history of management essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 The History of Management

Learning Objectives

The purpose of this chapter is to:

• 1) Give you an overview of the evolution of management thought and theory.
• 2) Provide an understanding of management in the context of the modern-day world in which we reside.

The History of Management

The concept of management has been around for thousands of years. According to Pindur, Rogers, and Kim (1995), elemental approaches to management go back at least 3000 years before the birth of Christ, a time in which records of business dealings were first recorded by Middle Eastern priests. Socrates, around 400 BC, stated that management was a competency distinctly separate from possessing technical skills and knowledge (Higgins, 1991). The Romans, famous for their legions of warriors led by Centurions, provided accountability through the hierarchy of authority. The Roman Catholic Church was organized along the lines of specific territories, a chain of command, and job descriptions. During the Middle Ages, a 1,000 year period roughly from 476 AD through 1450 AD, guilds, a collection of artisans and merchants provided goods, made by hand, ranging from bread to armor and swords for the Crusades. A hierarchy of control and power, similar to that of the Catholic Church, existed in which authority rested with the masters and trickled down to the journeymen and apprentices. These craftsmen were, in essence, small businesses producing products with varying degrees of quality, low rates of productivity, and little need for managerial control beyond that of the owner or master artisan.

The Industrial Revolution, a time from the late 1700s through the 1800s, was a period of great upheaval and massive change in the way people lived and worked. Before this time, most people made their living farming or working and resided in rural communities. With the invention of the steam engine, numerous innovations occurred, including the automated movement of coal from underground mines, powering factories that now mass-produced goods previously made by hand, and railroad locomotives that could move products and materials across nations in a timely and efficient manner. Factories needed workers who, in turn, required direction and organization. As these facilities became more substantial and productive, the need for managing and coordination became an essential factor. Think of Henry Ford, the man who developed a moving assembly line to produce his automobiles. In the early 1900s, cars were put together by craftsmen who would modify components to fit their product. With the advent of standardized parts in 1908, followed by Ford’s revolutionary assembly line introduced in 1913, the time required to build a Model T fell from days to just a few hours (Klaess, 2020). From a managerial standpoint, skilled craftsmen were no longer necessary to build automobiles. The use of lower-cost labor and the increased production yielded by moving production lines called for the need to guide and manage these massive operations (Wilson, 2015). To take advantage of new technologies, a different approach to organizational structure and management was required.

The Scientific Era – Measuring Human Capital

With the emergence of new technologies came demands for increased productivity and efficiency. The desire to understand how to best conduct business centered on the idea of work processes. That is, managers wanted to study how the work was performed and the impact on productivity. The idea was to optimize the way the work was done. One of the chief architects of measuring human output was Frederick Taylor. Taylor felt that increasing efficiency and reducing costs were the primary objectives of management. Taylor’s theories centered on a formula that calculated the number of units produced in a specific time frame (DiFranceso and Berman, 2000). Taylor conducted time studies to determine how many units could be produced by a worker in so many minutes. He used a stopwatch, weight measurement scale, and tape measure to compute how far materials moved and how many steps workers undertook in the completion of their tasks (Wren and Bedeian, 2009). Examine the image below – one can imagine Frederick Taylor standing nearby, measuring just how many steps were required by each worker to hoist a sheet of metal from the pile, walk it to the machine, perform the task, and repeat, countless times a day.   Beyond Taylor, other management theorists including Frank and Lilian Gilbreth, Harrington Emerson, and others expanded the concept of management reasoning with the goal of efficiency and consistency, all in the name of optimizing output . It made little difference whether the organization manufactured automobiles, mined coal, or made steel, the most efficient use of labor to maximize productivity was the goal.

The necessity to manage not just worker output but to link the entire organization toward a common objective began to emerge. Management, out of necessity, had to organize multiple complex processes for increasingly large industries. Henri Fayol, a Frenchman, is credited with developing the management concepts of planning, organizing, coordination, command, and control (Fayol, 1949), which were the precursors of today’s four basic management principles of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.

Employees and the Organization

With the increased demand for production brought about by scientific measurement, conflict between labor and management was inevitable. The personnel department, forerunner of today’s human resources department, emerged as a method to slow down the demand for unions, initiate training programs to reduce employee turnover, and to acknowledge workers’ needs beyond the factory floor. The idea that to increase productivity, management should factor the needs of their employees by developing work that was interesting and rewarding burst on the scene (Nixon, 2003) and began to be part of management thinking. Numerous management theorists were starting to consider the human factor. Two giants credited with moving management thought in the direction of understanding worker needs were Douglas McGregor and Frederick Herzberg. McGregor’s Theory X factor was management’s assumption that workers disliked work, were lazy, lacked self-motivation, and therefore had to be persuaded by threats, punishment, or intimidation to exert the appropriate effort. His Theory Y factor was the opposite. McGregor felt that it was management’s job to develop work that gave the employees a feeling of self-actualization and worth. He argued that with more enlightened management practices, including providing clear goals to the employees and giving them the freedom to achieve those goals, the organization’s objectives and those of the employees could simultaneously be achieved (Koplelman, Prottas, & Davis, 2008).

Frederick Herzberg added considerably to management thinking on employee behavior with his theory of worker motivation. Herzberg contended that most management driven motivational efforts, including increased wages, better benefits, and more vacation time, ultimately failed because while they may reduce certain factors of job dissatisfaction (the things workers disliked about their jobs), they did not increase job satisfaction. Herzberg felt that these were two distinctly different management problems. Job satisfaction flowed from a sense of achievement, the work itself, a feeling of accomplishment, a chance for growth, and additional responsibility (Herzberg, 1968). One enduring outcome of Herzberg’s work was the idea that management could have a positive influence on employee job satisfaction, which, in turn, helped to achieve the organization’s goals and objectives.

The concept behind McGregor, Herzberg, and a host of other management theorists was to achieve managerial effectiveness by utilizing people more effectively. Previous management theories regarding employee motivation (thought to be directly correlated to increased productivity) emphasized control, specialized jobs, and gave little thought to employees’ intrinsic needs. Insights that considered the human factor by utilizing theories from psychology now became part of management thinking. Organizational changes suggested by management thinkers who saw a direct connection between improved work design, self-actualization, and challenging work began to take hold in more enlightened management theory.

The Modern Era

Koontz and O’Donnell (1955) defined management as “the function of getting things done through others (p. 3). One commanding figure stood above all others and is considered the father of modern management (Edersheim, (2007). That individual was Peter Drucker. Drucker, an author, educator, and management consultant is widely credited with developing the concept of Managing By Objective or MBO (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Management by Objective is the process of defining specific objectives necessary to achieve the organization’s goals. The beauty of the MBO concept was that it provided employees a clear view of their organization’s objectives and defined their individual responsibilities. For example, let’s examine a company’s sales department. One of the firm’s organizational goals might be to grow sales (sometimes referred to as revenue) by 5% the next fiscal year. The first step, in consultation with the appropriate people in the sales department, would be to determine if that 5% goal is realistic and attainable. If so, the 5% sales growth objective is shared with the entire sales department and individuals are assigned specific targets. Let’s assume this is a regional firm that has seven sales representatives. Each sales rep is charged with a specific goal that, when combined with their colleagues, rolls up to the 5% sales increase. The role of management is now to support, monitor, and evaluate performance. Should a problem arise, it is management’s responsibility to take corrective action. If the 5% sales objective is met or exceeded, rewards can be shared. This MBO cycle applies to every department within an organization, large or small, and never-ending.

The MBO Process

Drucker’s contributions to modern management thinking went far beyond the MBO concept. Throughout his long life, Drucker argued that the singular role of business was to create a customer and that marketing and innovation were its two essential functions. Consider the Apple iPhone. From that single innovation came thousands of jobs in manufacturing plants, iPhone sales in stores around the globe, and profits returned to Apple, enabling them to continue the innovation process. Another lasting Drucker observation was that too many businesses failed to ask the question “what business are we in?” (Drucker, 2008, p. 103). On more than one occasion, a company has faltered, even gone out of business, after failing to recognize that their industry was changing or trying to expand into new markets beyond their core competency. Consider the fate of Blockbuster, Kodak, Blackberry, or Yahoo.

Management theories continued to evolve with additional concepts being put forth by other innovative thinkers. Henry Mintzberg is remembered for blowing holes in the idea that managers were iconic individuals lounging in their offices, sitting back and contemplating big-picture ideas. Mintzberg observed that management was hard work. Managers were on the move attending meetings, managing crises, and interacting with internal and external contacts. Further, depending on the exact nature of their role, managers fulfilled multiple duties including that of spokesperson, leader, resource allocator, and negotiator (Mintzberg, 1973). In the 1970s, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman traveled the globe exploring the current best management practices of the time. Their book, In Search of Excellence, spelled out what worked in terms of managing organizations. Perhaps the most relevant finding was their assertion that culture counts. They found that the best managed companies had a culture that promoted transparency, openly shared information, and effectively managed communication up and down the organizational hierarchy (Allison, 2014). The well managed companies Peterson and Waterman found were built in large part on the earlier managerial ideas of McGregor and Herzberg. Top-notch organizations succeeded by providing meaningful work and positive affirmation of their employees’ worth.

Others made lasting contributions to modern management thinking. Steven Covey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People , Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline , and Jim Collins and Jerry Porras’s Built to Last are among a pantheon of bestselling books on management principles. Among the iconic thinkers of this era was Michael Porter. Porter, a professor at the Harvard Business School, is widely credited with taking the concept of strategic reasoning to another level. Porter tackled the question of how organizations could effectively compete and achieve a long-term competitive advantage. He contended that there were just three ways a firm could gain such advantage: 1) a cost-based leadership – become the lowest cost producer, 2) valued-added leadership – offer a differentiated product or service for which a customer is willing to pay a premium price, and 3) focus – compete in a niche market with laser-like fixation (Dess & Davis, 1984). Name a company that fits these profiles: How about Walmart for low-cost leadership. For value-added leadership, many think of Apple. Focus leadership is a bit more challenging. What about Whole Foods before being acquired by Amazon? Porter’s thinking on competition and competitive advantage has become timeless principles of strategic management still used today. Perhaps Porter’s most significant contribution to modern management thinking is the connection between a firm’s choice of strategy and its financial performance. Should an organization fail to select and properly execute one of the three basic strategies, it faces the grave danger of being stuck in the middle – its prices are too high to compete based on price or its products lack features unique enough to entice customers to pay a premium price. Consider the fate of Sears and Roebuck, J.C. Penny, K-Mart, and Radio Shack, organizations that failed to navigate the evolving nature of their businesses.

The 21st Century

Managers in the 21st century must confront challenges their counterparts of even a few years ago could hardly imagine. The ever-growing wave of technology, the impact of artificial intelligence, the evolving nature of globalization, and the push-pull tug of war between the firm’s stakeholder and shareholder interests are chief among the demands today’s managers will face.

          Much has been written about the exponential growth of technology. It has been reported that today’s iPhone has more than 100,000 times the computing power of the computer that helped land a man on the moon (Kendall, 2019). Management today has to grapple with the explosion of data now available to facilitate business decisions. Data analytics, the examination of data sets, provides information to help managers better understand customer behavior, customer wants and needs, personalize the delivery of marketing messages, and track visits to online web sites. Developing an understanding of how to use data analytics without getting bogged down will be a significant challenge for the 21st century manager. Collecting, organizing, utilizing data in a logical, timely, and cost-effective manner is creating an entirely new paradigm of managerial competence.  In addition to data analytics, cybersecurity, drones, and virtual reality are new, exciting technologies and offer unprecedented change to the way business is conducted. Each of these opportunities requires a new degree of managerial competence which, in turn, creates opportunities for the modern-day manager.

Artificial Intelligence

Will robots replace workers? To be sure, this has already happened to some degree in many industries. However, while some jobs will be lost to AI, a host of others will emerge, requiring a new level of management expertise. AI has the ability to eliminate mundane tasks and free managers to focus on the crux of their job. Human skills such as empathy, teaching and coaching employees, focusing on people development and freeing time for creative thinking will become increasingly important as AI continues to develop as a critically important tool for today’s manager.

Globalization

Globalization has been defined as the interdependence of the world’s economies and has been on a steady march forward since the end of World War II. As markets mature, more countries are moving from the emerging ranks and fostering a growing middle class of consumers. This rising new class has the purchasing power to acquire goods and services previously unattainable, and companies around the globe have expanded outside their national borders to meet those demands. Managing in the era of globalization brought a new set of challenges. Adapting to new cultures, navigating the puzzle of different laws, tariffs, import/export regulations, human resource issues, logistics, marketing messages, supply chain management, currency, foreign investment, and government intervention are among the demands facing the 21st century global manager. Despite these enormous challenges, trade among the world’s nations has grown at an unprecedented rate. World trade jumped from around 20% of world GDP in 1960 to almost 60% in 2017.

Trade as a Percent of Global GDP

Despite its stupendous growth, globalization has its share of critics. Chief among them is that globalization has heightened the disparity between the haves and the have-nots in society. Opponents of globalization argue that in many cases, jobs have been lost to developing nations with lower prevailing wage rates. Additionally, inequality has worsened with the wealthiest consuming a disproportionate percent of the world’s resources (Collins, 2015). Proponents counter that on the macro level, globalization creates more jobs than are lost, more people are lifted out of poverty, and expansion globally enables companies to become more competitive on the world stage.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016 and Great Britain’s decision to exit the European Union, the concept of nationalism has manifested in many nations around the globe. Traditional obstacles to expanding outside one’s home country plus a host of new difficulties such as unplanned trade barriers, blocked acquisitions, and heightened scrutiny from regulators have added to the burdens of managing in the 21st century. The stage has been set for a new generation of managers with the skills to deal with this new, complex business environment. In the 20th century, the old command and control model of management may have worked. However, today, with technology, artificial intelligence, globalization, nationalism, and multiple other hurdles, organizations will continue the move toward a flatter, more agile organizational structure run by managers with the appropriate 21st century skills.

Stakeholder versus Shareholder

What is a stakeholder in a business, and what is a shareholder? The difference is important. Banton (2020) noted that shareholders, by owning even a single share of stock, has a stake in the company. The shareholder first view was put forth by the economist Milton Friedman (1962) who stated that “There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (p. 133). In other words, maximize profits so long as the pursuit of profit is done so legally and ethically. An alternate view is that a stakeholder has a clear interest in how the company performs, and this interest may stem from reasons other than the increase in the value of their share(s) of stock. Edward Freeman (1999), a philosopher and academic advanced his stakeholder theory contending that the idea was the success of an organization relied on its ability to manage a complex web of relationships with several different stakeholders. These stakeholders could be an employee, a customer, an investor, a supplier, the community in which the firm operates, and the government that collects taxes and stipulates the rules and regulations by which the company must operate. Which theory is correct? According to Emiliani (2001), businesses in the United States typically followed the shareholder model, while in other countries, firms tend to follow the stakeholder model. Events in the past decade have created a shift toward the shareholder model in the United States. The financial crisis of 2008/2009, global warming, the debate between globalization and nationalism, the push for green energy, a spate of natural disasters, and the world-wide impact of health crises such as AIDS, Ebola, the SARS virus and the Coronavirus have fostered a move toward a redefinition of the purpose of a corporation. In the coming decades, those companies that thrive and grow will be the ones that invest in their people, society, and the communities in which they operate. The managers of the 21st century must build on the work of those that proceeded them. Managers in the 21st century would do well if they heeded the words famously used by Isaac Newton who said “If I have seen a little further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants” (Harel, 2012).

Critical Thinking Questions

In what way has the role of manager changed in the past twenty years?

With the historical perspective of management in mind, reflect on changes you foresee in the manager’s role in the next 20 years?

Reflect on some of the significant issues you have witnessed in the past few years.  Among thoughts to consider are global warming, green energy, global health crisis, globalization, nationalism, national debt, or an issue of your choosing.  What role do you see business and management playing in effectively dealing with that specific issue?

How to Answer the Critical Thinking Questions

For each of these answers you should provide three elements.

• General Answer.  Give a general response to what the question is asking, or make your argument to what the question is asking.
• Outside Resource.  Provide a quotation from a source outside of this textbook.  This can be an academic article, news story, or popular press.  This should be something that supports your argument.  Use the sandwich technique explained below and cite your source in APA in text and then a list of full text citations at the end of the homework assignment of all three sources used.
• Personal Story.  Provide a personal story that illustrates the point as well.  This should be a personal experience you had, and not a hypothetical.  Talk about a time from your personal, professional, family, or school life.   Use the sandwich technique for this as well, which is explained below.

Use the sandwich technique:

For the outside resource and the personal story you should use the sandwich technique.  Good writing is not just about how to include these materials, but about how to make them flow into what you are saying and really support your argument.  The sandwich technique allows us to do that.  It goes like this:

Step 1:  Provide a sentence that sets up your outside resource by answering who, what, when, or where this source is referring to.

Step 2:  Provide the quoted material or story.

Step 3:  Tell the reader why this is relevant to the argument you are making.

Allison, S. (2014). An essential book for founders and CEOs: In Search of Excellence. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottallison/2014/01/27/an-essential-book-for-founders-and-ceos-in-search-of-excellence/#5a48e7da6c11

Banton, C. (2020). Shareholder vs. stakeholder: An overview. Investopedia. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/difference-between-a-shareholder-and-a-stakeholder.asp

Collins, M. (2015). The pros and cons of globalization. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#609d7a53ccce

Dess, G.G., & Davis, P.S. (1984). Generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. The Academy of Management , (27)3, 467-488.

Difrancesco, J.M. & Berman, S.J. (2000). Human productivity: The new American frontier. National Productivity Review. Summer 2000. 29-36.

Drucker, P. F. (2008 ) Management – Revised Edition . New York: Collins Business.

Edersheim, E. (2007). The Definitive Drucker. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Emiliani, M.L. (2001). A mathematical logic approach to the shareholder vs stakeholder debate. Management Decision . (39)8, 618-622.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management . London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons (translated by Constance Storrs).

Freeman, E.R. 91999). Divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review , (24)2, pp. 213-236.

Friedman, M, (1962). Capitalism and Freedom , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harel, D. (2012). Standing on the shoulders of a giant. ICALP (International Colloquium on Automation). 16-22. Retrieved from http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~/dharel/papers/Standing%20on%20Shoulders.pdf

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees ? Harvard Business Review, January-February. pp 53-62.

Higgins, J.M. (1991). The Management Challenge: An Introduction to Management . New York: Macmillan

Kendall, G. (2019). Your mobile phone vs. Apollo 11’s guidance computer. Real Clear Science. Retrieved from https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/07/02/your_mobile_phone_vs_apollo_11s_guidance_computer_111026.html

Klaess, J. (2020). The history and future of the assembly line . Tulip . Retrieved from https://tulip.co/blog/manufacturing/assembly-line-history-future/

Koontz, H., & O’Donnell, C. (1955). Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kopelman, R.E., Prottas, D.J., & Davis, A.l. (2008). Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues , (XX02, 255-271.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. In S. Crainer (Ed.).  The Ultimate Business Library (pp. 174). West Sussex, UK: Capstone Publishing.

Nixon, L. (2003). Management theories – An historical perspective.  Business Date, (11)4, 5-7.

Pindur, W., Rogers, S.E., & Kim, P.S. (1995). The history of management: a global perspective. Journal of Management History , (1) 1, 59-77.

Wilson J.M. (2015). Ford’s development and use of the assembly line, 1908-1927. In Bowden and Lamond (Eds.), Management History. It’s Global Past and Present (71-92). Charlotte, NC: Information Age, Publishing, Inc.

Wren, D.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ

The Four Functions of Management Copyright © 2020 by Dr. Robert Lloyd and Dr. Wayne Aho is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Management’s Three Eras: A Brief History

• Rita McGrath

We’ve entered the age of empathy.

Organization as machine – this imagery from our industrial past continues to cast a long shadow over the way we think about management today. It isn’t the only deeply-held and rarely examined notion that affects how organizations are run. Managers still assume that stability is the normal state of affairs and change is the unusual state (a point I particularly challenge in The End of Competitive Advantage ). Organizations still emphasize exploitation of existing advantages , driving a short-term orientation that many bemoan. (Short-term thinking has been charged with no less than a chronic decline in innovation capability by Clayton Christensen who termed it “the Capitalist’s Dilemma.” ) Corporations continue to focus too narrowly on shareholders , with terrible consequences – even at great companies like IBM .

• Rita McGrath is a Professor at Columbia Business School and a globally recognized expert on strategy in uncertain and volatile environments. She is the author of The End of Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Review Press), and most recently, Seeing Around Corners (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).

Partner Center

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Management History

Introduction, introductory works.

• Reference Resources
• The Importance of History
• Before Common Era
• Early Common Era
• The Fifteenth–Eighteenth Centuries
• The Industrial Revolution
• Scientific Management and Frederick Taylor
• Other Contributors to Scientific Management
• The Human Side
• Organization Theory
• Theory Integration
• Complexity Revealed
• Developments

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Approaches to Social Responsibility
• Certified B Corporations and Benefit Corporations
• Human Resource Management
• Management In Antiquity
• Management Research during World War II
• Organization Culture
• Organization Development and Change
• Organizational Responsibility
• Research Methods
• Stakeholders

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Cooperation-Competition (Coopetition)
• Diversity and Firm Performance
• Organization Design
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Management History by David D. Van Fleet LAST REVIEWED: 29 June 2015 LAST MODIFIED: 29 June 2015 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0008

Although management and attempts to improve it are as old as civilization, the systematic study of management is only just more than one hundred years old. “Management history” refers primarily to the history of management thought as it has developed during that time, although some work covers the practice of management all the way back to Antiquity. Because the events, organizations, economic and social conditions, and even interested scholars are frequently the same, management history overlaps to some extent with related history fields, most notably business history, economic history, and accounting history. Management history utilizes the tools and methods of traditional historical analysis as well as drawing insights from business disciplines and the social sciences. This article includes, first, initial coverage of source material (introductory works, reference sources, and journals), and then presents reasons why history is important and provides a rough chronological presentation of major works for those interested in learning more about management history, from the early practice of management to the evolution of management thought as it has developed during the past one-hundred-plus years.

Some early management books are available online so that students and other scholars can read them in the original form, including Taylor 2010 (cited under Scientific Management and Frederick Taylor ), Sheldon 1924 (cited under Organization Theory ), and Gilbreth 2010 (cited under Other Contributors to Scientific Management ). Many early articles on management may be found in Miner 1995 and Bedeian 2011 . Wren and Bedeian 2008 is the most important management history book, and it is the one most widely used as a primary source in courses on management history. George 1972 , though an older work, is sometimes also recommended.

Bedeian, Arthur G., ed. The Evolution of Management Thought: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management . 4 vols. London: Routledge, 2011.

More than one hundred articles covering more than a century of management literature; a must-read for any serious student of management history.

George, Claude S., Jr. The History of Management Thought . 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972.

A short, older overview of the development of management thinking that is still useful for the author’s insights.

Miner, John B., ed. Administrative and Management Theory . Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth, 1995.

Numerous articles spanning more than seventy-five years are collected here. Readers get an intimate feel for the evolution of management theory through reading these original articles.

Wren, Daniel A., and Arthur G. Bedeian. The Evolution of Management Thought . 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008.

A highly readable summary of major milestones in the development of management thought. Presented within the context of the times, the stories of major figures in the field are told.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Management »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abusive Supervision
• Adverse Impact and Equal Employment Opportunity Analytics
• Alliance Portfolios
• Alternative Work Arrangements
• Applied Political Risk Analysis
• Assessment Centers: Theory, Practice and Research
• Attributions
• Authentic Leadership
• Bayesian Statistics
• Behavior, Organizational
• Behavioral Approach to Leadership
• Behavioral Theory of the Firm
• Between Organizations, Social Networks in and
• Brokerage in Networks
• Business and Human Rights
• Career Studies
• Career Transitions and Job Mobility
• Charismatic and Innovative Team Leadership By and For Mill...
• Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
• Compensation, Rewards, Remuneration
• Competitive Dynamics
• Competitive Heterogeneity
• Competitive Intensity
• Computational Modeling
• Conditional Reasoning
• Conflict Management
• Considerate Leadership
• Corporate Philanthropy
• Corporate Social Performance
• Corporate Venture Capital
• Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
• Cross-Cultural Communication
• Cross-Cultural Management
• Cultural Intelligence
• Culture, Organization
• Data Analytic Methods
• Decision Making
• Dynamic Capabilities
• Emotional Labor
• Employee Aging
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Ownership
• Employee Voice
• Empowerment, Psychological
• Entrepreneurial Firms
• Entrepreneurial Orientation
• Entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurship, Corporate
• Entrepreneurship, Women’s
• Equal Employment Opportunity
• Faking in Personnel Selection
• Family Business, Managing
• Financial Markets in Organization Theory and Economic Soci...
• Findings, Reporting Research
• Firm Bribery
• First-Mover Advantage
• Fit, Person-Environment
• Forecasting
• Founding Teams
• Global Leadership
• Global Talent Management
• Goal Setting
• Grounded Theory
• Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
• Human Capital Resource Pipelines
• Human Resource Management, Strategic
• Human Resources, Global
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Work Psychology
• Humility in Management
• Impression Management at Work
• Influence Strategies/Tactics in the Workplace
• Information Economics
• Innovative Behavior
• Intelligence, Emotional
• International Economic Development and SMEs
• International Economic Systems
• International Strategic Alliances
• Job Analysis and Competency Modeling
• Job Crafting
• Job Satisfaction
• Judgment and Decision Making in Teams
• Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration within and across Firm...
• Leader-Member Exchange
• Leadership Development
• Leadership Development and Organizational Change, Coaching...
• Leadership, Ethical
• Leadership, Global and Comparative
• Leadership, Strategic
• Learning by Doing in Organizational Activities
• Management History
• Managerial and Organizational Cognition
• Managerial Discretion
• Meaningful Work
• Multinational Corporations and Emerging Markets
• Neo-institutional Theory
• Neuroscience, Organizational
• New Ventures
• Organization Design, Global
• Organization Research, Ethnography in
• Organizational Adaptation
• Organizational Ambidexterity
• Organizational Behavior, Emotions in
• Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs)
• Organizational Climate
• Organizational Control
• Organizational Corruption
• Organizational Hybridity
• Organizational Identity
• Organizational Justice
• Organizational Legitimacy
• Organizational Networks
• Organizational Paradox
• Organizational Performance, Personality Theory and
• Organizational Surveys, Driving Change Through
• Organizations, Big Data in
• Organizations, Gender in
• Organizations, Identity Work in
• Organizations, Political Ideology in
• Organizations, Social Identity Processes in
• Overqualification
• Paternalistic Leadership
• Pay for Skills, Knowledge, and Competencies
• People Analytics
• Performance Appraisal
• Performance Feedback Theory
• Planning And Goal Setting
• Proactive Work Behavior
• Psychological Contracts
• Psychological Safety
• Real Options Theory
• Recruitment
• Regional Entrepreneurship
• Reputation, Organizational Image and
• Research, Ethics in
• Research, Longitudinal
• Research Methods, Qualitative
• Resource Redeployment
• Resource-Dependence Theory
• Response Surface Analysis, Polynomial Regression and
• Role of Time in Organizational Studies
• Safety, Work Place
• Selection, Applicant Reactions to
• Self-Determination Theory for Work Motivation
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy In Management
• Self-Management and Personal Agency
• Sensemaking in and around Organizations
• Service Management
• Shared Team Leadership
• Social Cognitive Theory
• Social Evaluation: Status and Reputation
• Social Movement Theory
• Social Ties and Network Structure
• Socialization
• Sports Settings in Management Research
• Status in Organizations
• Strategic Alliances
• Strategic Human Capital
• Strategy and Cognition
• Strategy Implementation
• Structural Contingency Theory/Information Processing Theor...
• Team Composition
• Team Conflict
• Team Design Characteristics
• Team Learning
• Team Mental Models
• Team Newcomers
• Team Performance
• Team Processes
• Teams, Global
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Technology, Organizational Assessment and
• the Workplace, Millennials in
• Theory X and Theory Y
• Time and Motion Studies
• Training and Development
• Training Evaluation
• Trust in Organizational Contexts
• Unobtrusive Measures
• Virtual Teams
• Whistle-Blowing
• Work and Family: An Organizational Science Overview
• Work Contexts, Nonverbal Communication in
• Work, Mindfulness at
• Workplace Aggression and Violence
• Workplace Coaching
• Workplace Commitment
• Workplace Gossip
• Workplace Meetings
• Workplace, Spiritual Leadership in the
• World War II, Management Research during
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: Introduction to The History of Management

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 12898

Exploring Managerial Careers

Michael Porter: Harvard Professor and Management Consultant, The Monitor Group Michael Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School and one of the foremost scholars and consultants in business strategy. Dubbed the first “Lord of Strategy,” he is one of the most influential management thinkers of all time. Porter’s primary contribution is in the field of competition, specifically the question of why some companies profit while others do not. Porter first became interested in competition due to his enthusiasm competing in youth sports (baseball, football, and basketball). Porter was born in 1947 and graduated from Princeton in 1969 with a degree in aerospace and mechanical engineering. He went on to receive his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1971 and his PhD in business economics from Harvard University in 1973. His bookCompetitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors(published in 1980) was deemed the ninth most influential work of the 20th century by the Fellows of the Academy of Management. Porter, writing during a period of great economic competition between the United States and Japan, was able to gain a wide and vast audience for his work.

In his 1979 Harvard Business Review article “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,” Porter presented his game management idea that five forces help determine the level of profitability. The five forces are competition in the industry, potential of new entrants into the industry, power of suppliers, power of customers, and threat of substitute products. An unattractive industry is one in which the five forces align themselves to produce a purely competitive industry. In this type of industry, normal profit levels are the highest a firm can expect, which means that the firm can cover its costs and make the owner a profit but cannot make excess profits. Once a firm identifies the five forces in its industry, it can choose between one of three generic strategies for success focus, differentiation, or cost leadership. Depending on where a firm is positioned within the market, the marketplace will determine what strategy it can take. This “five forces, three strategies” framework explains how McDonald’s, Morton’s Steakhouse, Subway, Wendy’s, and TGIF can all be in the same industry and still be profitable. They offer different types of products to different types of customers. These products compete on price, differentiation, focus, or a combination of these. In addition to the five forces model, Porter developed the value-chain model, which describes the unique activities that a corporation performs to make its products valuable to its customers. Porter has also contributed to health-care management, environmental regulation, international competition, and industry-level profits.

Porter’s five forces framework is intuitive and has provided managers with an approach to develop actual strategies. His ideas became popular because business leaders wanted to know how their companies could compete. Prior to Porter, management scholars stressed the idiosyncratic nature of business, stressing how each situation faced by each business was different. Other scholars offered business strategy models, but they were not as useful or practical as Porter’s. Through his use of industrial-organizational economics and his training in the case method, Porter bridged the gap between theoretical frameworks and the reality of the competitive business world and became one of the most important thinkers on business in the world.

Sources: Bedeian, Arthur G and Wren, Daniel A. (Winter 2001). "Most Influential Management Books of the 20th Century" (PDF).Organizational Dynamics. 29 (3): 221–225; Kiechel, Walter (2010). The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World.Harvard Business Review Press; Magretta, Joan (2011). Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy. Harvard Business Review Press ; and Mathews, J.(2013-02-01). The Competitive Advantage of Michael Porter. In The Oxford Handbook of Management Theorists: Oxford University Press .

While you may think that management is a relatively new field, it actually has its roots in the ancient world. In fact, whenever and wherever there has been commerce, there has been management and those thinking about how to do it better. For example, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, including the Colossus of Rhodes, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and the Great Pyramid, could only have been constructed through the work of a great many people. The size and complexity of these structures suggest that there must have been people (managers) who coordinated the labor and resources needed to execute the construction plans. Similarly, the Romans and the ancient Chinese could not have managed their vast empires without management, nor could the Phoenicians and the Greeks have dominated oceangoing trade without management.

Because management has been around for a while, it makes sense that the study of management is old. This idea is supported by the many managerial insights we can find in political, diplomatic, and military history and in philosophy, poetry, economics, and literature. Anyone familiar with Shakespeare’s King Lear would recognize the present-day management problem of succession planning! Modern managers have been influenced by the works of Chinese military strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu, Roman general and politician Julius Caesar, and even Genghis Kahn, Mongolian conqueror and ruler of what became the largest land empire in all of history. 1 Mark Zuckerberg 2 of Facebook is a modern admirer of the Caesars and has said that he bases some of his management style on his classical education.

Despite its ancient roots, modern management is less than 150 years old. In fact, a comparison of management before and after the Industrial Revolution shows that the former is only a shadowy comparison to the latter. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, work was performed, with exceptions, mostly in home and on farms by forced labor (slaves or indentured servants) or family members, and the output they produced was often for employers’, local, or family consumption. Over the centuries, economics and morality shifted, and laborers could choose where and for whom to work. These changes, in turn, would bring about many changes in how labor and other resources were employed in production.

The two developments that transformed management were the revolutions in how and where goods were sold and the Industrial Revolution. The events combined led to the selling of a wider variety of goods to a wider variety of customers in more distant locations. These events also led to the establishment of vast companies. Competition required the development of economies of scale (i.e., increased production lowering costs) and required coordination and specialization in the use of resources. The combination of coordination and specialization problems encouraged the development of management study as a distinct field.

In this chapter, we trace the evaluation of management from its origins in the ancient world to its form as a modern profession. Understanding how management came to be helps us to understand its principles in a richer, more thorough context and to understand how each concept we discuss is based on evidence produced by a wide range of scholars over many years in the fields of engineering, economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

1. Jackson, Eric, “Sun Tzu's 31 Best Pieces Of Leadership Advice”, Forbes, May 23, 2014. www.forbes.com/sites/ryanhol...sgenghis-khan/; www.forbes.com/sites/ericjac.../#124ac8a05e5e

2. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ce-of-facebook

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the history of management: a global perspective.

Journal of Management History (Archive)

ISSN : 1355-252X

Article publication date: 1 March 1995

Contemporary management theory is not a single theory. By its very nature, management is a complex process and a multidisciplinary field of study. Contemporary management is a synthesis of the classical, behavioural, quantitative and modern management movements. One of the keys to successful management is the ability to understand and apply modern management principles and techniques effectively. Studying fundamental concepts provides a foundation that effective managers of the future need in terms of understanding techniques, organizational cultures and theories. Awareness and willingness of management to incorporate a variety of management theories and tools as the organization constantly changes are keys to gaining and maintaining competitive advantage over others.

• Development
• Management styles
• Management theory

Pindur, W. , Rogers, S.E. and Suk Kim, P. (1995), "The history of management: a global perspective", Journal of Management History (Archive) , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552529510082831

Copyright © 1995, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

History Of Management Essays

Essay on the history of management, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

History of Management Thought Essay

The Hawthorne experiment remains one of the most debated and controversial studies conducted in the field of management thought that has received both praise and criticism at the same time (Wren and Bedeian 2009).

Much of the criticism regarding the study revolves around Elton Mayo, a researcher from Harvard Business School. The study was initiated by researchers from Western Electric and Harvard University and its main aim was to examine the impact of different environmental variables on the production of a group of workers at Western Electric Company (Gale 2004).

The workers were divided into control group and test group. Variables were introduced to the test group while the controlled group worked under constant conditions. Pennock and Stoll, the engineers in charge of the experiment, first began manipulating the lighting of the test group. The performance of test group increased with better lighting but the performance of the controlled group increased as well to which no changed were made in the lighting conditions (Gillespie 1988).

The experimenters then reduced the lighting of the test group but this did not have any effect on the increasing productivity of both the groups even when the lighting was made so dim that it was becoming difficult to see (Gillespie 1988). The researchers concluded that the lighting had no significant effect on the performance of the workers and that psychology of the workers was the only factor influencing the result of the research (Zerega 2008).

The main purpose of the experiment was to improve the overall experience of work of the employees to increase the productivity of the workers. The experiment, however, initially failed to do so and was unable to recognize factors that had any impact on the productivity of the workers.

The conclusion made by the experimenters, that there was a psychological factor involved in the motivation of the workers, came as a shock in the management thought because prior to this study it was believed economic interest was the only factor responsible for individual motivation.

It was concluded that the reason why the productivity of the workers increased was because these women were given attention for the first time and they were trying to please the experimenters no matter what the working conditions were (Gillespie 1988).

After that a number of studies were conducted to study the behaviour of the workers and to discover how the workers can be motivated so maximise productivity. A number of factors came to the surface while these studies were conducted. The three findings of the Hawthorne studies which I would like to exploit as a manager would be the Mica-Splitting Test group (1928 – 1930), Plant-wide Interview program (1928 – 1931), and Bank Wiring Observation group (1931 – 1932) (Rice 2010).

The Mica-Splitting test group was established after the researchers found that the performance of the workers improved when they were rewarded for their good performance (Rice 2010). The main purpose of this study was to find out whether the pay scale of the workers had any impact on the performance of the workers. The researchers introduced different variables to the work environment while they pay was kept constant.

Researchers discovered that the performance of the workers increased by about 15 per cent (Brannigan and Zwerman 2001). The researchers established that factors other than pay have a significant effect on the performance of the workers and the social conditions played a very important role in the performance of the workers (Brannigan and Zwerman 2001). This study can be used by the management to discover other factors which increase the productivity of the workers without increasing their pay.

The plant-wide interview program was conducted from 1928 to 1931. The Western Electric company wanted to avoid any possible conflict between their members and to achieve this, the personnel director of Western Electric said that “[The management] must really know what the employee thinks…, what are the worker’s satisfactions and aspirations, and…set up management policies that will synchronize with the worker’s viewpoint and compel thereby this cooperation” (Cohen 1990 pp.173).

To achieve this, the researchers conducted plant-wide interviews of the employees to hear the problems of the workers and improve the worker-management relationship (Swanson 2006). The researchers discovered that attention paid to the employees by the supervisors had a positive effect on the work of the employees and increased their productivity (Swanson 2006). By using this technique, the overall productivity of a company can be improved without causing any extra costs to the company.

Another important finding of the Hawthorne experiments that I would like to use as a manager is that ofBank Wiring observation group conducted in 1931-32. Nine men were selected for the bank wiring observation group. They were being paid on the piecework incentive pay system, i.e. they were being paid according to the amount of work that they were doing and it was expected that the productivity of the workers would rise with time (Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008).

Researchers found that the workers, instead of doing their best and trying to increase their productivity, established a group norm accepted by all the workers(Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008). They had established a “standard level of acceptable output” and any worker who produced more was called a “rate-buster” and persons who produced less than the standard output were called “chislers” (Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008 pp.7).

It was also observed that the raqte busters were being threatened by other workers to reduce their output while the chislers were encouraged to increase their productivity(Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008). This kind of trend should not be alloed in the working environment because this hinder the performance and abilities of the workers who are capable of doing better work.

Elton Mayo used the term “pessimistic reverie” to explain the negative state of mind of the workers which decreased their productivity. Mayo believed that it was the job of the managers to educate workers about the importance of their role and to use positive and relative reveries to concentrate on their work (Mayo 1924).

According to Mayo, anything which passed negative vibes was a pessimistic reverie, such as a person who walked awkwardly across machines stretching was actually exhibiting physical fatigue which was intensified by the reveries (Trahair and Zaleznik 2009).

He held the managers responsible for improving the employee’s experience of work and suggested rest breaks to minimize the pessimistic reveries. He was also concerned with the rootlessness of the workers which he called anomie (Whyte and Nocera 2002). Mayo believed that lack of societal norms, i.e. anomie, would lead to isolation which would decrease the motivation of the workers.

Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was one of the people who applied theories and scientific management to business in order to produce more value for the stakeholder (Farzaneh 2009).

Taylor has written in his book the Principles of Scientific Management , about how the efficiency of the workers can be improved and how management can get rid of the inefficiency of worker by applying scientific principles and laws(Taylor 2008). The findings of Mayo and other researchers are different from the findings of Taylor because the Hawthorne studies proved that factors the economic ones affected the productivity.

These studies proved Taylor wrong and focused more on how the work experience of the employees could be made better instead of just focusing on increased value for the stakeholders by making the employees work more than they can making their work experience negative. The methods of the Hawthorne researchers were also different from those of Taylor. Where Taylor used scientific methods and principles, the Hawthorne researchers studied the psychology of the workers and observed their behavior and what influenced it.

The main contribution of the Hawthorne studies to the history of management thought is that it introduced a whole new dimension to the management techniques and proved that many factors influence the workers not just one as it was previously believed. Another important contribution of the Hawthorne studies is that it revealed that responding to the worries of the workers and paying attentions to their grievance can increase the productivity without any extra expense.

It also helped recognize the environmental conditions affecting the productivity of the workers. All these important factors were not known before these studies, hence it is correct to say that the Hawthorne studies revolutionized the management thought it its own way and introduced new concepts. It also acknowledged the importance of the workers psychology in a company and how it can drastically effect the environment and output.

List of References

Brannigan, A. and Zwerman, W., 2001. The real Hawthornes effect. Society , pp.55-60.

Cohen, L., 1990. Making a new deal: Industrial workers in Chicago . New York: Press Sundicate of the University of Cambridge.

Farzaneh, A., 2009. Management, job satisfactin, and teamwork . Web.

Gale, E.A.M., 2004. The Hawthorne studies—a fable for our times?. Oxford Journal Medicine , pp.439-49.

Gillespie, R., 1988. The Hawthorne experiments and the politics of experimentation. The rise of experimentation in American psychology , pp.114-37.

Mayo, E., 1924. The basis of industrial psychology. Bulletin of the Taylor Society , pp.249-59.

Ornstein, A.C. and Lunenburg, F.C., 2008. Educational administration: concepts and practices . Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Rice, B., 2010. The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory . Web.

Swanson, K., 2006. The success of emplye to management relations at Western Electric Hawthorne plant . Web.

Taylor, F.W., 2008. The principles of scientific management . London: Forgotten Book.

Trahair, R.C.S. and Zaleznik, A., 2009. Elton Mayo: the humanist temper . New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Whyte, W.H. and Nocera, J., 2002. The organization man . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wren, D. and Bedeian, A., 2009. The evolution of management thought . John Wiley & Sons.

Zerega, Blaise. 2008 . Art of knowledge management. InfoWorld , Vol. 20, No. 30, p. 61.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 4). History of Management Thought. https://ivypanda.com/essays/history-of-management-thought/

"History of Management Thought." IvyPanda , 4 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/history-of-management-thought/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'History of Management Thought'. 4 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "History of Management Thought." March 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/history-of-management-thought/.

1. IvyPanda . "History of Management Thought." March 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/history-of-management-thought/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "History of Management Thought." March 4, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/history-of-management-thought/.

• Mayo Clinic: Marketing of the Healthcare System
• Cost Analysis of the Mayo Clinic Contract Procurement
• Need Assessment and GAP Analysis Mayo Clinic
• George Elton Mayo’s Outlook
• The Hawthorne Studies
• Mayo Clinic: Healthcare Business and Financial Management
• “Management Lessons From Mayo Clinic” by Leonard Berry
• Social Media for Business Communication: Mayo Clinic Case
• The Mayo Clinic: Website Analysis
• Evaluation of Healthcare Systems Survey Data in Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
• The Role of Capacity Management in Hospitality
• Crisis Management: Toyota Company and EU
• Transformational Leadership Essay
• Human Resource Management at the Bank Alfalah
• Asia Pacific Breweries as an International Business

History of Management Theory Essay

Running Head: HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT THEORY History of Management Theory Troy Thompson 5409 Foxglove Drive, Bossier City, LA 71112 318-918-7413 [email protected] MSM 500 May 21, 2010 Class Instructor: Dr. David Bouvin Ellis University Introduction People and processes are the main elements under management purview, and it is interesting to learn how managerial philosophy pertaining to these two elements has evolved from the Industrial Revolution throughout the Progression Era and into the modern workplace. The purpose of this paper will focus on Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management, also known as the Taylor System, and Elton Mayo’s Human Relations business models and how they relate to this …show more content…

All these adoptions gave rise to a new management school of thought centered around a more productive work place, which Taylor considered to be “maximum prosperity” (Taylor, 1911). Taylor firmly believed in developing “captains of industry” rather than waiting on natural-born leaders to come along (Taylor, 1911). He also recognized a need for more involvement from the supervisors in the workplace to help eliminate what he referred to as soldiering, or, laxed employee output. He said, “The 30 percent to 100 percent increase in wages which the workmen are able to earn beyond what they receive under the old type of management, coupled with the daily intimate shoulder to shoulder contact with the management, entirely removes all cause for soldiering” (Taylor, 1911). As the turn of the twentieth century neared, the progressive landscape begged for more efficient business practices (The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, line 16). This was the optimal time for the principles by which operational capacity could be measured, analyzed, streamlined, and controlled to take hold. This system then became a cornerstone on beset of the Great Depression and followed by future management theorists from then on after. One criticism of Scientific Management is that it demanded top-performance in every worker and near perfect throughput on the production line, developing into a quasi authoritarian-style form of bureaucracy. Workers were afraid to out-produce one another on the

Background Of The Progressive Era

Frederick Taylor’s fundamental thoughts on scientific management dated back to early 1880s when he was employed at Midvale Steel Company and observed his coworkers “soldiering” at work. In the following two decades, he moved around different companies while developing his management theory

Scientific Management is also known as Taylorism. Fredrick Winslow Taylor wanted to divide the work process into small, simple and separate steps (Division of Labor). Division of Labor meant every worker only had one or two steps, this was created to boost productivity. Taylor also believed in Hierarchy, he wanted a clear chain of command that separated the managers from workers. He did this so managers would design work process and enforced how the work was performed and employees would simply follow directions. Taylor wanted to select and train high performing workers or first-class employees and match them to a job that best suited them. Taylor believed the most productive workers should be paid more. Employees who could not meet the new higher standard were fired.

What Was The Impact Of Walmart

Frederick W. Taylor was ahead of his time for his concept of Scientific management. It was a revolutionary way of running a business, that swept all over the globe, and his ideas were applicable to many different industries. Substituting disorder and conflict for a new untested method of control, cooperation, and science. Taylor understood there were no incentives for working harder. Knowing this, he payed workers based on output, allowing workers to make more money on any given day. It seemed like everyone would enjoy and prosper under this system, but that was not the case. Workers liked the opportunity to make more money in this system but many of them resisted this new idea. Being under constant supervision made work much harder for them.

Scientific Management: The Four Principles Of Scientific Management

The year 1911 saw Frederick Winslow Taylor publish a book titled ‘The principles of scientific management’ in which he aimed to prove that the scientific method could be used in producing profits for an organization through the improvement of an employee’s efficiency. During that decade, management practice was focused on initiative and incentives which gave autonomy to the workman. He thus argued that one half of the problem was up to management, and both the worker and manager needed to cooperate in order to produce the greatest prosperity.

Essay on Philosophy of Management

• 5 Works Cited

Every manager must have a set of principles, values, and core beliefs that he must follow. These principles, values, and beliefs make up his philosophy of management. Webster defines philosophy as “the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group.” (Webster) I will be discussing the principles, values, and beliefs I as a manager will have to do my job efficiently. I will also discuss the different biblical beliefs that support my management style.

Management History Essay

• 10156 Words

But I'm coming to believe that all of us are ghosts .... It's not just what we inherit from our mothers or fathers. It's also the shadows of dead ideas and opinions and convictions. They're no longer alive, but they grip us all the same, and hold on to us against our will.

The Application of Scientific Management in Today’s Organisations

“The principle object of management should be to secure maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee…” (Taylor, 1911, p.9)

Compare And Contrast Scientific Management And The Human Relations Theory

There are a number of management theories that have changed the management business environment in the twentieth century. The theories have assisted managers to come up with better ways of management and organization of people. Managers have been able to increase profits, reduce costs and maximize efficiency. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the contributions of scientific management and the human relations movement to the modern management. This essay will use Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theory on scientific management and Elton Mayo’s human relations theory. These two movements have been proven to increase productivity in the workplace (Mullins, 2005).

Human Resource Management And The Bureaucratic Era

Taylorism is a management system which was popular in the late 19th century. It was designed to increase efficiency by breaking down and specialising repetitive tasks. This is exhibited as mentioned in ‘Selection and Development: A new perspective on some old problems’ that several jobs presently no longer consist of clusters of similar tasks, but are now process based collections of activities (Harrington, Hill & Linley 2005). According to Weber’s foundation of organisation theory; bureaucracy was portrayed as an “instrument or tool of unrivalled technical superiority which entailed charismatic, traditional and rational authority” (1978, cited in Clegg 1994). Thereafter, other theories derived based on the instrument being used as a form of manipulation. This is evident in Knights & Roberts’ (1982) concept of human resource management and staff misunderstanding the nature of power, treating it as if it were an individual possession, as opposed to a relationship between people (Knights & Roberts 1982). Subsequently, this led to the establishment of unions and increasing cooperative resistance in the workplace as employees seek change in the occupational structure (Courpasson & Clegg 2012). The change in this occupational structure was based around the ‘superior-inferior’ concept where managers prioritise their own success

Define and Discuss the Different Theories of Management, Using Practical Examples from Your Experience or Knowledge. Compare Classical Management Theory to Any Contemporary.

Successful management requires an understanding of the fundamental concepts of effective management techniques and principles. In order to gain such insight, and manage effectively and efficiently, managers must develop an awareness of past management principles, models and theories. From the turn of the 20th Century, the

The Evolution of Management Practices and Theories Essay

Taylor imagined that workers would be able to make out the relationship between completion of more work in units and the economic rewards been increased. Taylors work as described by (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004) depicts how theories were to take place at shop floor levels, then how facts were substituted for opinion and guess work. Henri Fayol, his fellow classical writer had a different perception which looked at organisation from top to bottom. The pace setters of classical theories had engineering background hence derived theories with scientific approach. (Buchanan and Huczunski, 2004). (Cole, 2004) talks about how the production environment under the classical theory in America had created difficulties, where labour force were skint, uneducated, and in quest of making economic fortunes. (Lemak, 2004) point out how the classical management has had

Scientific Management

In management literature today, the greatest use of the concept of Taylorism is as a contrast to a new, improved way of doing business. In political and

Classical Management Versus Human Relations Essay

In the early 1900’s, some of the first ideas were thrown together to allow an organization to flourish in the upcoming modern era. The first theories were known as scientific and classical management, which focused on three separate theories from Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber. The three theories have similar ideology in the fact that organization is driven by management authority, employees only source of motivation is money, and organizations are machinelike with employees making up the parts of the machine (Papa, Daniels, & Spiker, 2008). In the Prophecy Fulfilled case study, Mary Ann (senior auditor) takes on a management role with subordinates similar to that of Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory (Daniels 1987, pp. 77-78).

The History of Management Essay

Management in business is the coordination of people to accomplish set goals efficiently and effectively. It comprises of planning, organising, staffing, leading, and controlling an organisation. Management itself is also an academic discipline, a social science whose object of study is social organisation in order to accomplish a mutual goal.

The Classical School Of Management Essay

The definition of ‘management’ is controversial and subject to much debate. There have been many contradictory views on what the term ‘management’ means and accordingly how one should correctly manage an organisation. These theories have been put forward by several highly regarded management scholars over time. By taking into account past knowledge and contemporary views on management, we are able to ‘’explore how thinking has changed through time’’. (Brooks, 2006). Moreover, businesses have, and can continue to be able to adapt these theories and put them into practice. Successfully applying correct management practices is especially vital in a global business environment which is becoming very competitive. ‘’Most management theories, even those that do not resonate comfortably with the prevailing mood, have attractive and valid elements to them.’’ (Robinson, 2005). For example, some of these theories can be seen flourishing in fast food chains like McDonalds.

Related Topics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The History Boys: Critical reflections on our contributions to Management Learning and their ongoing implications

2020, Management Learning

In this reflective essay, written for the 50th anniversary of Management Learning, we look at the history of the journal from a unique vantage point, our interconnected, academic lived experience of publishing in the journal. Our aim is to undertake an historical review of our publications in Management Learning in order to identify the key themes of our work, to make connections with broader academic and social events of the time and to assert the continuing relevance of these themes for future scholarship. We review 27 papers that we have published in Management Learning since Volume 1 (1971) and identify four main themes from our papers. These are set in the context of the development of critical management education. We highlight the broader dimensions to our themes and suggest two areas with implications for future scholarship in Management Learning. In our conclusion, we use our findings and reflections to identify what we have learned about management learning, as well as making a call for action in relation to what we are labelling historical reflexivity.

Related Papers

Management Learning

Ann Cunliffe

Eirik J Irgens

In this article I discuss possible consequences of Ernst Cassirer‟s theory with a special focus on how we educate managers. I present Cassirer‟s main ideas, and relate them to management knowledge with a special emphasis on art and science as complementary forms of knowing. I then draw on a case: The development of the MKL program, before sketching some of the main challenges that we may face as educators if trying to develop a two-eyed management education; that is; an education that combines the best of the tradition of science and the tradition of art and the humanities.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, The

Christina Schwabenland

Perriton and Reynolds build their article on a debate that circled around a challenge by Elizabeth Ellsworth to the field of ‘radical’ education when she published an article in 1989 that suggested that critical educationalists, while espousing Freirean emancipatory ideals, were failing to ‘confront the authoritarianism inherent within most teacher-student relationships’ (Perriton and Reynolds, 2004 p. 62); in other words, that they failed to practice what they preached. Perriton and Reynolds use this debate as a starting point for surveying the current state of critical management education and asking whether the same criticism could equally apply to us.

Systems Practice

Hugh Willmott

British Journal of Management

Michael Reynolds

Dr. Jorge Rodriguez-Martinez

Abstract Management education has been dominated by managerialism and its underlying assumptions (rationality, efficiency, performativity, control, objectivity, etc.). Although some management scholars have denounced management orthodoxies and have provided illuminating critiques of business curricula and their ingrained pedagogies, their efforts have yet to achieve the promised emancipatory journey for educators, students, and citizens.

The Academy of …

Stephen Cummings

David Knights

Critical management studies (CMS) is a branch of management theory that critiques our intellectual and social practices, questions the “natural order” of institutional arrangements, and engages in actions that support challenges to prevailing systems of domination. Such an agenda has broad implications not only for the business world and the way that it is governed but also for our academic and intellectual traditions.

RELATED PAPERS

Toko Paving Block Murah

Umair Saleem

Atenea (Concepción)

Edson Faúndez V.

Psychology in Russia: State of Art

Elena Shmeleva

John Loughrin

dominique Louppe

MEJ. Mansoura Engineering Journal

hesham mostafa

Hematology, Transfusion and Cell Therapy

Cultural Studies

Vinh Nguyễn

The Journal of Organic Chemistry

jean Claude CAILLE

Modares Mechanical Engineering

Mehdi Mahmoudi

Brandi Joyner

Theodor May

Cadernos de Gênero e Diversidade

Cristiane D S Cabral

Journal of Applied Polymer Science

Shankar Laware

Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Ahmed Hassany

Journal of Environmental Biology

Devendra pandey

Journal of Electronics, Electromedical Engineering, and Medical Informatics

atika anggriani

Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics

Virtut Velmishi

Journal of Molecular Structure-theochem

sanshodhan chetna

sunita magre

Maria Cristina Schneider

Simon Levin

Future Virology

Margo Brinton

Mark Vandewalker

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024