Scribd
Upload
6 views

UNITY UNIVERSITY

The document outlines the development of management thought, categorizing it into four phases: pre-scientific management, classical theories, neo-classical theories, and modern theories. Each phase contributed to understanding organizational efficiency, human behavior, and adaptability in management practices. Contemporary management integrates insights from all phases to balance productivity, employee well-being, and responsiveness to change.

Uploaded by

eshetezerubabel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

UNITY UNIVERSITY

The document outlines the development of management thought, categorizing it into four phases: pre-scientific management, classical theories, neo-classical theories, and modern theories. Each phase contributed to understanding organizational efficiency, human behavior, and adaptability in management practices. Contemporary management integrates insights from all phases to balance productivity, employee well-being, and responsiveness to change.

Uploaded by

eshetezerubabel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

UNITY UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT


INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT

NAME: Tirsitewold Tumelsan


ID: UUR01365/16
SECTION: 6

SUBMITWD TO: Mrs. Ejigayew


Submitted date: Dec 10/2024
Development of Management Thought
The evolution of management thought reflects humanity's attempts to optimize work and
improve organizational efficiency. It can be categorized into four broad phases: the pre-scientific
management period, classical theories, neo-classical theories, and modern theories. Each phase
contributed valuable insights to contemporary management practice

1. Pre-scientific Management Period (Early Influences)


This period (before the late 19th century) was marked by unsystematic practices and intuitive
management based on personal experience. Early influences included:
Division of Labor: Adam Smith’s idea of splitting tasks to improve productivity and efficiency,
as described in The Wealth of Nations.
Military and Religious Practices: Hierarchical command structures in these institutions inspired
early organizational frameworks.
Industrial Revolution: The transition from craft-based production to factory systems highlighted
the need for better organization and worker efficiency.
Although these efforts improved productivity, they lacked scientific methods and a structured
approach to management.

2. Classical Theories
Emerging during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, classical theories focused on
productivity, efficiency, and organizational structure
2.1 Scientific Management School (Frederick W. Taylor)
Taylor introduced scientific principles to improve work processes, known as "Taylorism." Key
elements include:
Time and Motion Studies: Detailed analysis of tasks to find the most efficient way of working.
Work Standardization: Breaking tasks into standardized steps.
Performance-based Incentives: Rewarding employees for productivity.
2.2 Administrative Management School (Henri Fayol)
Fayol focused on the management of entire organizations rather than individual tasks.
Identified five core functions of management:
1. Planning: Setting goals and strategies.
2. Organizing: Allocating resources effectively.
3. Commanding: Leading and motivating employees.
4. Coordinating: Ensuring harmony between departments.
5. Controlling: Monitoring performance and implementing corrections.

Fayol also introduced 14 principles of management, such as unity of command, division of


work, and scalar chain, which remain relevant in modern management.

2.3 Bureaucratic Organization Theory (Max Weber)


Weber proposed bureaucracy as a rational, structured system for managing large organizations.
Key features include:
Clear Hierarchy: Defined roles and responsibilities.
Formal Rules and Procedures: Ensuring consistency and predictability.
Impersonal Relationships: Avoiding favoritism in decision-making.
Merit-based Appointments: Promoting qualified individuals.
While effective for stability, bureaucracy can be inflexible and slow in dynamic environments.

3. Neo-Classical Theories
Neo-classical theories emerged as a response to the mechanical focus of classical theories,
emphasizing human behavior and social factors.
3.1 Human Relations Approach
This approach, championed by Elton Mayo, focused on employee satisfaction and group
Dynamics. Mayo’s Hawthorne Studies revealed:
Social and psychological factors significantly influence productivity.
Employees are motivated by recognition and belongingness, not just financial incentives.
The approach laid the foundation for workplace communication, team-building, and employee
welfare initiatives.
3.2 Behavioral Science Approach
This approach builds on human relations by applying psychology and sociology to understand
workplace behavior. Key contributions include:
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Employees have varying needs, from basic physiological needs to
self-actualization, which influence motivation.
McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Contrasting management styles; Theory X assumes
workers are inherently lazy, while Theory Y views them as self-motivated.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: Differentiates between hygiene factors (e.g., salary) and
motivators (e.g., recognition) in job satisfaction.

4. Modern Theories
Modern theories integrate complexity, adaptability, and quantitative analysis to address
contemporary organizational challenges.
4.1 Quantitative Theory
Also known as Operations Research or Management Science, this theory uses mathematical
models and statistical techniques for decision-making and problem-solving. Examples include
linear programming, inventory control, and forecasting. While precise, its over-reliance on data
often neglects the human aspects of management.
4.2 Systems Theory
Developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others, this theory views organizations as open
systems interacting with their environment. Key ideas:
Organizations consist of interdependent subsystems (e.g., HR, production).
A change in one part affects the entire system.
Feedback loops help organizations adapt to external changes.
This holistic approach emphasizes integration and adaptability.
4.3 Contingency or Situational Approach
This approach rejects universal solutions, arguing that effective management depends on
situational factors like organizational size, environment, and technology. Key principles:
Different situations require different strategies.
Flexibility and adaptability are crucial.
This theory bridges classical and modern concepts, promoting tailored management solutions.
Summary
The evolution of management thought highlights a progression from task-focused theories
(classical) to people-oriented approaches (neo-classical) and adaptable, systemic frameworks
(modern). Early insights from the pre-scientific period laid the groundwork, while each
subsequent phase addressed emerging organizational complexities. Today’s management
practices incorporate lessons from all these phases, balancing efficiency, employee well-being,
and adaptability.

REFERENCE
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776): Discussion on the division of labor and its role in
productivity
Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management (1911): Introduction to scientific
management and efficiency methods.
Max Weber, Economy and Society (1922): The concept of bureaucracy and its role in
organizational management.
Elton Mayo, The Hawthorne Studies (1924–1932): Insights into human relations and the impact
of social factors on productivity
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory (1968): Explanation of systems thinking in
organizations.
Contingency theory papers by scholars like Joan Woodward (1965) and Paul Lawrence and Jay
Lorsch (1967): Emphasis on situational management.

You might also like