Scientific management (also called Taylorism or the Taylor system) is a theory of

management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows, with the objective of improving labor
productivity. The core ideas of the theory were developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the
1880s and 1890s, and were first published in his monographs, Shop Management (1905)[1] and
The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).[2] Taylor believed that decisions based upon
tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful
study of an individual at work. Its application is contingent on a high level of managerial control
over employee work practices.
Taylorism is a variation on the theme of efficiency; it is a late-19th-and-early-20th-century
instance of the larger recurring theme in human life of increasing efficiency, decreasing waste,
and using empirical methods to decide what matters, rather than uncritically accepting pre-
existing ideas of what matters. Thus it is a chapter in the larger narrative that also includes, for
example, the folk wisdom of thrift, time and motion study, Fordism, and lean manufacturing. It
overlapped considerably with the Efficiency Movement, which was the broader cultural echo of
scientific management's impact on business managers specifically.
In management literature today, the greatest use of the concept of Taylorism is as a contrast to a
new, improved way of doing business. In political and sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen
as the division of labor pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker
and dehumanisation of the workplace, see 3D.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Overview
○ 1.1 General approach
○ 1.2 Contributions
○ 1.3 Elements
• 2 Mass production methods
○ 2.1 Division of labor
• 3 Extension to "Sales Engineering"
• 4 Criticism
• 5 Legacy
• 6 Scientific management and the Soviet Union
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 External links

[edit] Overview
[edit] General approach
1. Shift in decision making from employees to managers
2. Develop a standard method for performing each job
 3. Select workers with appropriate abilities for each job
4. Train workers in the standard method previously developed
5. Support workers by planning their work and eliminating interruptions.
6. Provide wage incentives to workers for increased output
[edit] Contributions
• Scientific approach to business management and process improvement
• Importance of compensation for performance
• Began the careful study of tasks and jobs
• Importance of selection criteria by management
[edit] Elements
• Labor is defined and authority/responsibility is legitimised/official
• Positions placed in hierarchy and under authority of higher level
• Selection is based upon technical competence, training or experience
• Actions and decisions are recorded to allow continuity and memory
• Management is different from ownership of the organization
• Managers follow rules/procedures to enable reliable/predictable behavior
[edit] Mass production methods
Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism, because it was closely associated with mass
production methods in manufacturing factories. Taylor's own name for his approach was
scientific management. This sort of task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly
ubiquitous today in industry, and has made most industrial work menial, repetitive and tedious;
this can be noted, for instance, in assembly lines and fast-food restaurants. Taylor's methods
began from his observation that, in general, workers forced to perform repetitive tasks work at
the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow rate of work (which he called "soldiering", but
might nowadays be termed by those in charge as "loafing" or "malingering" or by those on the
assembly line as "getting through the day"), he opined, was based on the observation that, when
paid the same amount, workers will tend to do the amount of work the slowest among them does:
this reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-being, and do not
benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it will not increase their
compensation. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most
work environments was crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, to be very inefficient in its
execution. From this he posited that there was one best method for performing a particular task,
and that if it were taught to workers, their productivity would go up.
Taylor introduced many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For example, by
observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time
to recover from fatigue. He proved this with the task of unloading ore: workers were taught to
take rest during work and as a result production increased.
Today's armies employ scientific management. Of the key points listed, all but wage incentives
for increased output are used by modern military organizations. Wage incentives rather appear in
the form of skill bonuses for enlistments.
[edit] Division of labor
Unless people manage themselves, somebody has to take care of administration, and thus there is
a division of work between workers and administrators. One of the tasks of administration is to
select the right person for the right job:
the labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue.Now one of the
very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so
stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.
The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for
him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to
handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. (Taylor 1911, 59)
This view – match the worker to the job – has resurfaced time and time again in management
theories.[citation needed] many theories have been applied to the businesss.
[edit] Extension to "Sales Engineering"
Taylor believed scientific management could be extended to "the work of our salesmen." Shortly
after his death, his acolyte Harlow S. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the
possibility of using Taylorism for "sales engineering." (Dawson 2005) This was a watershed
insight in the history of corporate marketing.
[edit] Criticism
Applications of scientific management sometimes fail to account for two inherent difficulties:
• Individuals are different from each other: the most efficient way of working for one
person may be inefficient for another;
• The economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical, so that both the
measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylor's methods are frequently
resented and sometimes sabotaged by the workforce.
Both difficulties were recognised by Taylor, but are generally not fully addressed by managers
who only see the potential improvements to efficiency. Taylor believed that scientific
management cannot work unless the worker benefits. In his view management should arrange the
work in such a way that one is able to produce more and get paid more, by teaching and
implementing more efficient procedures for producing a product.
Although Taylor did not compare workers with machines, some of his critics use this metaphor
to explain how his approach makes work more efficient by removing unnecessary or wasted
effort. However, some would say that this approach ignores the complications introduced
because workers are necessarily human: personal needs, interpersonal difficulties and the very
real difficulties introduced by making jobs so efficient that workers have no time to relax. As a
result, workers worked harder, but became dissatisfied with the work environment. Some have
argued that this discounting of worker personalities led to the rise of labor unions.
It can also be said that the rise in labor unions is leading to a push on the part of industry to
accelerate the process of automation, a process that is undergoing a renaissance with the
invention of a host of new technologies starting with the computer and the Internet. This shift in
production to machines was clearly one of the goals of Taylorism, and represents a victory for
his theories.
It may not be adaptive to changing scenarios; it overemphasizes routine procedures, i.e strictly
following a given set of rules and regulations, work procedures, production centredness etc.
However, tactfully choosing to ignore the still controversial process of automating human work
is also politically expedient, so many still say that practical problems caused by Taylorism led to
its replacement by the human relations school of management in 1930. Others (Braverman 1974)
insisted that human relations did not replace Taylorism but that both approaches are rather
complementary: Taylorism determining the actual organisation of the work process and human
relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures.
However, Taylor's theories were clearly at the roots of a global revival in theories of scientific
management in the last two decades of the 20th century, under the moniker of 'corporate [[rh the
goal being the eventual elimination of industry's need for unskilled, and later perhaps, even most
skilled labor in any form, directly following Taylor's recipe for deconstructing a process. This
has come to be known as commodification, and no skilled profession, even medicine, has proven
to be immune from the efforts of Taylor's followers, the 'reengineers', who are often called
derogatory names such as 'bean counters'.
[edit] Legacy
Scientific management was an early attempt to systematically treat management and process
improvement as a scientific problem. With the advancement of statistical methods, the approach
was improved and referred to as quality control in 1920s and 1930s. During the 1940s and 1950s,
the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into Operations Research and
management cybernetics. In the 1980s there was total quality management, in the 1990s
reengineering. Today's Six Sigma and Lean manufacturing could be seen as new kinds of
scientific management, though their principles vary so drastically that the comparison might be
misleading. In particular, Shigeo Shingo, one of the originators of the Toyota Production System
that this system and Japanese management culture in general should be seen as kind of scientific
management.[citation needed]
Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of knowledge management, as the aim of
scientific management is to produce knowledge about how to improve work processes. Although
some have questioned whether scientific management is suitable only for manufacturing, Taylor
himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of work, including the management of
universities and government.
Scientific management has had an important influence in sports, where stop watches and motion
studies rule the day. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports –especially tennis and golf – and he invented
improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs, although other players liked to tease him for
his unorthodox designs, and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream
implements.)

The Principles of Scientific Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Principles of Scientific Management is a monograph published by Frederick Winslow

Taylor in 1911. This influential monograph is the basis of modern organization and decision
theory and has motivated administrators and students of managerial technique. Taylor was an
American mechanical engineer and a management consultant in his later years. He is often called
"The Father of Scientific Management." His approach is also often referred to, as Taylor's
Principles, or Taylorism.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Summary of the monograph
○ 1.1 Introduction
○ 1.2 Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific
Management
○ 1.3 Chapter 2 : The Principles of Scientific
Management
• 2 See also
• 3 References
• 4 External links

[edit] Summary of the monograph

The monograph consisted of three sections: Introduction, Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific
Management, and Chapter 2 : The Principles of Scientific Management.
[edit] Introduction
Taylor started this paper by quoting then President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.
The President, in his address to the Governors at the White House, prophetically remarked that
"The conservation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national
efficiency." Taylor pointed out that the whole country (USA) is suffering through inefficiency in
almost all of daily acts of Americans. He pointed this out through a series of simple illustrations.
He tried to convince the reader that the remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic
management, rather than in searching for extraordinary people. He also tried to prove that the
best management is achieved through science and rests upon a foundation of clearly defined
laws, rules, and principles. He also showed that the fundamental principles of scientific
management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from simple individual acts to the
work of huge corporations, and calls for the most elaborate cooperation. Through a series of
illustrations, Taylor also tried to convince readers that when these principles are correctly
applied, astounding results are achieved. The paper was originally prepared for presentation to
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The illustrations in the paper were designed to
appeal to people within industrial and manufacturing establishments. Taylor also showed that his
principles could be applied to the management of any social enterprise, such as homes, farms,
small businesses, churches, philanthropic institutions, universities, and government.
[edit] Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Scientific Management
Taylor argued that the principal object of management should be to secure the maximum
prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee. He also
showed that maximum prosperity can exist only as the result of maximum productivity. He
argued that the most important object of both the employee and the management should be the
training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do the highest
class of work for which his natural abilities fit him.
Taylor was writing at a time when factories were creating big problems for the management.
Workmen were quite inefficient. According to Taylor, there were three reasons for the
inefficiency. They were the:
1. Deceptive belief that a material increase in the output of each man or each
machine in the trade would throw people out of work
2. Defective management systems, which made it necessary for each workman
to soldier, or work slowly to protect his own best interests
3. Inefficient rule of thumb methods, which were almost universal in all trades,
which cost much wasted effort
The paper tried to show that enormous gains would result from substituting scientific methods
for rule-of-thumb.
Taylor argued that the cheapening of any article in common use almost immediately results in a
largely increased demand for that article. This view contradicts the believe that a material
increase in the output of each man or each machine in the trade would result in the end in
throwing a large number of men out of work. As to the second cause for soldiering, Taylor
pointed to many quotes from 'Shop Management' and hoped that it would explain fully the cause
for soldiering. Some quotes that tried to illustrate his views are:
"This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the natural instinct and
tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering. Second, from more
intricate second thought and reasoning caused by their relations with other men, which may be
called systematic soldiering."
"This common tendency to 'take it easy' is greatly increased by bringing a number of men
together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay by the day."
"To illustrate: The writer has timed a naturally energetic workman who, while going and coming
from work, would walk at a speed of from three to four miles per hour, and not infrequently trot
home after a day's work. On arriving at his work he would immediately slow down to a speed of
about one mile an hour. When, for example, wheeling a loaded wheelbarrow, he would go at a
good fast pace even up hill, to in order to be as short a time as possible under load, and
immediately on the return walk slow down to a mile an hour, improving every opportunity for
delay short of actually sitting down. In order to be sure not to do more than his lazy neighbor, he
would actually tire himself in his effort to go slow."
"The feeling of antagonism under the ordinary piece-work system becomes in many cases so
marked on the part of the men that any proposition made by their employers, however
reasonable, is looked upon with suspicion, and soldiering becomes such a fixed habit that men
will frequently take pains to restrict the product of machines which they are running when even a
large increase in output would involve no more work on their part."
Taylor argued that the substitution of scientific for rule of thumb methods would be benefit both
employers and employees.
[edit] Chapter 2 : The Principles of Scientific Management
In this section, Taylor explained his principles of scientific management. Taylor's scientific
management consisted of four principles:
1. Replace rule of thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
2. Scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past the
employee (or workmen) chose his own work and trained himself as best he could.
3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that
worker's discrete task" (Montgomery 1997: 250).
4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply
scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the
tasks.
According to F. W. Taylor, the above combination of the initiative of the employee, coupled
with the new types of work done by the management, that makes scientific management so much
more efficient than the old plans.
Under the management of "initiative and incentive", the first three elements exist in many cases,
but their importance is minor. However, under the scientific management, they form the very
essence of the whole system.
According to Taylor, the summary of the fourth element is: Under the management of "initiative
and incentive" practically the whole problem is "up to the workman," while under scientific
management fully one-half of the problem is "up to the management."

Scientific management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Evolution of scientific management)

Jump to: navigation, search

"Taylorism" redirects here. For other uses, see Taylorism (disambiguation).

Scientific management (also called Taylorism or the Taylor system) is a theory of

management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows, with the objective of improving labor
productivity. The core ideas of the theory were developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the
1880s and 1890s, and were first published in his monographs, Shop Management (1905)[1] and
The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).[2] Taylor believed that decisions based upon
tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful
study of an individual at work. Its application is contingent on a high level of managerial control
over employee work practices.
Taylorism is a variation on the theme of efficiency; it is a late-19th-and-early-20th-century
instance of the larger recurring theme in human life of increasing efficiency, decreasing waste,
and using empirical methods to decide what matters, rather than uncritically accepting pre-
existing ideas of what matters. Thus it is a chapter in the larger narrative that also includes, for
example, the folk wisdom of thrift, time and motion study, Fordism, and lean manufacturing. It
overlapped considerably with the Efficiency Movement, which was the broader cultural echo of
scientific management's impact on business managers specifically.
In management literature today, the greatest use of the concept of Taylorism is as a contrast to a
new, improved way of doing business. In political and sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen
as the division of labor pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker
and dehumanisation of the workplace, see 3D.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Overview
○ 1.1 General approach
○ 1.2 Contributions
○ 1.3 Elements
• 2 Mass production methods
○ 2.1 Division of labor
• 3 Extension to "Sales Engineering"
• 4 Criticism
• 5 Legacy
• 6 Scientific management and the Soviet
Union
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 External links

[edit] Overview
[edit] General approach
1. Shift in decision making from employees to managers
2. Develop a standard method for performing each job
3. Select workers with appropriate abilities for each job
4. Train workers in the standard method previously developed
5. Support workers by planning their work and eliminating interruptions.
6. Provide wage incentives to workers for increased output
[edit] Contributions
• Scientific approach to business management and process improvement
• Importance of compensation for performance
• Began the careful study of tasks and jobs
• Importance of selection criteria by management
[edit] Elements
• Labor is defined and authority/responsibility is legitimised/official
• Positions placed in hierarchy and under authority of higher level
• Selection is based upon technical competence, training or experience
• Actions and decisions are recorded to allow continuity and memory
 • Management is different from ownership of the organization
• Managers follow rules/procedures to enable reliable/predictable behavior

[edit] Mass production methods

Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism, because it was closely associated with mass
production methods in manufacturing factories. Taylor's own name for his approach was
scientific management. This sort of task-oriented optimization of work tasks is nearly
ubiquitous today in industry, and has made most industrial work menial, repetitive and tedious;
this can be noted, for instance, in assembly lines and fast-food restaurants. Taylor's methods
began from his observation that, in general, workers forced to perform repetitive tasks work at
the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow rate of work (which he called "soldiering", but
might nowadays be termed by those in charge as "loafing" or "malingering" or by those on the
assembly line as "getting through the day"), he opined, was based on the observation that, when
paid the same amount, workers will tend to do the amount of work the slowest among them does:
this reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-being, and do not
benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it will not increase their
compensation. He therefore proposed that the work practice that had been developed in most
work environments was crafted, intentionally or unintentionally, to be very inefficient in its
execution. From this he posited that there was one best method for performing a particular task,
and that if it were taught to workers, their productivity would go up.
Taylor introduced many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For example, by
observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time
to recover from fatigue. He proved this with the task of unloading ore: workers were taught to
take rest during work and as a result production increased.
Today's armies employ scientific management. Of the key points listed, all but wage incentives
for increased output are used by modern military organizations. Wage incentives rather appear in
the form of skill bonuses for enlistments.
[edit] Division of labor
Unless people manage themselves, somebody has to take care of administration, and thus there is
a division of work between workers and administrators. One of the tasks of administration is to
select the right person for the right job:
the labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue.Now one of the
very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so
stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.
The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for
him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to
handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work. (Taylor 1911, 59)
This view – match the worker to the job – has resurfaced time and time again in management
theories.[citation needed] many theories have been applied to the businesss.
[edit] Extension to "Sales Engineering"
Taylor believed scientific management could be extended to "the work of our salesmen." Shortly
after his death, his acolyte Harlow S. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the
possibility of using Taylorism for "sales engineering." (Dawson 2005) This was a watershed
insight in the history of corporate marketing.
[edit] Criticism
Applications of scientific management sometimes fail to account for two inherent difficulties:
• Individuals are different from each other: the most efficient way of working
for one person may be inefficient for another;
• The economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical, so
that both the measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylor's
methods are frequently resented and sometimes sabotaged by the
workforce.
Both difficulties were recognised by Taylor, but are generally not fully addressed by managers
who only see the potential improvements to efficiency. Taylor believed that scientific
management cannot work unless the worker benefits. In his view management should arrange the
work in such a way that one is able to produce more and get paid more, by teaching and
implementing more efficient procedures for producing a product.
Although Taylor did not compare workers with machines, some of his critics use this metaphor
to explain how his approach makes work more efficient by removing unnecessary or wasted
effort. However, some would say that this approach ignores the complications introduced
because workers are necessarily human: personal needs, interpersonal difficulties and the very
real difficulties introduced by making jobs so efficient that workers have no time to relax. As a
result, workers worked harder, but became dissatisfied with the work environment. Some have
argued that this discounting of worker personalities led to the rise of labor unions.
It can also be said that the rise in labor unions is leading to a push on the part of industry to
accelerate the process of automation, a process that is undergoing a renaissance with the
invention of a host of new technologies starting with the computer and the Internet. This shift in
production to machines was clearly one of the goals of Taylorism, and represents a victory for
his theories.
It may not be adaptive to changing scenarios; it overemphasizes routine procedures, i.e strictly
following a given set of rules and regulations, work procedures, production centredness etc.
However, tactfully choosing to ignore the still controversial process of automating human work
is also politically expedient, so many still say that practical problems caused by Taylorism led to
its replacement by the human relations school of management in 1930. Others (Braverman 1974)
insisted that human relations did not replace Taylorism but that both approaches are rather
complementary: Taylorism determining the actual organisation of the work process and human
relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures.
However, Taylor's theories were clearly at the roots of a global revival in theories of scientific
management in the last two decades of the 20th century, under the moniker of 'corporate [[rh the
goal being the eventual elimination of industry's need for unskilled, and later perhaps, even most
skilled labor in any form, directly following Taylor's recipe for deconstructing a process. This
has come to be known as commodification, and no skilled profession, even medicine, has proven
to be immune from the efforts of Taylor's followers, the 'reengineers', who are often called
derogatory names such as 'bean counters'.
[edit] Legacy
Scientific management was an early attempt to systematically treat management and process
improvement as a scientific problem. With the advancement of statistical methods, the approach
was improved and referred to as quality control in 1920s and 1930s. During the 1940s and 1950s,
the body of knowledge for doing scientific management evolved into Operations Research and
management cybernetics. In the 1980s there was total quality management, in the 1990s
reengineering. Today's Six Sigma and Lean manufacturing could be seen as new kinds of
scientific management, though their principles vary so drastically that the comparison might be
misleading. In particular, Shigeo Shingo, one of the originators of the Toyota Production System
that this system and Japanese management culture in general should be seen as kind of scientific
management.[citation needed]
Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of knowledge management, as the aim of
scientific management is to produce knowledge about how to improve work processes. Although
some have questioned whether scientific management is suitable only for manufacturing, Taylor
himself advocated scientific management for all sorts of work, including the management of
universities and government.
Scientific management has had an important influence in sports, where stop watches and motion
studies rule the day. (Taylor himself enjoyed sports –especially tennis and golf – and he invented
improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs, although other players liked to tease him for
his unorthodox designs, and they did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream
implements.)
element of scientific management:

1. labor

2. position

3. selection

4. actions and decisions

5. management

Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Management (disambiguation).

Management in all business and human organization activity is simply the act of getting people
together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. Management comprises planning,
organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more
people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the
deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources,
and natural resources.
Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of management.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Overview
○ 1.1 Theoretical scope
○ 1.2 Nature of managerial work
• 2 Historical development
○ 2.1 Early writing
 2.1.1 Sun Tzu's The Art of War
 2.1.2 Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
 2.1.3 Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
○ 2.2 19th century
○ 2.3 20th century
○ 2.4 21st century
• 3 Management topics
○ 3.1 Basic functions of management
○ 3.2 Formation of the business policy
 3.2.1 How to implement policies and strategies
 3.2.2 Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process
○ 3.3 multi-divisional management hierarchy
• 4 Areas and categories and implementations of management
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links

[edit] Overview
The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in
turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement)
influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th
centuries.[1]
Some definitions of management are:
• Organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance
with certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives.
Management is often included as a factor of production along with machines,
materials, and money. According to the management guru Peter Drucker
(1909–2005), the basic task of a management is twofold: marketing and
innovation.
• Directors and managers who have the power and responsibility to make
decisions to manage an enterprise. As a discipline, management comprises
 the interlocking functions of formulating corporate policy and organizing,
planning, controlling, and directing the firm's resources to achieve the
policy's objectives. The size of management can range from one person in a
small firm to hundreds or thousands of managers in multinational companies.
In large firms the board of directors formulates the policy which is
implemented by the chief executive officer.
[edit] Theoretical scope
Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who wrote on the topic in the early twentieth century, defined
management as "the art of getting things done through people". She also described management
as philosophy.[2] One can also think of management functionally, as the action of measuring a
quantity on a regular basis and of adjusting some initial plan; or as the actions taken to reach
one's intended goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this
perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol[3] considers management to consist of seven functions:
1. planning
2. organizing
3. leading
4. co-ordinating
5. controlling
6. staffing
7. motivating
Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The phrase
"management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining
management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of managerial practices with
the existence of a managerial cadre or class.
One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business administration" and thus
excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public
sector. More realistically, however, every organization must manage its work, people, processes,
technology, etc. in order to maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to
university departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions (such
as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale School of
Management) employ the more inclusive term "management."
English speakers may also use the term "management" or "the management" as a collective word
describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation. Historically this use of
the term was often contrasted with the term "Labor" referring to those being managed.
[edit] Nature of managerial work
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the
talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
(December 2007)

In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of
stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued
products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment
opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit management, add the importance of keeping the faith
of donors. In most models of management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of
directors, and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented
with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing managers; but
this occurs only very rarely.
In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect
politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some
countries like the United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new
president/governor/mayor.
Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain
the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those
people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If
they fail to convince employees of the advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the
organization into a downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also
has the task of innovating and of improving the functioning of organizations.
[edit] Historical development
Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by definition) as a 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 Arabic numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the
codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management assessment,
planning and control.
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.
[edit] Early writing
While management has been present for millennia, several writers have created a background of
works that assisted in modern management theories.[4]
[edit] Sun Tzu's The Art of War
Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, The Art of War is a military strategy
book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of and acting on strengths and
weaknesses of both a manager's organization and a foe's.[4]
[edit] Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in
1513 as advice for the leadership of Florence, Italy.[5] Machiavelli recommended that leaders use
fear—but not hatred—to maintain control.
[edit] Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of Nations aims for
efficient organization of work through Specialization of labor.[5] 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.[5]
[edit] 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.
By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924), Léon Walras
(1834 - 1910), and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the theoretical underpinnings
of management. Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-level course in management in 1881.
[edit] 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 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 invented the 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, while other
writers, such as Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester Barnard
(1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920), 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 combined these statistical theories with
microeconomic theory and gave birth to the science of operations research. Operations research,
sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management),
attempts to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the areas
of logistics and operations.
Some of the more recent[update] 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, namely:
• Human resource management
• Operations management or production management
• Strategic management
• Marketing management
• Financial management
• Information technology management responsible for management
information systems
[edit] 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.
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 has become both more common, and more
advocated, in some places distributing all management functions among the 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 to some degree
embraces democratic principles in that in the long term workers must give majority support to
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 and
the de facto organization structure. Indeed, the entrenched nature of command-and-control can
be seen in the way that recent layoffs have been conducted with management ranks affected far
less than employees at the lower levels of organizations. In some cases, management has even
rewarded itself with bonuses when lower level employees have been laid off.[6]
[edit] Management topics
[edit] Basic functions of management
Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing,
leading/motivating, and controlling.
• Planning: Deciding what needs to happen in the future (today, next week,
next month, next year, over the next 5 years, etc.) and generating plans for
action.
• Organizing: (Implementation) making optimum use of the resources
required to enable the successful carrying out of plans.
• Staffing: Job Analyzing, recruitment, and hiring individuals for appropriate
jobs.
• Leading: Determining what needs to be done in a situation and getting
people to do it.
• Controlling: Monitoring, checking progress against plans, which may need
modification based on feedback.
• Motivating: the process of stimulating an individual to take action that will
accomplish a desired goal.
[edit] Formation of the business policy
• The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for
example, to make soap.
• The vision of the business reflects its aspirations and specifies its intended
direction or future destination.
• The objectives of the business refers to the ends or activity at which a
certain task is aimed.
• The business's policy is a guide that stipulates rules, regulations and
objectives, and may be used in the managers' decision-making. It must be
flexible and easily interpreted and understood by all employees.
• The business's strategy refers to the coordinated plan of action that it is
going to take, as well as the resources that it will use, to realize its vision and
long-term objectives. It is a guideline to managers, stipulating how they
ought to allocate and utilize the factors of production to the business's
advantage. Initially, it could help the managers decide on what type of
business they want to form.

[edit] How to implement policies and strategies

• All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial personnel
and staff.
• Managers must understand where and how they can implement their policies
and strategies.
• A plan of action must be devised for each department.
• Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly.
• Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes.
 • Assessments of progress ought to be carried out regularly by top-level
managers.
• A good environment and team spirit is required within the business.
i love you d-nice for ever but that is not the cause, ahiho
• The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department
must be analysed to determine their roles in achieving the business's
mission.
• The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business's future
environment.
• A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and
that policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and
objectives.
• Contingency plans must be developed, just in case.
All policies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff that is required in the
execution of any departmental policy.
• Organizational change is strategically achieved through the implementation
of the eight-step plan of action established by John P. Kotter: Increase
urgency, get the vision right, communicate the buy-in, empower action,
create short-term wins, don't let up, and make change stick.
[7]

[edit] Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process
• They give mid- and lower-level managers a good idea of the future plans for
each department.
• A framework is created whereby plans and decisions are made.
• Mid- and lower-level management may add their own plans to the business's
strategic ones.
[edit] multi-divisional management hierarchy
The management of a large organization may have three levels:
1. Senior management (or "top management" or "upper management")
2. Middle management
3. Low-level management, such as supervisors or team-leaders
4. Foreman
5. Rank and File
Top-level management
• Require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.
• They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets.
• Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature
• Their decisions are made using analytic, directive, conceptual and/or
behavioral/participative processes
 • They are responsible for strategic decisions.
• They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in the
future.
• They are executive in nature.
Middle management
• Mid-level managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial
tasks.
• They are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level
management.
Lower management
• This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the
other two are carried out.
• Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones.
Foreman / lead hand
• They are people who have direct supervision over the working force in office
factory, sales field or other workgroup or areas of activity.
Rank and File
• The responsibilities of the persons belonging to this group are even more
restricted and more specific than those of the foreman.