Introduction
As discussed in the Competing Values Framework (CVF), the notion of management has evolved through distinctive phases to the current management practices. Companies in today’s exceedingly volatile business atmosphere require new, cutting-edge approaches to accounting and bookkeeping. Consequently, organizations no longer consider management an independent role but a key component that may help them achieve their goals. There were three dominant methods of management in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: scientific management (1880s), bureaucracy (1940), and administrative management (1960s) (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2022). In the 1950s and 1960s, several of these theories were first proposed, and they still strongly influence today’s management circles. A contemporary management approach prioritizes employee satisfaction; according to this view, employees are not motivated merely by a desire to make money. This is not to say that employees work for nothing, but that they are inspired by a desire to know that their efforts are valued above all else. Traditional/ classical management theory promotes creating multiple levels of personnel to achieve maximum efficiency.
Comparison
When it comes to organizational structure, hierarchy, discipline, and organization, the traditional managerial style is more like that of the military. A direct line of authority was required, and followers were not allowed to dispute management’s instructions. The ability is obtained from the influence of the position in traditional management systems; therefore, soft skills are not required. The military, countries like China, India, Japan, and certain European companies continue to use this management technique. Instead of dragging the team along, the contemporary style of management is mainly based on soft skills, for example, listening, interactions, communication, and consensus-building. Managers in this situation frequently lack the authority to penalize employees who disobey their orders (Simpson and den Hond, 2022). In the contemporary management approach, managers’ powers are obtained from those they oversee, and the people they control transfer these influences over willingly to their management.
The traditional management model is centered on objectives, individual skills, and a strict level of supervision. Extrinsic incentive, such as dread of reprimand and fear of missing a reward, is often used by supervisors who utilize this management style. This type of organization is efficient and bureaucratic; there is a lot of competition among departments and individuals since their aims are not always coordinated (Simpson and den Hond, 2022). In contrast, the contemporary management method is built on openness, collaboration, and mutual trust. As a manager, one can use the inner drive of mastery, independence, and purpose to motivate the team members. There is a lot of discussion and learning in these groups, which are often inventive and creative.
Conclusion
Attributable to shifting organizational structures, management practices from the 1880s have evolved dramatically. For example, traditional forms include many management levels, so decisions are made at the top. On the other side, contemporary systems are more horizontal, with fewer layers of hierarchy, and hence emphasize teamwork. When the majority decides, it is difficult to use traditional management methods that display power in making decisions. Some firms, however, continue to apply traditional management methods while adapting to contemporary ways in today’s dynamic global market. Despite their differences, both management methods can be effective in certain situations.
Reference List
Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J. (2022) Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots: the basics. 6th edn. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Simpson, B. and den Hond, F. (2022) ‘The contemporary resonances of classical pragmatism for studying organization and organizing’, Organization Studies, 43(1), pp. 127-146.