Each of this week’s scholars presented theories based on experience in
an industrial setting, but I believe the concepts presented still have a
place in the “experience economy” where many of us find ourselves.
In
the cost-accounting structure Taylor advocated, the goal was not to
work harder, but smarter. This concept of “mutuality of interest” (Wren
& Bedeian, 2009, p. 148), of organizing a system so that the
employee’s motivation aligns with the company’s, makes perfect sense for
the types of businesses Taylor oversaw. What I was most struck by in
Taylor’s thoughts was that it seemed his goals for organizations were to
be set up as if each worker were a piece of machinery, and while I
originally considered this to be irrelevant outside of manufacturing, I
considered the operational environment of my company’s theme parks,
resorts and cruise ships. This concept of using each employee’s time
most wisely, guarding against soldiering, is certainly applicable to
delivering a standardized experience of quality, as the linear of nature
of manufacturing work is not too far removed from the queues for
attractions, food & beverage locations or hotel check-ins.
Similar
in impersonality was Weber’s pursuit of an ideal bureaucracy.
Particularly the concepts of division of labor and managerial hierarchy
(Wren & Bedeian, 2009, p. 231) had application in my personal
experience, as when viewed through the lens of efficiency above all,
clearly-defined roles not only keep a work group on task, they enhance
each employee’s focus. This focus is particularly key as our company has
made an uncompromising position on employee and guest safety. Without
clearly-defined roles and hierarchy, an environment where each employee
can focus on doing one job safely and well would be a near
impossibility.
What most intrigued me, though, were the concepts
of Fayol; particularly the balance of control and input needed for
successful management.
Parker & Ritson (2005) articulated this
concept of balance and Fayol’s thoughts on the matter, suggesting that
“for Fayol, the ideal manager appears to be one who guarantees the
operational integrity of decision-making, goal-setting and planning
processes by asserting his or her authority whenever needed, whilst
retaining the capacity to motivate his or her subordinates by trusting
their capacity for initiative” (p. 187).
Along with advancing the
need for management education, I was also taken by Fayol’s emphasis on
esprit de corps, that there is a need for thoughtful consideration to
employees’ cohesion and well-being. For one of the businesses I support,
we recently staged a small but successful event where our senior
leaders spoke of their gratitude to our team for the work they put in
launching major new initiatives for the business, so it was heartening
to see that this type of “team bonding” has a more philosophical root.
I
look forward to hearing my classmates’ thoughts on these scholars and
their theories, as well as how they apply in our diverse roles and
industries.
Morgan, G. (1998). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Saga Publishing.
Parker,
L.D., & Ritson, P.A. (2005) Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating
Contemporary Management. British Journal of Management, 16, 175-194.
doi:1 0.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00453.x
Wren, D.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought
(6th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
By Nik
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting to see these early scholars begin to tackle morale early on in the management conversation? It makes me wonder where they were on the spectrum of doing it for profitability or for humanistic reasons. What do you think the sincerity level of Fayol and others was?
Nice post, Brian. Nik brings up an interesting point. Do you think these early scholars were only worried about employees' well-being to the extent that it affected the company's profit margins? What about in modern organizations?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the spectrum of humanism vs. profitability, I think they were squarely in the middle, that the well-being could never come at the expense of profits or vice versa. They could clearly recognize the opportunities to increase profitability (Taylor in particular, having a list of companies on his resume a modern consultant would envy), but they could also see that the only way to do this was with employee motivation and effective organizational design. In modern organizations, I think this has tilted more toward employee well-being, but mostly due to the fact that emotional well-being is more important to "knowledge jobs" than physical well-being for "factory jobs."
DeleteAndew, I also found Fayol's views on on esprit de corps to be quite prescient, particularly as employee morale poses a serious threat to productivity and loyalty. Your personal example of senior managers' publicly thanking the team is very encouraging and I am interested in learning more about rewards and incentives in this and other courses.
ReplyDeleteThe complete opposite of the old "beatings will continue until morale improves" philosophy! Maybe miserable workers that work efficiently and effectively do exist, but I've never met one. It's amazing what a sense of team spirit and knowing that you have bosses that respect and appreciate you will do!
DeleteHi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteHi Andrew,
You seem to have read that Taylor thought of as employees as pieces of machinery as I did. I read his theory, especially on staffing, to be as basic as fitting a round peg in a round hole. With you mentioning the variety of work that can be done for a company as large as Disney, I wonder how he would fill those holes and define those roles for staffing? You could work in the marketing department on something for a cruise ship in Florida and an amusement park outside of Paris (is that still open?) all from a Blackberry on a university campus in Los Angeles. I'd like to know how he would adapt this theories to present-day technologies.
Interesting point, Justin. I think Taylor would likely see the advent of mobile technology as an accelerator for staffing - being able to more easily match the skills of the right employee (or Cast Member in Disney-speak) to the work needed, regardless of location, just as you said.
ReplyDeleteOh and yes, Disneyland Paris is still going strong - just hit its 20th anniversary.