Historical development
Some see management (by definition)
as late-modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those
terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards).
Others, however, detect management-like-thought back to Sumerian
traders and to the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the
centuries faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes
unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did
not feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Hindu
numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry
book-keeping (1494) provided tools
for management assessment, planning and control.
With the changing workplaces of industrial
revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, military theory and practice contributed
approaches to managing the newly-popular factories.[8]
Given the scale of most commercial
operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording before the
industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to
carry out management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and
complexity of organizations, the split between owners (individuals, industrial
dynasties or groups of shareholders) and
day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually
became more common.
Early
writing
While management (according to some
definitions) has existed for millennia, several writers have created a
background of works that assisted in modern management theories.[9]
Some ancient
military texts have been cited for lessons that civilian managers
can gather. For example, Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BCE, The Art of War, recommends being aware
of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organization and
a foe's.[9]
Various ancient and medieval
civilizations have produced "mirrors for princes"
books, which aim to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Examples include the
Indian Arthashastra by Chanakya (written around 300BCE), and The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli
(c. 1515).[10]
Further information: Mirrors for princes
Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of
Nations discussed efficient organization of work through division of labour.[10] Smith described how changes in
processes could boost productivity in the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200
pins per day, Smith analyzed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10
specialists, enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.[10]
19th
century
Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723–1790) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) provided a
theoretical background to resource-allocation,
production,
and pricing issues. About the same time,
innovators like Eli Whitney
(1765–1825), James Watt
(1736–1819), and Matthew Boulton
(1728–1809) developed elements of technical production such as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-accounting, interchangeability of
parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of
management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US
economy. That environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had
it, "managed" in profitable quasi-mass production.
Salaried managers as an identifiable
group first became prominent in the late 19th century.[11]
20th
century
By about 1900 one finds managers
trying to place their theories on what they regarded as a thoroughly scientific
basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of this
belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's
Science of management in the 1890s, Frederick
Winslow Taylor's The
Principles of Scientific Management (1911), Frank
and Lillian Gilbreth's
Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts (1910s). J. Duncan
wrote the first college management-textbook in 1911. In 1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan
and became the first management
consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son
Ichiro Ueno pioneered Japanese quality assurance.
The first comprehensive theories of
management appeared around 1920. The Harvard Business
School offered the first Master
of Business Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841–1925) and Alexander
Church described the various branches of management and their
inter-relationships. In the early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead
(1891–1973), Walter Scott
and J. Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management. Other writers,
such as Elton Mayo (1880–1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), Chester Barnard (1886–1961), Max Weber (1864–1920), who saw what he
called the "administrator" as bureaucrat[12]), Rensis Likert (1903–1981), and Chris Argyris (* 1923) approached the
phenomenon of management from a sociological
perspective.
Peter Drucker (1909–2005) wrote one of the
earliest books on applied management: Concept of
the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General
Motors until 1956) commissioning a study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39
books, many in the same vein.
H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890–1962), and Thornton C.
Fry introduced statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick
Blackett worked in the development of the applied-mathematics
science of operations research,
initially for military operations. Operations research, sometimes known as
"management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific
management), attempts to take a scientific approach to solving
decision-problems, and can apply directly to multiple management problems,
particularly in the areas of logistics and
operations.
Some of the more recent developments
include the Theory of
Constraints, management by
objectives, reengineering,
Six Sigma and various information-technology-driven
theories such as agile
software development, as well as group-management theories such as Cog's Ladder.
As the general recognition of
managers as a class solidified during the 20th century and gave perceived
practitioners of the art/science of management a certain amount of prestige, so
the way opened for popularised systems of management ideas to
peddle their wares. In this context many management fads may have had more to do
with pop psychology
than with scientific theories of management.
Towards the end of the 20th century,
business management came to consist of six separate branches,[citation
needed] namely:
- financial management
- human resource management
- information technology management (responsible for management information systems)
- marketing management
- operations management or production management
- strategic management
21st
century
In the 21st century observers find
it increasingly difficult to subdivide management into functional categories in
this way. More and more processes simultaneously involve several categories.
Instead, one tends to think in terms of the various processes, tasks, and
objects subject to management.[citation
needed]
Branches of management theory also
exist relating to nonprofits
and to government: such as public
administration, public management, and educational
management. Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations have also
spawned programs in nonprofit management
and social
entrepreneurship.
Note that many of the assumptions
made by management have come under attack from business-ethics viewpoints, critical
management studies, and anti-corporate
activism.
As one consequence, workplace democracy
(sometimes referred to as Workers'
self-management) has become both more common and advocated to a
greater extent, in some places distributing all management functions among
workers, each of whom takes on a portion of the work. However, these models
predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a command hierarchy. All management embraces
to some degree a democratic principle—in that in the long term, the majority of
workers must support management. Otherwise, they leave to find other work or go
on strike. Despite the move toward workplace democracy, command-and-control
organization structures remain commonplace as de facto organization
structure. Indeed, the entrenched nature of command-and-control is evident in
the way that recent layoffs have been conducted with management ranks affected
far less than employees at the lower levels. In some cases, management has even
rewarded itself with bonuses after laying off lower-level workers.[13]
According to leadership academic Manfred F.R.
Kets de Vries, a contemporary senior management team will almost
inevitably have some personality
disorders.[14]
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management
