Fluent Essays

Im attaching the chapter bewlo. Please read it and do the followingChapter Reaction Paper PromptA 400-500 word reaction paper will demonstrate that you have critically read, analyzed, processed, and critiqued the chapter for class discussion. Your writing will show your full engagement with the content of the chapter. You should focus your writing on one section, theory, or concept in the chapter to demonstrate both your knowledge of the content and your ability to apply it to organizational communication. Chapter Reaction Papers should follow APA stylistic guidelines and are required to be submitted by the end of the instructional module covering the chapter(s) you choose. chapter_2.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Introduction: In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Industrial Revolution exerted profound changes on soci- ety. In America, this revolution was in full swing. Society fairly rapidly moved from an agrarian and artisan environ- ment, where individuals or small groups of skilled workers produced goods, to manufacturing processes involving the widespread use of machinery and division of labor in both farming and the production of goods in factories. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, changes in both the management and communication of workers became necessary, as organizational structure adapted to follow the new function and flow of mass-production work. As factories became more prominent, rapidly increasing levels of organizational bureaucracy and hier- archy had profound and disruptive social and economic implications. In this chapter, we will look at a number of theories that gained prominence during this period of substantial change in industrial expansion, organization, and communication. Classical theorists such as Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Mary Parker Follett had a tremendous impact on the way industry under- stood and practiced organizing and communicating to more efficiently and effectively complete tasks. CASE STUDY: iPhones and Suicide Nets? In 2010, at a Foxconn plant in Shenzhen, China, nine factory workers committed suicide, leaping to their deaths from an iPod and iPhone supply-chain production facility over a three-month span. In 2012, 150 workers at the same facility threatened to do the same thing. Workers complained of overly strict management (with workers forced to remain standing for their entire shift), extraordinarily long work shifts (up to twelve hours per day, six days a week), dangerous working conditions (alleged exposure to toxic chemicals), horrible living conditions (cramped dorms with an average of seven room- mates), boring and repetitive job tasks, and low pay ($1.78 per hour). Workers believed that if they complained, they would be fired and face no future job prospects. One of Foxconn’s responses was to install nets to physically catch any workers who attempted to commit suicide at the plant. What do you think of Foxconn’s approach to its suicide problem? In 2012, Apple reported over $13 billion in profits. Is this fact relevant to any discussion of a solution? Does Foxconn’s approach pose any ethical issues or concerns? In this chapter, we study classical approaches and debates about management and organizational structure. This has relevance today, as emerging economies struggle through their own industrial revolutions and as workers in industrial- ized countries confront a more mobile—yet less stable and secure— employment environment. FREDERICK TAYLOR We begin our study with Frederick Taylor, the pioneer of thought in regard to organizational efficiency and management. Taylor (1856–1915) was an American me- chanical engineer and management consultant who de- veloped a system of management in an effort to improve industrial efficiency and is generally regarded as the father of scientific management. Taylor believed there should be a distinction between the mental activity of planning the work to be done and the physical activity/ manual labor of executing that plan of work. Planning and administration were the purview of managers, and optimized labor efficiency and skill development both the responsibility and goal of workers. Taylor’s system was explained in his book The Principles of Scientific Management (Taylor, 1911). Taylor recognized that the “best” way to do things (prior to scientific management) had been handed down over the years by instruction and observation, but as a result, many best practices had developed for any given task. Taylor believed that using science to determine which of these were, in reality, the most efficient and effective means of completing a given task was the app- roach organizations should follow. Furthermore, Taylor believed that past management approaches had resulted in managers and workers viewing each other as enemies competing for their share of the organization’s profits. Labor wanted profits to go to increased wages, whereas managers would view labor as a source of cost that should be minimized. Taylor argued that this resulted in a situation of dis- trust between management and workers, whereby work- ers would do the least amount of work possible (working slowly), while seeking to demonstrate to their superiors that they were giving the most (working fast). Taylor be- lieved his system would help to correct this “soldiering” or slow work. Incentives were necessary (quick promotion, higher pay, bonuses, shorter hours, better working condi- tions, etc.), but Taylor suggested that incentives were only one subordinate piece of a good management system. Under his scientific management system, managers as- sumed new duties. Taylor was convinced that developing a science in the workplace, one that established rules and laws by systematically recording and indexing best practices, could replace the haphazard judgment of the individual worker. His system also called for a room or office in which the planner might maintain a desk and his books, records, and other information, thus providing a foundation for organizational “administration.” Probably the most important and well-known element of the sci- entific management approach is the idea of a task. Management was ex- pected to fully plan out the work of every worker ahead of time. Taylor demonstrated this idea at the Bethlehem Steel Company through the process of handling pig iron. His plan increased the rate of pig iron moved by each man from 12.5 to 47 tons per day. This decreased the Key Point: Scientific management espoused both a distinct separation of labor between management and workers, but also worker– management cooperation. At times in his writings, Taylor exhibited low regard for the mental capacity of a typical worker. The basic tenant of the scientific management approach was that employees were not highly educated and therefore would be unable to perform any but the simplest tasks. Taylor essentially suggested that production efficiency in a shop or factory could be greatly enhanced by elimination of wasted time and motion in a worker’s performance of tasks. Applications of Taylor’s ap­ proach in the workplace were often one-sided, however. Organizations’ 16 CHAPTER 2 Classical Approaches and Organizational Structure number of yard laborers required from between 400 to 600 to 140. The average number of tons per man per day increased from 16 to 59. Earnings per man per day increased from $1.15 to $1.88, and the average cost of handling a ton of 2,240 pounds went from $0.072 to $0.033 (Taylor, 1998). Thus, Taylor’s system involved the systematic development of a scientific method through processes such as time and motion studies that allowed manage- ment to select workers and train them for each job. He believed that laborers did what any healthy laborer could do with the proper system and training. Pay was increased to a fair wage, but workers were not overcompensated. It was the science behind the work, not just the worker’s initiative, that allowed for increased produc­ tivity. The proper rate of pay in the Bethlehem Steel case was determined by careful experiments to identify what compensation was in the workers’ true best interest based on their contribution when all factors were considered (Taylor, 1998, p. 121). For Taylor, then, there was a best way to do any job, and it was the job of managers and science to figure this out. It was also important for managers to find the proper fit between worker and job and to train the workers appropriately. And, importantly, for Taylor’s system, there is a clear distinction between management and workers. embrace of only select elements of scientific management, such as time-motion stud- ies, optimized worker productivity, and enhanced supervision of workers, provoked resentment and opposition on the part of labor unions that pointed to a dehuman- ized work environment, a profound lack of appreciation for worker contributions, and inequity in the division of profits. Such developments frustrated Taylor as well, as his theory called for a mental revolution on the part of both sides—management and workers—in working cooperatively to enhance profitability and in equitably sharing any scientifically derived improved surplus. Despite these conflicts, the value of scientific management in rationalizing pro- duction was indisputable and its impact on the development of mass-production techniques immense. Thompson (1974) suggested the scientific approach always raised wages for a majority of employees without any trace of injury to health or increase of accidents. Thompson also indicated that under such a system, employees were more loyal, more sober (immoderate drinkers were not able to keep up with the workload!), and more quickly promoted. Thus, Thompson argued that Taylor’s system did not dehumanize the worker. Indeed, Taylor would insist that if you found the right job for a worker, paid him what he was worth given his skills, and also paid him well for any increased output (resulting from enhanced profit from worker‒management cooperation), labor unions would be unnecessary. MAX WEBER Max Weber (1864–1920) was a German sociologist and political economist. While he was a contemporary of Taylor (and Fayol and Follett, whom we will discuss later on), all these other theorists likely did not know of his work during their lifetime. Stewart R. Clegg writes, “While he wrestled with questions of rationality and came up with an analysis that far exceeded the insights of early 20th-century management scholars, as he had published them only in German, few English writers knew of his work” (Clegg, 2005, p. 528). It wasn’t until the 1940s that his works were introduced to the United States when they were translated into English (Weber, 1946, 1947). His impact on the workplace is primarily the result of his bureaucratic theory or the legal-rational model. Weber did not offer a particular prescrip- tion for managers but instead his understanding of the characteristics of an ideal type of organization. Weber described three basic types of authority: charismatic (based on a leader’s personal qualities); traditional (based on tradition and powers of control as they have been handed down in the past); and legal (a rational, coherent system). Weber encouraged a rational­legal approach in his bureaucratic model: “Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge” (Weber, 1947, p. 339). The main principles of Weber’s model included a clearly defined hierarchy, division of labor or specialized roles (including a separation of personal and work life), a firmly established chain of command, adherence to a strict set of rules, re- cruitment based on merit, a uniform system of promotion, and emphasis on em- ployment as a career. You might recognize many of these characteristics as elements that we take for granted in our contemporary workplace. It answers the questions of organizational structure, including “What is the basis for our organizational ac­ tions?” “What am I supposed to do at work?” “To whom am I supposed to report or go to if I have an issue?” Weber saw bureaucracy not nec- essarily as the only way, but as the most efficient and techni- cally superior way to operate. Weber’s bureaucratic model is an impersonal system that relies on rationality and a highly formalized system of rules. “The dominant norms are concepts of straightforward duty without regard to personal considerations” (Weber, 1947, p. 340). Weber’s position is that “the development of bureau­ cracy greatly favours the leveling of social classes and this can be shown historically to be the normal tendency” (p. 340). Among the criticisms is that bureaucracy can lead to excessive rule-following, lower levels of creativity, flexibility in adapting to rapidly changing industry competition, and overspecialization in work tasks, leading to employee boredom, dissatisfac- tion, and reduced motivation and performance. And perhaps as in the case study “iPhones and Suicide Nets?”, excessive bu­ reaucracy can lead to worker alienation and despair. HENRI FAYOL Henri Fayol (1841–1925) was a French mining industri- alist in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who offered a comprehensive prescriptive theory for how organizations should be run. He proposed five primary functions of management and fourteen principles of man- agement. His functions of management include planning, organizing, commanding (or leading), controlling, and co- ordinating. His fourteen principles are: 1. Division of labor: specialization 2. Authority: entrusting managers with the right to give orders 3. Discipline: carrying out orders and instructions and trusting policies 4. Unity of command: employees taking orders from only one boss 5. Unity of direction: orders emanating from one superior 6. Subordination of individual interests to general interests: subordinates’ submission to the rules and direction established by their managers; climate in which the interests of the individual remain subordinate to those of the organization 7. Remuneration:paymentofafairwagetoworkers 8. Centralization:centralizeddecision-making 9. Scalarchain:lineofauthoritywithverticaldirectionofcommunication 10. Order: assignment of a specific place to every employee 11. Equity: kindliness and justice toward all 12. Stability of tenure of personnel: limited turnover and orderly planning to replace workers 13. Initiative: allowing employees to initiate and carry out plans, thus encouraging high levels of effort 14. Esprit de corps: unity of purpose Thus, an effective organization is highly structured, and every person in the organ- ization knows where he or she fits in. Fayol’s work may be viewed as strongly comple­ menting that of Weber on bureaucracy, by providing additional operational detail. Though the activities of managers have changed as organizational life has changed, Fayol’s theory of classical management continues to impact how basic management is taught. CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION By now, it should be clear that the view of theorists like Taylor, Weber, and Fayol em- phasized a machine metaphor in understanding the common worker. From this per- spective, communication was a tool to complete the task at hand. Managers focused on control, hierarchy, and division of labor, and communication was for getting the job done. Fayol’s principle calling for the subordination of the individual’s interest to the general interest of the organization, along with Taylor’s focus on the distinction between the mental activity of planning the work and the physical activity of doing it, meant that communication should be task-oriented. While there are a number of ways that communication can flow in an organization (vertically, up or down, diagonally, horizontally), in classical organizations communication was narrowly focused, spe- cific to the task at hand. Communication was also formalized with a vertical (down- ward) direction flow and usually written. Discussion between workers concerning better ways to complete a task was discouraged, as that was the job of the planner. Because there is “one best way” to do a task, the classical organization likely favored a written channel of communication (memos, manuals, instructions, hand- books, etc.). That is not to say that face-to-face communication would have been outright forbidden; the preference would simply have been a more formal, writ- ten form of communication. Such would also be consistent with the ideas of order inherent to, and rules of, the classical approach. The emphasis on hierarchy and chain of command would encourage this more formal style of communi- cation, emphasizing the use of full names and titles like supervisor or assistant coordinator instead of first names. MARY PARKER FOLLETT Mary Parker Follett (1868‒1933) was an American social worker and manage­ ment consultant. One might argue that including her work in a discussion of scientific/classical approaches to management is not appropriate because of her emphasis on the individual in groups and society, but her ideas were important to this period and served as a bridge to the human behavior approaches that later evolved from it. As noted by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Follett’s espousal of mutual problem solving foreshadows employee involvement, participative management, quality circles, and other team-based approaches to involving the workforce in di- agnosis, analysis, and solution finding” (Graham, 1995, p. xiii). Many in the early 1900s ignored Follett perhaps because her ideas were very different from the prevailing status quo approach to management in practice and strongly asserted by other theorists. Perhaps her critics didn’t want to hear what she was saying because she was a woman; there certainly were cultural issues related to gender at the time. Regardless, her work was very important and influential in management theory. In the introduction to Graham’s book of readings by Mary Parker Follett, Peter Drucker identifies her four postulates: 1. Use conflict to understand. 2. Management is not exclusive to business but the generic function of all organi-zations. In other words, business is a social, not economic, institution. 3. Management is a function. 4. Reinvent the citizen. (Graham, 1995, pp. 4–8) With regards to control, Parker indicates the need for a shared sense of control: The period of laissez-faire is indeed over, but I do not think we want to put in its place a forcibly controlled society, whether it be controlled by the state of the socialists or the experts of a planning board. The aim and the process of the organisation of government, of industry, of international relations, should be, I think, a control not imposed from without the regular functioning of society, but one which is a co-ordinating of all those functions, that is, a collective self-control. (Graham, 1995, pp. 225–226) This is not a concept included in Taylor, Weber, or Fayol’s approaches. Sharing control would not fit into their systems. Parker emphasizes group principles in the work environment, and that power derives from joining with others: The growing recognition of the group principle in the business world is particularly interesting to us. The present development of business methods shows us that the old argument about cooperation and competition is not fruitful. Cooperation and competition are being taken into a larger synthesis. We are just entering on an era of collective living. “Cut­throat” competition is beginning to go out of fashion. What the world needs today is a cooper- ative mind. The business world is never again to be directed by individual intelligences, but by intelligences interacting and ceaselessly influencing one another. (Graham, 1995, p. 233) Remember that Follett wrote these words in the 1920s. And although Taylor shared her views about enhanced cooperation within organizations, he did not foresee the potential power Follett insists will occur if the strict management‒worker role dichotomy and boundaries are crossed. The business assumptions under which Taylor, Weber, and Fayol were operating emphasized a rigid hierarchic system, keeping power in the hands of managers. Follett’s idea of the collective changes the machine metaphor: A man is a point in the social process rather than a unit in that process, a point where forming forces meet straightway to disentangle themselves and stream forth again. In the language of the day, man is a ... Purchase answer to see full attachment