After learning about Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber’s methods for management, I couldn’t help but relate their theories to personal experience.
I have worked for a variety of companies in different industries. A number of my previous positions have been as entrance level jobs, whereas a few others have been companies I’ve launched singlehandedly. By no means do I think I know everything about managing a company from top-to-bottom, but I do have experience with management from both sides of the spectrum.
I can relate to the men the assignment is centered around because they focused their energy on making the group, as a whole, stronger through organized and well-thought management. The management wasn’t solely based on getting better results out of the workers for the betterment of the company fiscally. No, quality management was believed to be the realization from everyone involved that everyone mattered.
Over the years, I’ve implemented, unbeknownst to me, managerial skills developed by Taylor, Fayol, and Weber. I definitely think Fayol’s methods have a stronghold on me. Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management are strong twofold. 1. He declared that they are not rigid and are completely malleable for use in multiple situations should they arise. 2. The principles are still relevant today. His ninth principle, the Scalar Chain, is relevant to me because it involves strong communication between the entire organization, top-to-bottom.
I have struggled with interns who have worked for me because I didn’t know how to communicate with them. I often thought my advice was helpful, but I rarely saw positive changes until I started to see the situation from their point of view. One situation in particular included me reversing my decision to fire an intern to promoting the individual to a higher position. Promoting the individual not only showed Fayol’s eleventh principle of Equity, but it also gave the intern a sense of self-worth. In reality, there wasn’t an actual promotion, but the mere thought that he was doing a great job made him want to achieve more for the team as a group. I used the promotion as a positive reinforcement tool.
The promotion also proved that I had the authority to promote, demote, or fire. I had established what Weber referred to as Managerial Hierarchy. Managerial Hierarchy is akin to Fayol’s Scalar Chain because they establish positions of authority. That is a prime example of the advantages of Weber’s Bureaucracy. However, I’ve witnessed the disadvantages from the bottom of the Managerial Hierarchy.
Being a figure of authority is one thing, but being in a position where it’s difficult to get your opinion across is deterring. I once worked for a company as a sales associate. I had strict rules to only cold call people on a list, which had been given to me. The main objective was to sell magazine subscriptions to named individuals within a certain zip code and minimum household income. (I know, what a horrible job. But I only worked there for less than a month) I bypassed the rules and simply sold a large amount of subscriptions to one member of my family. The authority figure, at that time, didn’t appreciate my work. He failed to see my craftiness and subjected me to the rules I should have followed. He cared about the rules so much so that he failed to see how well I actually did.
Ultimately, the relationship between my boss and me didn’t work out due to dissatisfaction from both parts. According to Taylor, both sides of the managerial relationship should be satisfied. I enjoyed learning about these three men and I actually use their method of thinking today. A lot of their management ideals are alive and well in the workforce.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Integrating Taylor, Fayol, and Weber’s Philosophies with my Work Experience
After learning about Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber’s methods for management, I couldn’t help but relate their theories to personal experience.
I have worked for a variety of companies in different industries. A number of my previous positions have been as entrance level jobs, whereas a few others have been companies I’ve launched singlehandedly. By no means do I think I know everything about managing a company from top-to-bottom, but I do have experience with management from both sides of the spectrum.
I can relate to the men the assignment is centered around because they focused their energy on making the group, as a whole, stronger through organized and well-thought management. The management wasn’t solely based on getting better results out of the workers for the betterment of the company fiscally. No, quality management was believed to be the realization from everyone involved that everyone mattered.
Over the years, I’ve implemented, unbeknownst to me, managerial skills developed by Taylor, Fayol, and Weber. I definitely think Fayol’s methods have a stronghold on me. Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management are strong twofold. 1. He declared that they are not rigid and are completely malleable for use in multiple situations should they arise. 2. The principles are still relevant today. His ninth principle, the Scalar Chain, is relevant to me because it involves strong communication between the entire organization, top-to-bottom.
I have struggled with interns who have worked for me because I didn’t know how to communicate with them. I often thought my advice was helpful, but I rarely saw positive changes until I started to see the situation from their point of view. One situation in particular included me reversing my decision to fire an intern to promoting the individual to a higher position. Promoting the individual not only showed Fayol’s eleventh principle of Equity, but it also gave the intern a sense of self-worth. In reality, there wasn’t an actual promotion, but the mere thought that he was doing a great job made him want to achieve more for the team as a group. I used the promotion as a positive reinforcement tool.
The promotion also proved that I had the authority to promote, demote, or fire. I had established what Weber referred to as Managerial Hierarchy. Managerial Hierarchy is akin to Fayol’s Scalar Chain because they establish positions of authority. That is a prime example of the advantages of Weber’s Bureaucracy. However, I’ve witnessed the disadvantages from the bottom of the Managerial Hierarchy.
Being a figure of authority is one thing, but being in a position where it’s difficult to get your opinion across is deterring. I once worked for a company as a sales associate. I had strict rules to only cold call people on a list, which had been given to me. The main objective was to sell magazine subscriptions to named individuals within a certain zip code and minimum household income. (I know, what a horrible job. But I only worked there for less than a month) I bypassed the rules and simply sold a large amount of subscriptions to one member of my family. The authority figure, at that time, didn’t appreciate my work. He failed to see my craftiness and subjected me to the rules I should have followed. He cared about the rules so much so that he failed to see how well I actually did.
Ultimately, the relationship between my boss and me didn’t work out due to dissatisfaction from both parts. According to Taylor, both sides of the managerial relationship should be satisfied. I enjoyed learning about these three men and I actually use their method of thinking today. A lot of their management ideals are alive and well in the workforce.
I have worked for a variety of companies in different industries. A number of my previous positions have been as entrance level jobs, whereas a few others have been companies I’ve launched singlehandedly. By no means do I think I know everything about managing a company from top-to-bottom, but I do have experience with management from both sides of the spectrum.
I can relate to the men the assignment is centered around because they focused their energy on making the group, as a whole, stronger through organized and well-thought management. The management wasn’t solely based on getting better results out of the workers for the betterment of the company fiscally. No, quality management was believed to be the realization from everyone involved that everyone mattered.
Over the years, I’ve implemented, unbeknownst to me, managerial skills developed by Taylor, Fayol, and Weber. I definitely think Fayol’s methods have a stronghold on me. Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management are strong twofold. 1. He declared that they are not rigid and are completely malleable for use in multiple situations should they arise. 2. The principles are still relevant today. His ninth principle, the Scalar Chain, is relevant to me because it involves strong communication between the entire organization, top-to-bottom.
I have struggled with interns who have worked for me because I didn’t know how to communicate with them. I often thought my advice was helpful, but I rarely saw positive changes until I started to see the situation from their point of view. One situation in particular included me reversing my decision to fire an intern to promoting the individual to a higher position. Promoting the individual not only showed Fayol’s eleventh principle of Equity, but it also gave the intern a sense of self-worth. In reality, there wasn’t an actual promotion, but the mere thought that he was doing a great job made him want to achieve more for the team as a group. I used the promotion as a positive reinforcement tool.
The promotion also proved that I had the authority to promote, demote, or fire. I had established what Weber referred to as Managerial Hierarchy. Managerial Hierarchy is akin to Fayol’s Scalar Chain because they establish positions of authority. That is a prime example of the advantages of Weber’s Bureaucracy. However, I’ve witnessed the disadvantages from the bottom of the Managerial Hierarchy.
Being a figure of authority is one thing, but being in a position where it’s difficult to get your opinion across is deterring. I once worked for a company as a sales associate. I had strict rules to only cold call people on a list, which had been given to me. The main objective was to sell magazine subscriptions to named individuals within a certain zip code and minimum household income. (I know, what a horrible job. But I only worked there for less than a month) I bypassed the rules and simply sold a large amount of subscriptions to one member of my family. The authority figure, at that time, didn’t appreciate my work. He failed to see my craftiness and subjected me to the rules I should have followed. He cared about the rules so much so that he failed to see how well I actually did.
Ultimately, the relationship between my boss and me didn’t work out due to dissatisfaction from both parts. According to Taylor, both sides of the managerial relationship should be satisfied. I enjoyed learning about these three men and I actually use their method of thinking today. A lot of their management ideals are alive and well in the workforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)