Developing Management Theories And The Value Of Management History

MANAGEMENT HISTORY Abdulrahman Aluhmaidi

Developing Management Theories and the Value of Management History

Introduction

There is growing need to reexamine the historical development of the concepts of management and their practices with the purpose of informing the present and prepare the management for the future. While a lot was done by researchers in management in developing concepts, theories and practice of management, there is growing concern in how the past theories, practices and literature is being used in the contemporary practice and research on management. From the time of corporate turnaround in the days of such theorists and practitioners like Fayol and others, there is steady weakening of the link. An examination of research journals show that many theorists I management are expressing concern and share the need to reexamine the historical proposals in management and determine any relevance they have with contemporary business and corporate situation. We examine six of such articles through this bibliographic dissection.

Heames, J.T. & Breland, J.W. (2010). Management pioneer contributors: 30-year review.

Journal of Management History.16( 4). Pp. 427-436.

Heames and Breland (2010) make an extension of the work done by Wren (2001) on the literature written about management pioneers. This article upholds the value of history as a backup to information search in research. By revisiting the history of management, the authors seek to keep the contribution of the pioneers firmly among the annals of academic institutions.

There is an argument that when a research cites a pioneer’s work, the same work gets new life and can be useful in newer researches. From this article, we see the importance of historical information in formulating and proposing new tools of management in the modern world.

1 MANAGEMENT HISTORY Abdulrahman Alhumaidi

Lamond, D. (2005). On the value of management history. Management Decision. 43(10). Pp.

1273-1281.

In this journal article, Lamond (2005) emphasizes the value of management history in developing new theories of management and management practices. Management history acts as an active contributor to the present and can then be used to inform the future. Such history is shown here as a tool to handle impartiality and errors in generating knowledge. He quotes

Santayana of The Life of Reason that: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. He, therefore, argues that the past thinkers and scholars cannot be thought of as obsolete because their critical thinking and empirical work continue to inform the proposals being made in the management fraternity and scholars today. In all these, he helps to show the value of a researcher in management knowing, with accuracy, the past development of management and its history through searching what other scholars have done. This establishes the need for scholars in management to be a community that is in constant interaction to ensure consistency in the development of management as a career and skill.

Parker, L.D. & Ritson, P.A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary

Management. British Journal of Management. Vol. 16. Pp. 175-194.

The assessment in this article opens up the mind of scholars to the need to critically assess the precepts, theories and assumptions of the founding fathers of management. We find a criticism against generalization of the historical figures of the knowledge of management. He uses Fayol as an example of the historical generators of the theories of management whom the scholars of management tend to limit their contribution in today’s management theories.

According to him, this is more than the classical management precepts but rather a “more complex and multidimensional” approach to management skill and knowledge development.

The study undermines the reference to such noble contribution among the traditional portrayal of classical management. He, further, helps in revealing the traces of ideas and principles that gave a forecast of the dynamics of human relations movement. Another concept borrowing from the history of Fayol’s thinking is the contingency theory that is systems-based and has led t what can be seen I today’s management as involvement of employees in decision making process.

Parker, L.D. & Ritson, P. (2005). Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and

Follett today. Management Decision. 43(10). Pp. 1335-1357.

By examining the management fads and the stereotyping phenomenon in historical practitioners and thinkers in management, the authors argue that “stereotyping contributes to the existence of this guru-fad phenomenon”. They further argue that the influence imposed by other gurus and fads in the management field (Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scientific Management and

Elton Mayo's Human Relations Movement) led to a stereotyped perception of both the Follett and Fayol's propositions. In this way, it is argued here that, they have managed to prevent an accurate appraisal of the views of Follett and Fayol. Through the dissection of Follett and

Fayol’s characteristics and views, this paper offers us with the insight into the features of management fads and its companion, the stereotyping phenomenon. This opens up a new chance to re-examine the works by the historical management researchers and thinkers with the aim of contributing to the contemporary practitioner of management.

Smith, I. & Boyns T. (2005). British management theory and practice: The impact of

Fayol’s, Management Decision. 43(10). Pp. 1317-1334.

The British management theory and practice is seen here as one of the contemporary management that borrows from the value of management history. According to the authors of the article, it is a link between the scientific management theory and the practice of the theory in

3 MANAGEMENT HISTORY Abdulrahman Alhumaidi management. Fayol is seen here as one of the theorists and practitioners of the scientific management theory developed initially by Taylor. The article, therefore, exposes us to the impact the thoughts, practice and ideas of such a management historian had on the management of the

British system. The authors here passionately argue that “while Fayol's theoretical influence has stood the test of time, his impact on practice was much more limited”. The argument in this paper arouses the curiosity to understand the factors or reasons that made the ideas from history to be limited. This article is, therefore, an assessment of the past contributions in management theory and practice on the contemporary applications in later researches, theory and practice.

This may offer the ground for the proposal for future research by theorists and practitioners of management and business practice.

Wren, D.A. (2001). Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround.

Management Decision. 39(6). Pp. 475-487.

The author examines the coming around of the phenomenon of corporate turnaround.

This had been experienced in the past and practiced in the days of Fayol. The author argues that this needs not come to the contemporary theorist as a surprise because it happened at one time in history of management. He shows that lacking the link between the theories developed earlier and the contemporary theories may result in management failure. This is a case of how corporate decisions made by the management could make a difference between the success and failure of corporations. It is shown here that losing sight of the past theories, practices and experiences can lead to repetition of the past. This includes repetition of failures of corporations even if they have performed well. It can be seen that the author founds the success of corporations on solid relationship the management decisions has with past experiences and theories. Such success should use the past to handle the present and point to the future prospects with sustainability.

Conclusion

The articles examined here bear a common consensus on the need to reexamine the value in the theories and practices of past management theorists and practitioners. A lot of emphasis is laid on Fayol as a theorist and practitioner. Using him as an example has relevance because of the possible similarity of the times he lived to theorize and practice management. The concern about the scientific management theory has been explored either passively or actively by these authors as one of the platforms Fayola built his theories. The perception about this theory has been observed by some of the authors examined as a possible reason the views of Fayola have had a limited impact in management. This recognizes the possible ignorance of the potential unspoken views by historical management theorists may have in the contemporary business systems globally. The British management system is identified as one pointer at the potential of improving the management theories and practice through creation of a link between the past and the present experiences in management.