over a period of time. Organisations have since improved their relationships with the employees through various ways. This has primarily been influenced by a series of tests that brought about multiple theories. These theories introduced some factor,s among th,m; that proper treatment of employees could translate into better results. Thus, organisations that are employee-centered get the most out of their employees in comparison to those that don’t.
New work practices have been witnessed. They have been influenced by a variety of factors, mainly human relations, leadership, innovation, and technology. These pillars have anchored the embracing and formulation of new work practices. The aim of remaining relevant and having competence in a globalised world is a key factor for organisational success. Traditional organisations are mainly being replaced by contemporary ones. These contemporary organisations have new organisational structures that companies can choose from. They also embrace different management processes depending on the defined design. The shift from traditional organisational structures also has an impact on the culture of the organisations. When organisations re-imagine themselves, the employees also have to embrace a new work ethic that totally fits them. As observed before in the paper, undergoing and effecting changes in management practices is crucial to organisations. The nature of employee-employer relations is designed by management processes,s and thus, changes in management structures become necessary within organisations. This paper, among other aspects that have been discussed, has demonstrated that the manner in which organisations are managed has changed significantly over time.
References
Ackroyd. S. (2015) Unruly Subjects: Misbehaviour in the workplace, The Sage Handbook of Sociology of Work and Employment, London: Sage.
Buchanan, D.A. (2010) Organisational Behavior Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Knights, D. and Wilmott, H. (2012) Introducing Organisational Behaviour and Management (2nd edition), China: Cengage Learning
Linstead, S. Fulop, L. and Lilley, S. (2009) Managing and Organisation: A Critical Text (2ndEdtn.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Pages108-110.
Linstead, S. Fulop, L. and Lilley, S. (2009) Managing and Organisation: A Critical Text (2ndEdtn.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ritzer, G. (2010) TheMcDonaldisation of Society (6thEdtn). London: Sage.
Stacey, R.D. (2016). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, (7th edition), Harlow: Pearson.
Thompson, P & McHugh, D (2002.) Work Organisations (3rd Editio.), Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wilson, F. (2010). Organisational Behavior and Work. Oxford: OUP.
Schein, E. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. and Deep, S. (1972). Studies in organisational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
George, J. and Jones, G. (2006). Contemporary management. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
McGuire, J. (1974). Contemporary management: issues and viewpoints. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Wessner, C. (1999). New vistas in transatlantic science and technology cooperation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Champy, J. (1996). Reengineering management. New York: HarperBusiness.
Hall, C. (2003). Constructing clienthood in social work and human services. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Dalton, M., Hoyle, D. and Watts, M. (2011). Human relations. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Landau, R. (2013). Human Relations. Read Books Ltd.
