Management Theory

Know this topic well? Help others and get FREE products!

Management theory is a generalized term which is used loosely to refer to research findings, frameworks, propositions, beliefs, views, saws and suggestions, all of which seek to explain how managers should manage. It is an untidy hotchpotch of diverse offerings. Kramer (1975:47) used the more specific term ‘management idea’. He said that it

As an academic field of study, management dates back only to the beginning of the twentieth century. In that time, six relatively cohesive and distinct bodies or families of ideas have become established. It is these that are featured in management textbooks and which are discussed in management classes and journals. Although they represent only a fraction of the thinking and writing on management, they are held to constitute established management theory (Huczynski 1993). These five bodies of knowledge are, in broadly chronological order, bureaucracy (Max Weber); scientific management (Frederick Taylor); administrative theory (Henri Fayol); human relations (Elton Mayo); neo-human relations (Douglas McGregor). To these five, it is necessary to refer to a sixth, guru theory (Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Tom Peters and Lee Iaccoca). The writings of this school of management came into prominence during the 1980s, and have had a continuing impact on management thought and practice.

Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy was set in a historical-philosophical context. Weber was a German sociologist (1864–1920) and not a manager, engineer or management consultant. His interests were in the process of social change, and, in particular, in the effect of rationality on religious thought and capitalism. By rationality he meant the kind of action or mode of organizing in which goals are clearly conceived and all conduct, except that designated to achieve the particular goal, is eliminated. The application of his concept of rationality to the organizational context is what secured this social scientist’s pre-eminent position in modern management thought. The term that Weber applied to the organizational form built upon pure legal-rational authority was ‘bureaucracy’. The Weberian model of bureaucracy offers a stable and predictable world which provides the blueprint for ‘rationally designed’ structures in which rational individuals carry out their roles and actions. For Weber, the bureaucratic form of organization possessed the features of specialization, hierarchy, rules, impersonality, full-time officials, career focus and a split between public and private activity.

Developed at the beginning of the twentieth century, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theory of scientific management focused upon shopfloor organization, and upon the techniques that could be used to maximize the productivity of manual workers. His name is synonymous with work measurement and time-and-motion study. Taylor, an American, based his work on the accurate and scientific study of work. An engineer by training, he produced a template for much of the job design work done during the twentieth century. Scientific management principles such as a clear division of task and responsibilities between management and workers, scientific selection and training of workers, development of the one-best-way of working, and the application of economic incentives, all continue to be used to this day. Taylor’s objective was to increase productivity and reduce cost.

The primary focus of administrative theory was on the determination of which types of specialization and hierarchy would optimize the efficiency of organizations. The theory is built around the four central pillars—the division of labour, the scalar and functional processes, organizational structure, and the span-of-control. The individual most closely associated with administrative theory is Henri Fayol, who spent his career at a French mining company where he rose to the position of managing director. As a management practitioner, Fayol sought to discover and write down a set of successful management techniques that could be described and taught. In this sense, his interest in the structuring of the organization as a whole, complements Taylor’s focus on worker organization. Fayol’s ideas were diffused not by social scientists or business school faculty, but by management consultants and other managers.

Human relations theory is associated closely with the name of Elton Mayo—an Australian by birth, but best known as a professor at the Harvard Business School. Some commentators see human relations as a reaction against scientific management. Human relations ideas stressed the social nature of work, and focused on the worker, not as an individual, but as a member of a social group. It viewed employees as existing in an organizational context, recommended that managers should direct their motivational efforts towards the team, and saw individuals meeting their basic needs within the workplace. It recommended that managers control workgroups (both formal and informal) by the use of techniques such as friendly and relaxed supervision and employee counselling. The original research on which the theory is based was conducted during the 1930s, but the theory had its greatest organizational impact in the USA during the 1940s and 1950s.

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Mayo’s original ideas were developed and extended.

A more psychological direction was taken, to complement his more sociological and social psychological perspective. Underlying this neo-human relations theory (NHR) was the view that, above all, company employees wanted the opportunity to grow and develop on the job. The NHR writers assumed that if workers were allowed to do responsible and meaningful work, their attitude to their company would be more positive, and they would come to share management goals. As a consequence, this state of circumstances would put an end to industrial conflict. Many observers cite the work of Abraham Maslow (1943) as the starting-point of the neo-human relations era. NHR theory underpinned most of the organizational development (OD) work which was to have such a great impact on the design of organizational structures and teams, technology implementation, and employee selection and development.

NHR and OD dominated management thought for almost two decades. It was not until the election of President Ronald Reagan in the USA and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain at the start of the 1980s that it gave way to the enterprise culture on both sides of the Atlantic. Many observers have called the 1980s. ‘The Business Decade’. One consequence of this was an explosion in the number of management ideas offered. Not only did the number of ideas increase, but also they flowed from diverse sources. It is difficult to pick out with confidence any single consistent theme from the torrent of writings, speeches, videos and audiotapes that, during the 1980s, sought to tell managers how to manage more effectively. Perhaps it is the notion that the object of business was to compete with others for the favours of the customer, who was king, that comes closest to giving a flavour of the thinking at the time. Since so much of the impact of these ideas depended on the individuals who promoted them, this sixth body of management ideas is labelled guru theory. These management gurus came from three different backgrounds. First, there were the academic gurus who held posts in university business schools. Among, these one would include Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Michael Porter (Harvard Business School), Henry Mintzberg (McGill) and Philip Kotler (Northwestern). Working from an academic base, these writers have been influential in affecting how managers think about innovation, corporate strategy and marketing. Second in line are the consultant gurus, whose expertise and credibility come from having consulted for a wide number of different organizations. Here one would list Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Philip Crosby and W.Edwards Deming. These writers have had a profound effect on the practice of management, the creation of excellence, and the improvement of product quality. The final grouping consists of ‘hero-managers’. As the label suggests, these are the prescriptions of individuals who have held senior managerial positions in companies. Following in the tradition of Henri Fayol and Alfred P.Sloan, modern hero-managers make recommendations, based on their experiences, to their fellow managers. The most successful American hero-manager has been Lee Iacocca (Chrysler Corporation), while his British counterpart, Sir John Harvey-Jones (ex-ICI), has gained visibility through book publication and television appearances. Only time will tell if these three types of guru ideas will survive over the long term, and will be placed alongside the five established bodies of management ideas from the past.

Andrzej Huczynski

University of Glasgow

Huczynski, A.A. (1993) Management Gurus: What Makes Them and How To Become One, London.

Kramer, H. (1975) ‘The philosophical foundations of management rediscovered’, Management International Review 15(2–3).

Maslow, A.H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review 50(4).

Clutterback, D. and Crainer, S. (1990) Masters of Management, Basingstoke.

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J. and Hinings, C.R. (eds) (1983) Writers on Organization, Harmondsworth.

Wren, D. (1970) The Evolution of Management Thought, Chichester.

See also: bureaucracy; human resource management; leadership; public management; strategic management.

This is the complete article, containing 1,506 words (approx. 5 pages at 300 words per page).

View More Summaries on Management