I think that the benefits and drawbacks of the Scientific Management Theory (SMT) and the Behavioral Theory (BT) are reflective of one another. SMT provides a basis for making careful and reasonable decisions, maintaining order, and reacting to events, but it focuses on employees’ work while disregarding their personalities and needs. In comparison, BT acknowledges the significance of human endeavor and considers interpersonal relationships but does not drive staff members toward better results (Luft, 2014). Therefore, BT and SMT offer opposite advantages, with each approach lacking what the other presents.
When assessing SMT and BT, I believe the latter would perform best in today’s workforce. SMT originated with Frederick Taylor, who conducted experiments and, shortly before his demise, realized that workers’ actions and motivation were necessary for better outcomes (Anderson, 2014; Luft, 2014). While BT has some deficiencies, the theory recognizes the role of employees and group effort, which appears to be missing in SMT (Luft, 2014). Consequently, BT seems to be more suited for the modern work environment due to emphasizing one element that the facilitator of SMT used to overlook but has acknowledged to be significant for improved results overall.
Reevaluating Early Management Thinkers and Their Impact
Some other ideas I have about the early designers of management concern the rationales behind their perspectives. For example, it would be insightful to learn more about Adam Smith’s position as an initial contributor to the field, mainly his focus on the division of labor (Luft, 2014). Moreover, it is interesting to know why Frederick Taylor continued his experiments despite the antagonism created within the personnel (Anderson, 2014). Management has been designed by the effort of many individuals whose experiences should be further examined.
Understanding the Hawthorne Effect and Its Implications in Management
I think the Hawthorn Effect (HE) has a fascinating premise but should not be relied upon when judging people’s work. The idea that employees’ productivity changes if they assume that supervisors are observing them appears reasonable, as striving to perform better in front of one’s superior seems natural. Nonetheless, the fact that a recent study discovered deficiencies in the findings of HE suggests that HE may not be trustworthy (CFI Team, 2023). Accordingly, I think that HE is intriguing, but employers should not consider it when evaluating staff member’s work.
References
Anderson, M. (2014). Scientific management. In B. S. Kaliski (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business and finance (3rd ed., pp. 664-666). Gale.
CFI Team. (2023). Hawthorne effect. CFI Education. Web.
Luft, R. L. (2014). Management: Historical perspectives. In B. S. Kaliski (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business and finance (3rded., pp. 496-498). Gale.
Loading...
