More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast the management theories of frederick taylor,henri fayol,elton mayo and douglas mcgregor
Management theories and their proponents
Management theories in modern companies today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Compare and contrast the management theories of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Elton Mayo and Douglas McGregor. In what sense(s) are these theories similar and/or compatible? In what sense(s) are these theories dissimilar and/or incompatible? How would a contingency theorist reconcile the points of dissimilarity and/or incompatibility between these approaches?
The twentieth century has brought in a number of management theories which have helped shaped our view of management in the present business environment. These emerging theories have enabled managers to appreciate new patterns of thinking, new ways of organising and new ways of managing organisations and people. Over the years these different theories have enabled the study of trends that have taken place in the management field. The major management viewpoints- which include the classical, behavioural and contingency approaches- have assisted in the formation of the contemporary twenty-first century management theory and techniques (S. C. Certo & S. T. Certo, 2006). Although, there are significant differences among all these approaches they seem to be unified by the efforts of improving an organisation’s efficiency in terms of proper human resources management. Furthermore, the dissimilarities seen in these approaches are due to the always changing organisations and environments which demand new management practices and techniques be applied to maintain the efficiency of an organisation.
The classical approach to management was the result of an effort to develop a body of management thinking and the management theorists who participated in this effort are considered the pioneers of management study. The classical viewpoint emphasises efficiency in managing wo...
... middle of paper ...
...ncepts and Models, Thorogood, London.
Kermally, S. (2005), Gurus on People Management, Thorogood, Sydney.
Longenecker, J. & Pringle, C. (1978), “The Illusion of Contingency Theory as a General Theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3 Issue 3, pp. 679 -682.
Lorsch, J. W. (1987), “Organisation Design: A Situational Perspective”, Academy of Management Review, January Issue, pp. 117 – 132.
Luthans, F. & Stewart, T. (1977), “A General Contingency Theory of Management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 181 – 195.
McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rodrigues, C. (2001), “Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management then and now: a framework for managing today’s organisations effectively”, Monclair State University, New Jersey.
Taylor, F. (1947), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Bros, New York.
Coulter, M., Decenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2013). Fundamentals of Management (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
In the article entitled “The Human Side of Enterprise” by Douglas Murray McGregor , McGregor stated that industry has fundamental know how to utilize physical and technology science. The conventional view of management consisted of three propositions which are called Theory X (Shafritz & Hyde,2012).
Robbins, S.P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter. M. (2014). Management (12th ed.). Retrieved from: Colorado Technical University eBook Collection database.
Over 50 years ago, English-speaking managers were directly introduced to Henry Fayol’s theory in management. His treatise, General and Industrial Management (1949), has had a great effect on managers and the practice of management around the world. However, 24 years after the English translation of Fayol, Henri Mintzberg in the Nature of Managerial Work (1973) developed another theory and stated that Fayol’s work was just “folklores”.
In this essay, I am going to compare and contrast three management theories. Charles handy was a professor at London Business School and wrote a lot of books about different managerial theories. One of his booklets was the Gurus of Management. In this booklet he discussed different views of management with different businessmen and experts in management. Handy described these people as Guru which means teacher. The three teachers I chose were Sumantra Ghoshal, Kenichi Ohmae and Rosabeth Moss Kanter.
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:
Otley, D., (1980) The contingency theory of management accounting: achievements and prognosis, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 5, No. 4, 413-428
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.
The classical school of organization theory dominated administrations from the early 1900’s well into the 1930’s, and it is still relevant today in many of the contemporary organization theories. Shafritz states that classical organization theory was the first theory of its kind, and serves as the foundation of other schools organization theory (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2011, p. 32). Classical organization theory includes scientific management approach, bureaucratic approach, and administrative management approach. Several major theorists of classical organization were Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Luther Gulick.
There are many theories that have been developed by scholars to explain the principles and practice of management. Some of these theorists include: Henry Fayol; and Mintzberg among others. Henry Fayol is believed to be the first scholar to develop the management theory. Other scholars developed their theories based on the weakness of Henry Fayol’s theory of management (Thomson 2004).
Managing a workplace can be an eventful, yet stressful occupation, as motivating others while handling conflict can be challenging. In order to achieve success, the manager can explore many theories to help effectively manage the working environment. The implement of management theories help increase quality of service as well as increase the level of productivity within an organization (Hawthorne). “Not many managers use a singular theory or concept when implementing strategies in the workplace: They commonly use a combination of a number of theories, depending on the workplace, purpose and workforce” (Hawthorne). Contingency theory and Theory X and Theory Y are two of the many options that a manager can explore and adopt in order to effectively
There are three well-established theories of classical management: Taylor?s Theory of Scientific Management, Fayol?s Administrative Theory, Weber?s Theory of Bureaucracy. Although these schools, or theories, developed historical sequence, later ideas have not replaced earlier ones. Instead, each new school has tended to complement or coexist with previous ones.
Greenwood, R., & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organization Theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24 (4), 78-88.
The evolution of management though the decades can be divided into two major sections. One of the sections is the classical approach. Under the classical approach efficiency and productivity became a critical concern of the managers at the turn of the 20th century. One of the approaches from the classical time period were systematic management which placed more emphasis on internal operations because managers were concerned with meeting the growth in demand brought on by the Industrial revolution. As a result managers became more concerned with physical things than towards the people therefore systematic management failed to lead to production efficiency. This became apparent to an engineer named Frederick Taylor who was the father of Scientific Management. Scientific Management was identified by four principles for which management should develop the best way to do a job, determine the optimum work pace, train people to do the job properly, and reward successful performance by using an incentive pay system. Scientifi...