A Timeline of Management Science
Septo Indarto’s Note
1880-Scientific Management. Frederick Taylor decides to time each and every worker at the Midvale Steel Company. His view of the future becomes highly accurate:
In the past man was first. In the future the system will be first (In scientific management the managers were elevated while the workers roles were negated.
Science, nor rule of thumb, said Taylor. (The decisions of supervisors, based upon experiences and institution, were no longer important. Employees were not allowed to have ideas of responsibility. Yet the question remains-is this promotion of managers to center-stage justified?
The Taylor Society publishes a revised and up date practitioner’s manual: Scientific Management in American Industry.
1932-The Hawthorne Studies
Elton Mayo becomes the first to question the behavioural assumptions of scientific management. The studies concluded that human factors were often more important than physical conditions in motivating employees to greater productivity.
Social scientist Kurt Lewin launches the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His contributions in change theory, action research, and action learning earn him the title of the father organization development. Lewin is the best known for his work in the field of organization behavior and the study of group dynamics. His research discovered that learning is the best facilitated when there is a conflict between immediate concrete experience and detached analysis within the individual.
1949- Sociotechnical Systems Theory
A group of researches from London’s Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, led by Eric Trist, studied a South Yorkshire coal mine in 1949. Their research leads in the development of the Sociotechnical Systems Theory with considers both social and the technical aspects when designing jobs. Ot marks a 180-degree departure from Frederick Taylor’s scientific management. There are four basic components to sociotechnical theory:
1. Environment subsystem
2. Social subsystem
3. Technical subsystem
4. Routine, high volume communications
5. Coordination between activities
6. Structure to reduce uncertainty
With Control and Management the ultimate goal is efficiency-addressing how well the process was accomplished (form); while with Command and Leadership the ultimate goal is effectiveness-achieving goals and mission (results). Generally, to achieve form, one must conceptualize “processes”; while to achieve results, one must conceptualize tasks.
Thus, command and leadership decide what the organization should be doing, while control and management ensure that the resources used to achieve the results are used efficiently (without waste).
Frameworks of Command & Control
Command and Leadership use the following framework:
1. Creating (Creating a vision or task to achieve results).
2. Planning (How will you achieve the result)
3. Implementing (Putting the plan into action)
4. Follow up (Ensuring that it gets done)
Control and Management uses the following framework:
1. Observe-See what has happened.
2. Compare-What actually happened to what was supposed to happen.
3. Decide-Does the comparison show that the objectives were met and determine what needs changing?
4. Follow up-Ensure the change actually happened