Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Organisational structure its impact on organisation
Key concepts of scientific management
Organisational structure and its core principles
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organisational structure its impact on organisation
Along with the development of organisations and corporations over the past 200 years, organizational behaviour and the associated concepts have undergone revolutionary changes. From Adam Smith (1776) to Peter Ferdinand Drucker in the 21st Century, numerous experts have proposed and advocated various concepts and ideas on organisational behaviour and associated practices. For example, Smith (1776) has noted that the division of labour, and this method and idea has been accepted and adopted in different kinds of organizations during those periods. Next, the Principles of Scientific Management was proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911, which has focused on how to maximize the benefits to staff, mangers and society, moreover, it also developed …show more content…
It is also a fact that Nokia was the first to develop a whole range of new smart phones in the world. However, they were too big and inefficient; thence Nokia was subsequently replaced by other companies. Afterwards they tried to reverse the decline in the smart phones market share and finally it loses nearly the whole smart phones market share in 2014. Many considered Nokia as the largest corporation and a pioneer of mobile phones maker. The company had funds and human resources to make continuously grow. However, as mentioned above, this company became too huge to be inefficient, thus they were not able to change their strategies and policies, even their corporate structure and culture immediately. Therefore, Bureaucracy is one reason why they were surpassed by other corporations and finally have no any chances to turn over the market share of smart phones. Based on O’Brien (2010), in Nokia, Bureaucracy suffocated innovation and development. Actually, Nokia prepared the prototype of touch-screen and internet functionality a couple of years before iPhone was introduced by Apple. According to The New York Times (2010), Hakkarainen (former manager at Nokia) indicated that Nokia did not pursue the innovation, but was paying more attention on research and development cost. Furthermore, he also noticed that the organizational structure of Nokia is extremely sophisticated and enormous. Hence, these factors resulted in dilemmas about communication and cooperation with different departments. For example, when he was a manager in department of Marketing, if some staff offers one idea or proposal to him, if this proposal involved interdepartmental decision, he had no any power to make a decision and could not collaborate with another department manager immediately. The bureaucratic structure necessitated the submission of this proposal to the general manager, and a wait
Goodsell, T. C. (2004). The Case for Bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press, SAGE, 2004, 208 pages, $33.81 softcover, ISBN: 978-1-56802-907-8.
Bureaucratic institutions were formed as a way to manage large-scale collective action, to increase organization and coordination. Max Weber is known for his analysis of the bureaucratic institution. In the Weberian sense, bureaucracies are composed of a hierarchical structure of authority in which command flows downward and information flows upward, a division of labor composed of specialized tasks, a consistent set of rules, a large amount of impersonality, advancement through demonstrated merit and overall specified goals.
Though the bureaucracy began simply, with George Washington’s creation of the Department of Foreign Affairs, over the last 226 years, its size and power have increased exponentially. From homeland security to the delivery of mail, this “fourth branch of government” possesses a wide scope of responsibilities. However, the necessity for such a structure often comes into question. According to Max Weber, who believed that “the bureaucracy was likely to acquire an ‘overpowering’ power position, the bureaucracy is an “inevitable consequence” of modern day life (“The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, Wilson). A specialized bureaucracy provides valuable expertise, an asset which the Founders did not take for granted, as they had suffered a committee
In Enabling Creative Chaos: The Organization Behind the Burning Man Event by Katherine K. Chen (2009), the author offers an organizational model combining bureaucracy procedures with collectivist policies to readers. Chen analyzes the procedures and policies of the organizers behind the “Burning Man” festival’s creative chaos. Chen’s purpose in her book is to help society “reimagine organizations and their place in everyday life,” however, it remains unclear how the Burning Man organizational model relates to everyday lives in present society (Chen 22). Unlike Jason Corburn’s “street science” model used to study the potential causes of the asthma epidemic in Brooklyn, as explained in his book Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice (2005), Chen’s model does not reflect on how the individual organizers and participants of the event have used the Burning Man’s organizational model to change other bureaucracies within which they are involved. Comparatively, Coburn’s framework for understanding “street science” – decision-making that draws on community knowledge and makes contributions to environmental justice – is the better model upon which society should view bureaucracy (Corburn 111-144.).
By the constantly changing dynamics of the 21st century business world, it is clear that it would be highly unproductive for managers to employ what is in actual fact a restrictive, controlling theory of management. As a results of globalisation of the economy, intensification of international competition, pervasive influence of the social market economy, increasing participation of women in the labour force and ecological consciousness, scientific management is no longer suitable in modern workplaces, as this theory tends not to allow for the constant innovation that is necessary to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The criminal justice system and America in general has a lot of bureaucracy. The bureaucracy can sometimes become a hindrance to the people that the system is supposed to be helping. Rarely, do we hear anyone state they are glad for bureaucracy or the red tape bureaucracy seems to create. I think myself and many Americans at first glance dislike bureaucracy; however this appears to be the most prevalent organizational model in most businesses.
The founding father of scientific management theory is Fredrick Winslow Taylor. He was an American mechanical engineer and an inventor. Modern management theorist Edward Deming credited Taylor for his contributions while Joseph Juran criticized his work for extracting more work from workers. However a careful reading of Taylor’s work will disclose that he placed workers interest as high as the employer’s in his studies. Before the principles of management are discussed it is very important to understand the causes which led Taylor to derive the four principles of management. The three causes are as follows:
Scientific management is a way that an organisation regulates their staff within a workplace. The theory behind this is accomplished by selecting the ‘best person for the best role’, who will undertake the training to train each worker to do a ‘specific role the right way’ (Frederick Taylor). This extracts the responsibility from the employee whilst handing over executive decisions to the employer to make strategic directions. Frederick Taylor required the managers to set the tasks for the employees in advanced and that each task was to be detailed to each employee, to be done in a certain way and completed by an exact time no less.
The major change came through the work of Fredrick Winslow Taylor and his theory of scientific management system. It was not that Taylor was unique or completely new; only time and motion study could be put in that category. The trend was already moving towards systematic management such as formal management methods or by cost ...
This essay will discuss the relevance of Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management to organisations today. Taylor’s theory of Scientific Management is based around how efficiently a member of staff works in order to improve their productivity, the theory was introduced in 1911 and has four principles which were tested to determine optimal work methods, and are still seen in organisations today such as fast-food restaurants. Taylor believed that workers left to their own devices would restrict their output and not progress with the task, this was called ‘soldiering’ and it was described in two forms; natural
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
By the end of 2003, Nokia was the clear market leader in the mobile phone industry in terms of sales and profitability. It was ahead of giant companies like Motorola, Ericsson, Siemens, Samsung, and other worthy competitors. Since the early 1990s, Nokia's Strategic Intent was to build distinctive competency in product innovation, rapid response, and global brand management. Its strategic intent required rapid growth in the core businesses of mobile phones and telecommunications networks. This goal was achieved by Nokia's development of new products and expansion into new markets. In order to become the global leader as it is today, the company had overcome numerous challenges and obstacles over the last decade.
In the past, managers considered workers as machinery that could be bought and sold easily. To increase production, workers were subjected to long hours, miserable wages and undesirable working conditions. The welfare of the workers and their need were disregarded. The early twentieth century brought about a change in management and scientific management was introduced. This sort of management, started by Frederick Winslow Taylor, emphasised that the best way to increase the volume of output was to have workers specializing in specific tasks just like how a certain machine would perform a particular function. His implementation of this theory brought about tremendous criticism by the masses arguing that the fundamentals of Scientific Management were to exploit employees rather than to benefit them (Mullins, 2005)
As the popularity of systematic management rose, there were many organizations that were implementing its main features such as employment of more unskilled workers and work standardization methods (Thompson and Mchugh, 2009, p.28 a). It had several features, a few of which included focusing on the manner in which production took place, being precise about how the activities were going about and to ensure that productivity and overall efficiency improved. Thus, the primary focus was on methods of production as compared to the end result of the production activity. This is when the role of Taylorism came about. Frederick Winslow Taylor, a name that transformed the management scheme forever. Also known as the Father of scientific management, Taylor was the brain behind recognizing the need for efficiency in the workplace. He first started off with his research at Midvale Steel Works, where he meticulously observed the workers and in order to develop his principles and theories with the prime focus of constructing a way to have full control over the activities taking place (Thompson and Mchugh, 2009, p.28 a).
Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today.