American Management: Reformation or Revolution? (original) (raw)

The rise and decline of managerial development

Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010

Alfred D. Chandler's work highlighted the complicated interplay between markets and firms, especially the arrangements created by firms to buffer and manage market forces. Arguably his most important work examines one aspect of firms, organizational structure, and how it changed in response to the competitive needs of growing businesses. Much the same approach can be applied to understanding other aspects of firms such as the structure of the most important jobs in corporations, executive positions, and how those positions have been filled over time. Here the interplay includes a different market, the labor market. The arguments that follow trace the evolution of executive roles from the early days of corporations, where executive jobs were largely shaped by the labor market, to internalized and bureaucratized arrangements consistent with the idea of an integrated "Chandlerian" firm after the 1950s, back to something much closer to the market-dominated approach following the 1982 recession. In large measure, the change seems driven by the different context that business faced and the interplay with labor markets that made internal development more difficult. The implications for the future of large-scale Chandlerian firms may be considerable.

Management in America

2013

Abstract: The Census Bureau recently conducted a survey of management practices in over 30,000 plants across the US, the first large-scale survey of management in America. Analyzing these data reveals several striking results. First, more structured management practices are tightly linked to better performance: establishments adopting more structured practices for performance monitoring, target setting and incentives enjoy greater productivity and profitability, higher rates of innovation and faster employment growth.

The evolution of management thought from past to present

The evolution of management thought from past to present, 2022

Management includes setting an organization's strategy and managing its employees' (or volunteers') activities to accomplish its objectives through the utilization of resources including cash, the environment, technology, and people. This secondary research paper is basically divided into five parts as, introduction to management, definitions of management, functions of management, the evolution of management thought and Japanese modern techniques of management. The outcomes of the research is fully comprised of secondary data which was obtained from the journal articles, web pages and E-books. The writer thinks, this research will be beneficial for any kind of organizational management, managers and workers in general. Key words – Management, Japanese techniques, Evolution, Functions

How Have We Evolved in the Management Field.docx

The key management theories that have developed over the years are the scientific theory, the administrative theory, the bureaucratic theory, the human relations theory, and finally the X&Y theory. The purpose of this paper is to determine the role of these theories and how they apply to the evolvement of the management field. Addressing the theories as a milestone to the period with which they were developed and how they were termed as relevant to that period creates a better understanding of the theories. This paper delves into the persons who developed the said theories and thus the role plaid by the theories in revolutionizing the management field.

Personnel management: the end of orthodoxy?

British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1991

). 적어도 20년 동안은 다원론자인 Donovan의 모델이 지배적인 Orthodoxy였으나 1980년대 HRM의 등장으로 논쟁의 대상이 됨. HRM의 등장이 진정한 변화인가 아니면 Donovan model의 확장인가에 대한 논쟁 이 있음. Ex)Metcalf(1989)는 1970년대의 제안들이 실행되어 비로소 1980년대에 그 효 과가 영국의 일터에 나타나는 것일 뿐이라 주장. 어떠한 변화가 일어났고, 그 변화에 대한 논쟁을 위해 HRM과 전통적인 Personnel management를 구별해보아야 한다. 2-1. HRM vs. Personnel Management (1) Legge는 HRM과 PM의 구별을 위해 3가지 특징들을 구분. ①PM은 비관리자에 초점을 맞춘 활동인 반면 HRM은 관리자를 보다 많이 고려 ②HRM은 통합된 line관리활동이고 PM은 line관리에 영향을 주고자 함. ③HRM은 고위경영진의 문화관리의 중요성을 강조하는 반면 PM은 organization development와 related unitarist에 의심을 품음. (2) 보다 정확한 구분을 위해서 사회학과 심리하의 조직내 통제에 관한 이론들을 사용할 수 있는데 Walton은 'control'과 'commitment'로 구분하고 있지만 두 가지 모두 통제의 형식이기 이므로 'compliance'와 'commitment'로 구분하는 것이 합당. PM은 통제의 'complianced-system'에 근접, HRM은 'commitment'에 연결됨. Figure 1. Alternative assumption and beliefs underlying HRM ▶HRM은 PM에 비해 보다 중앙집권적이고 고위관리자들에서 비롯되는 전략행동. ▶Hendry and Pettigrew(1986)은 학자들이 HRM전략을 논하는 방법을 4가지 로 구분 ①Planning의 사용 ②employment policy과의 일관성 ③explicit business strategy와의 조화 ④경쟁우위를 얻기 위한 전략적 자원으로서의 인간관  HRM의 특징은 사업부 전략과의 연결을 중요시하는 것이다. 2-2. Is HRM now considered more strategically at board level? ▶Cranfield/Price Water House Survey data: board level에서 상당수의 기업들 이 인사담당이사를 두고 관련문제를 다루고 있고 인사전략에 기업전략에 인사 전략이 고려되고 있다고 조사. ▶그러나 인사담당이사의 영향력이나 어떠한 일을 하는지 말하는 것은 아니며 전 략의 실행에 관한 구체적인 내용은 없는 상황. ▶기업들이 mission statements를 많이 사용하고 있는 정황도 조직차원에서 인 사에 관심을 가진다는 의도뿐 구체적인 실행전략이 없는 lip service 차원.  빈약한 증거들을 나열해 단순히 전략일 것이다라는 가정만 할 뿐이다. 2-3. Are Organizations pursuing HRM goals? (1) Commitment  HRM의 핵심이지만, commitment의 선행, 결과요인에 대한 연구는 매우 적다. [일반적인 가정] Employee involvement Organizational Commitment↑ enhancing motivation, performance.

The Story of a Century of Management One Hundred Years of Management The Human Side of Management

Employees of a certain age have known different styles and management systems, and various slogans: total quality, teamwork, knowledge management ... Many of us have even experienced times when the initiatives of subordinates were not well received by their bosses. Back then there was no great difficulty in changing jobs and some young people left one company in search of another that was more open to their participation and development. Company management has certainly evolved considerably in recent decades and even more so if we go back to the beginning of the 20th century. Behind the postulated constant learning as an individual or a group, are the technological advances and the new methods and tools but above all we find the growing weight of people in organizations. Already in the 21st century, the changes seem to point to an organizational model that thrives on learning and the committed contribution of its people, and focuses on integrative democratization.