It is not without merit that Henry Fayol is credited or described by many scholars as the “father of modern operational-management theory.” The Frenchman was a visionary in his approach to organizational management. Although some would be critical of his ideology, as did many of his contemporaries; nevertheless, his lasting influence was unmistakable. In fact, his groundbreaking work served as blueprints for modern operational management. Later though, Theorists such as Max Weber and Frederic Taylor offered some more scholarly and micro approaches to management other than the prescriptive one Fayol offered. Although all three theories shared some characteristics, Weber’s perspective was largely idealistic. According to Miller, his Theory of Bureaucracy unveiled characteristics of a particular form of organization. He argued that they were closed systems that emphasized the importance of rules and the functioning of authority.
Frederick Taylor presented yet another perspective of management. He developed the Theory of Scientific Management. In this model, he abandoned the macro perspective for a more efficient micro construct of organizational functioning. As we track agency throughout the history of formal operational management, we will discuss its role in the classical era, the humanistic approaches, and the McDonaldlization phenomenon.
Being at the dusk of a rigid pre-industrial era and the dawn of the industrial revolution, the mechanistic ideology that shaped industry’s new horizon seemed inevitable. Hence, the diffusion of the “machine metaphor,” which relied on the principles of specialization, standardization, and predictability, knew no barriers. In fact, the unidirectional flow of communication in the classical era ensured that agency rested solely with management. The worker was viewed as a specialized robot in human flesh. George Ritzer’s assembly line argument is a prime example. It did not lack efficiency, it was made up of highly specialized tasks, and the division of labor confined workers to one predictable skill. He called these practices the basic elements of formal rationalization. In sum, Fayol prescribed to managers, Weber aimed at the organization, and Taylor invented the best way to do a job. None on them advocated on behalf of the worker. Therefore, agency for them was nonexistent and their valued contribution was physical in nature. These ethical standards may be questionable or even morally repugnant to a post-modernist, given our accelerated rate of growth since. Nonetheless, the productivity factor was by no means spurious. Without any a priori scientific paradigms, classical management quickly became the norm. The “mom and pop” management style dissipated, giving birth to the dehumanizing culture of industrialism and its robots.
Naturally, if we accept the premise of the first law of thermodynamics, we know that power does not exist in a vacuum. When we squeeze power one way, it eventually comes out somewhere else. Not surprisingly, as a result of the oppressive nature of classical management of organizations, several new theories would emerge trying to shift the balance.
Inspired to a great degree by the Hawthorne Studies, the spotlight was placed on human needs. Elton Mayo and his research team suggested management practices that met the needs of workers to increase productivity. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory was instrumental. He argued that in order to reach self-actualization, human needs had to be met at a very basic level. He was simply saying that happy workers would be more productive. Douglas McGregor was another strong advocate of the Human Relations approach. He developed the Theory X and Theory Y. In The X factor, management was motivated by remnants of the classical era, whereas the Y factor praised managers who emphasized Human Relations principles.
Unfortunately, the manipulative measures in which this approach was implemented made it short lived. Consequently, the Human Resources approach emerged. It was a revised version of the previous approach, but put emphasis both on productivity and the satisfaction of individual workers. Agency, in both these approaches, shifted hands. Organizations loosened their unforgiving rules and workers were afforded some rights even though communication moved horizontally during that time. That was a 180-degree turn around from the iron fist of the classical concept. To illustrate, today’s buzz is about Google’s human resources approach to operational management. One can argue that this company goes beyond the basic need of its workers. Google offers free rides to work, free breakfast in Google cafés, free gourmet food in more than 19 onsite Google’s upscale restaurants, enormous free gyms, massages, resting places, washing machines, subsidized daycare program, etc… This approach was unheard of even at the pinnacle of the humanitarian era. It is not surprising that Google now receives about 20,000 applications monthly as a result. This illustration is a clear indication that Google’s implementation of Human Resources principles is at least one of the factors boosting profitability and productivity. Most importantly, perhaps, this management style also confirms that the “happy cow” metaphor is alive and well. Part 2 continues below
Rapadoo,
No comments:
Post a Comment