Principles of Management
One of these such figures was Adam Smith. Smith had a theory that was later developed into what we know today as division of labor (Robins, Stephen and Coulter, p. 30). Smith published a doctrine called “The Wealth of Nations,” which detailed a more efficient method of breaking down the way work is down, particularly in a manufacturing situation. The division of labor stated that instead of having an individual do 10 steps to completing one task, use a specific person skilled at each step repeating nothing but their particular specialty. This way you would use 10 people to complete the task, which each one bringing to the table their speciality and you could turn out twice, thrice or even quadruple the amount of production.
This theory had vast economic advantages and was hugely successful, particularly because it came on the heels of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution made it possible to mechanize many tasks done by humans. This increased productivity and added a whole new realm to management. Managers were then neccessary to either oversee those who would operate the machinery or ensure that there were enough supplies, especially in light of such increased demand for goods (Robins, et al, p. 30). Managers were a big part of the advent and transformation of these factories to become mechanized. For example, managers were needed to ensure that the factory had enough materials on hand for the machines to produce the goods.
Managers were also needed to assign tasks to the humans operating the machinery as well as coordinate the daily tasks, etc. (Robins, et al, p. 30). Between the advent of the Industrial Revolution and Smith’s division of labor theory, the labor force and the concept of management was forever changed.
However, in comparison to these theories relating to classic methods of management, there were those theorists in the early 1900s who took the classic concepts and molded their own ideas out of them and came up with innovation ways to help the management field as a whole to thrive. There were three such people who had such a major impact on management, or as it was called in this realm, scientific management: Frederick W. Taylor and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.
Frederick W. Taylor started out his career as a mechanical engineer. As an employee at the Midval Steel Company, Taylor felt that a lack of real applicable mangerial concepts was in part of blame for the decreased show of production by employees at the plant. He penned the book, “Principles of Scientific Management.” This book served as a guide to managers worldwide. The book desribed his scientific approach to management: which was the use of scientific mehtods to define the “one best way” for a job to be done (Robins, et al, p. 32).
As he felt increasingly unsettled with the conditions, he developed a concept that spurred productivity towards more efficient results. Using scientific methods and instruments, Taylor studied the task each person performed and what it took to complete each task. Then, using the data he gathered, he matched the right person with the right tools and the right task and productivity shot through the roof (Robins, et al, p. 32). It is for this reason that Taylor is known as the “father of scientific management.” Once proven, his ideas were implemented worldwide (Robins, et al, p. 32).
Following in Taylor’s path were his most significant followers, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. Frank Gillbreth was a prominent contractor and his wife, Lillian, was a psychologist. The Gillbreth’s studied ways to eliminate unneccessary hand and body motions (Robins, et al, p. 33). The couple invented a device called the microchronometer, which recorded a worker’s motions and the amount of time spent doing each motion. It was through this machine that the Gilbreth’s were able to record wasted motions missed by the naked eye and identify ways to eliminate them (Robins, et al, p. 33).
Based on their findings through the microchronometer, the Gilbreths invented a classification system that labeled 17 basic hand motions, aptly named therbligs. The title was derived from the couple’s last name, which was spelled out backwards, with the “t” and the “h” transposed (Robins, et al, p. 33).
Other than Taylor and the Gilbreths, there were two other important theorists that made a major contribution to the principles of management.
Henry Fayol was one of those people. Fayol, who described management as a universal set of functions that include planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling, got his theories from a different perspective than his counterparts. Fayol was himself a member of upper manager and unlike Taylor, who derived his theories in part from being a member of a labor force, Fayol’s theories applied to managers across the board (Robins, et al, p. 34).
Fayol was the one to come up with the 14 principles of management, which are the rules of management still taught at schools and organizations worldwide (Robins, et al, p. 34). Fayol felt that management was applicable in all aspects of life and that it was not limited to the workforce, a theory that stood out from the other managerial theorists of his time.
Another significant contributor was Max Weber. Weber, a German sociologist, studied organizational activity (Robins, et al, p. 34). His theory is what gave us the term “bureaucracy,” which is defined as a division of labor – a cleary defined hierarchy of tasks -as well as detailed rules, regulations and principles (Robins, et al, p. 34). Weber admitted that this was better in theory than in actual practice and actually intended it more to be used a model for management and an ideal work structure (Robins, et al. p. 34.)
There are many theories used in today’s management roles that can be traced back to the theories of these “founding fathers” of management. For example, Henry Fayol’s 14 principles serve as a point of reference that many of today’s managers use when conceptualizing, planning, organization, implementing and overseeing ideas and theories in the workforce (Robins, et al, p. 34).
And although it didn’t work from an actualization standpoint, Weber’s bureaucracy theory gave us many management theories that have developed into other positive aspects of today’s labor force.
It is the intertwining of these classic theories mixed with some of the more modern ones that keep the worldwide management and labor force in constant productivity and questing to achieve better and better efficieny roles. And though there are many different approaches to management, the goal stays the same: to produce goods and services efficiently in a timely manner with a positive and beneficial outcome for employee, manager and company as a whole.
