The History of Management Thought

	The Beginning of Management
	It is highly probable that the management   process   first  began  in  the family organization, later  expand  to  the tribe, and  finally pervaded the formalized political  units  such as those found in early Babylonia. In these organization, a type of financial control  and  record keeping  was invented which usually took the form of clay tablets with inscriptions.
 	The  recognition  of   the concept  of   managerial   responsibility   was  clearly  evidenced   through   the  Code  of  Hammurabi.  Later  the   Egyptians   provided   us   with  one   of     the  first  examples  of   a  dispersed, decentralized  organization  with  little  or    no   control,   with    its  consequent   poor   end   results.  This   system   of  organization is, in fact, the  first recorded  instance.
	Instance of the  utilization of a  decentralized  form of organization  to manage  an empire, and illustrates the inherent weaknesses of this system which eventually  led   to   its demise.  The  Egyptian  skill  in  planning  and  organizing  the construction  of public edifices, however, is  evident in  their  pyramids  and  buildings. The Hebrews, too, made  their  contribution  to   organization theory and first illustrated  the  use  of the exception principle.
	The    ancient   Chinese  philosophers  were    the    first   to    recognize    the   need    for   methodological  means  of  employee  selection  and  staffing, which  they supplied  through their civil   service system. Throughout  these  early  civilization  we see evidences  time   and    again  of    the  early  recognition   of    the   principle   of  specialization,  noting   especially   in   the  writing  of   Mencius, its the application in such areas as divisions of  a trade, and hereditary trades.
	Perhaps  the  Greeks  more  than  any  other people  provide us with the most extensive documentation  of  management   principles   in  Xenophon’s  writing  about  the   universality   of   management, specialization, management  as  an  art,  employee selection,  delegation    of   authority,  and   motion   study. In  fact, these   and  other instances from  early   history  point   clearly   to    the “originality”  of  our  “modern”  managerial practices!  
	The Romans, as  we have seen, made  the same mistake  that  the  Egyptians made in the organization  of their  empire  on a  decentralized  basis  with  little  or  no control. But  civilizations  never   seem   to  learn  from  others’ mistakes,  and  during the  Middle  Ages   the   principle   of   decentralization  was again violated  in  the  feudal system of management, with the same ultimate demise. 
	Looking  at  the  entire  continuum  of  management thought  during  this  early period of history, we can conclude  that  management  was  strictly on a trial and error basis, with little or no theory and virtually no exchange  of  ideas  and practices. Perhaps inadequate records, poor communication, and failure to analyze the reason for nonsuccess lay behind this lack of profiting from  the  earlier  experiences  of  others.  Evidences  of  managerial  practices  clearly  indicate, however,  that  some  principles  of   management  were  recognized  in  these  early  times  and   communicated at least locally on a “how-to-do-it” basis. 
	In  general, it  appears  that  the  managerial  principles  employed  were  born  out  of  the  necessity   of   having  to  accomplish  goals,  and   these   principles  were “discovered” over and over again   by  numerous  individuals  in  history as they  went  attempting  to reach needed objectives.
Thus, in  these  early  times, management  thought  existed, but  only in  a  some what nebulous  and  unsophisticated   state. Management   as  a  separate process  was not  verbalized until Plato  and   Socrates. Even  then,  however,  the  principles  were  not  united  in    a   scheme   of    management    thought, nor   is   there  evidence   of   any  chronological building of  various managerial  techniques  upon  previously conceived ones.
	
	Management During The Medieval Period
	The  medieval  period  serves  as  a  bridge between antiquity and  the age  of awakening known as the Renaissance. Although organized  in a  feudal structure, man began to take significant  steps  in  his  thinking about organization and management.
Alfarabi  in  the 900’s   in      effect   set   forth  a  job  description  for  a  state ruler. In 1100, Ghazali  counseled  the  king  on  how  he  should act and the traits he should develop in order to be a good manager.
Venice, the  caldron  of   economic  exchange,  developed  early  forms   of   business enterprise, and her  arsenal  in  particular  gives  us  an  excellent  picture  of   the state of managerial awareness, thinking, and practices of the period.
	Sir Thomas More contributed  utopian  ideas  for  the  management  of an ideal society. Machiavelli, on  the other hand,  gave  us a clear insight into the machinations of young prince-mangers, and  distilled  the thinking of the time  into  four managerial principles:(1) reliance  on   managerial consent, (2) cohesiveness, (3) leadership, and  (4) will to survive.
	From the  view  point  of  management  thought, the period  is  not  especially noteworthy, but it is of interest  to the management  scholar because  it  affords insight into the first real system  of  managerial  practice  and  into  the  thinking  of  the  early management elite.
	
	A Managerial Awakening
	In   retrospect, the 1700’s were ripe for the introduction  of   an  improvement  in manufacturing techniques and the development of a new approach to  management.  The  industrial   revolution  brought  with   it   a  breakdown   in  the provincialism  of management   concepts, and   with   these  broadened  horizons,  managers  began  to  look  for  ways  to  improve  both manufacturing and management. 
	Two prime examples  of this  new approach to management are  found  in  the Bolton and Watt’s  Soho   Foundry  and   Robert  Owen’s  New  Lanark  Mill.  Here  for  all  to  see  was the embodiment   of  all  the  new  concepts of the time. And most important-the  ideas  were sound, the companies were successful, and profits  accrued. With   this  genesis of bold ideas, it  is  no  wonder  that   even  greater   strides   were  taken by  subsequent  leaders and  writers  who  applied  their own inventive genius to move from these early  attempts  into  an  era  presaging  the  advent  of  true scientific management. 
	
	Emergence of Management Literature
	In  reviewing  these  early  writings   about  management, we  note  one feature common to  most of  them: they  were  firm  oriented. Adam Smith and his successors centered their comments around   the   firm,  the  manager's  job  in  meeting  demand,  the   role   of   planning     to   achieve  economical   operations   as   well   as   supply customer demand, and  so  on. This, of course, is   not unexpected   in   an   emerging industrial economy. As  we  shall  see, however, the  emphasis  shifts  as  the economy matures.
	Early nineteenth century writers dealt pricipally with fundamentals. No unified theory of  management   was   developed,  but  they  did  recognize  and  understand  the  functions of  management, and often discussed many of management's  interesting  and  little-recognized aspects. The  important  fact  about   these  writers, is  not  what they said, but the fact that they made a beginning. They  started  thinking  and  writing  about  management  and managers from many approaches. And  their  writings   along with    those   of    the   economists   served    to   reinforce   the   growing   idea    of  management's    importance   to   the  developing   firm,   while  at    the   same   time encouraged other scholars to analyze further this emerging concept.
	
	A Prelude to Scientific Management
	The  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  saw   the  beginnings  of scientific management-even   the  first  use  of  the  term  itself. As business continued  to  grow  both in size and in number, multiple  problems not previously faced by managers were encountered. Concern was expressed over these problems of bigness, and emphasis in thinking moved  from  the  area  of  the  firm  to  the  area  of  things  within  the  firm: processes, equipment  location, layout, production techniques, incentive systems, and the like. Management  was  becoming "things" oriented  instead  of  firm oriented as it had  been  in  the  past. People  amassed  in  large  groups  pointed  up  problems  of organization and efficiency, and these concerns, too, appeared in the literature.
Concern  was also being expressed over the promulgation and exchange of ideas, with  the need recognized  for societies, publications, and  meetings  to  exchange  views. The  ground  swell of management  as  a separate entity was gathering momentum. And  the  shining  light  of  this  era was the recognition of management as a teachable curriculum in a leading university.
	In just a few short years, the  concept of management had moved successively from  one  of   casual  detachment   to  partial   analysis   to  a  concept, still somewhat nebulous,  of   a   total   body  of  knowledge  affecting man's  economic  endeavors. A  manager  was  recognized  as  a  person  of some esteem, and   the  subject   matter  of  managerial  principles  had  spread  from  industry  to  the classroom. Management  as  a separate field had finally come into being.
	
	Early Twentieth Century Concepts
	Below we will see five  men  and  their significant contributions to the embryonic science of management:
Henry L. Gantt : Gantt Chart.
                           Humanitarianism in employee treatment and pay.
                           Teaching and training employees.
                           Service as an objective.
Hugo Munsterberg : Created field of industrial psychology.
                                 Initiated  system  of  tests and measurements of  psychological                                        differences between employees.
Harrington Emerson : Broader   focus   on   the   organization   structure   and     its       importance.
                                    Emphasis  on  the  objectives of a firm  and  their  relation  to                                                         organization.
                                    Emphasis on use of experts: staff, consultants, and the like.
                                    Twelve principles of efficiency.
Harlow S. Person : Gave academic recognition to scientific management.
                               Emphasized   total   scope   of   management,  lifting  it  from  a  movement dedicated to the stopwatch and speedup. 
Henry Fayol : Concept of universality of mangement.
                       First comprehensive theory of management.
                       Need for teaching management in schools and colleges.
Each  of  these  men  lived  during  the  formative   years  of mangement and  made a significant  impact  on  the  developing  thoughts  of  the   time. Modern  management thought is further  indepted  to these men  for  the  creation  of  a  healthy   managerial image and an environment for its growth. In fact, management's subsequent growth and position is due in no small part to the vision and efforts  of these  men  to promote  its  dissemination, and  to  the  prestige  that each lent to the developing science and study of the function of management.
	
	Minor Writers and Critics
	John  Duncan   wrote  in  one   of   the first   texts   on management, moving it foursquare     into   the   classroom.  Louis  D.  Brandeis   popularized    the   scientific management  idea  and  put  the word "efficiency" on almost every tongue.
	Ordway  Tead   reinforced   the   application   of  the   behavioral   aspects   of   human   nature  to  the  scientific  study   of   individuals   in   industry. In addition, he  probed  out  the  reason behind industrial behavior, in light of the known psychological factors.
	Alexander   Hamilton  Church  collected  many  of   the   dissociate    concepts  of  mangement  and  molded   them   into  a   set   of     regulative   principles. Without   providing a theory, his principles  did  broaden  the  horizon  of  management  thought by pointing out possible relations between the parts and the whole.
	Robert F.Hoxie, the  first great critic  of  scientific mangement, challenged  the proponents of the new science of mangement  to reexamine their new-found concepts. Withstanding the test of  critical  evaluation, the  advocates  became  strenghtened   in  their   beliefs  and   the  science of management  became   more   firmly  and  securely founded. Horace B. Drury, too, was a critic of scientific management, though much of his criticism was of a favorable nature.
	Carl C. Parsons' writings  pointed   out   the   possibility  of  moving  scientific mangement from  the  shop  to  clerical operations, the heart of the office. It remained, however, for  William  H.  Leffingwell   to  demonstrate   that  scientific  management could be applied in the office with the same success that it had found in the plant.
	Although by  no  means  the  stature of   Taylor or Fayol, these  men  played a needed role in the evolution and application of management  thought. They  expanded  in     minor    ways.  They  explored   new   applications. They  popularized   it.   They  nationalized  it. And   they  nurtured   it   through  its  infancy  by  breathing   into   the  young  science  the  life-giving stamp of theorethical soundness and practical applicability.
	
	The Managerial Phiolosophers
	More  important  than  who should be included is the fact that management has come of age  as  a philosophy  of  thought  and  action. Management   theory  has  now matured to a point where managers  may  be  conceived  of  as  the  new  "proletariat"-come  the  managerial revolution!
Management  thought   has   indeed   been   enlarged  on  by  Sheldon,  Mayo,  Follett,  Mooney, Burnham,  and  Barnard. And  Urwick   has   solidified   their   concepts   by  pointing out the independence of  their  thinking,  the  interrelation  of  their  analyses,  and  the similarity of their conclusions.
	
	A Classification of Managerial Concepts
	Classification  is  perforce arbitrary, since few writers express all facets of  one school to the exclusion of the others. Many  of   the  early  proponents' writings   place them  in  two or  more schools. In  some  instances  a  writer  might  just  as  surely  be  classified   as  a  behaviorist as  a  member  of  the  process  school. Nevertheless,  we   have identified   the various schools of management thought by essential concepts and leading contributors.
	An exception has been  made of  the  management science school because of its   relative   newness. In  view  of   its  collective  and  electic nature, the mangement  science  school  might logically encompass virtually all management scholars.
	
	Quantitative techniques
	Technique 
•	Decision  theory (including organization theory, learning   theory,   cybernetics   and suboptimization).  Contributors:  R.M.Thrall,  W.Edwards,  C.I.Barnard,    C.Hitch, K.J.Arrow, C.W.Churchman,  H.A.Simon, N.Weiner.                                              Area  of  application:  determination   of   objectives of   firm, assessement  of  group  conflicts  and  interactions,  job  performance  estimates,   organization analysis.
•	Experimental   design.  Contributors:  R.A.Fisher,  W.G.Cochran,  G.M.Fox, M.G.Kendall. Area  of  application:  the  application  of  experimental  design  techniques  is  basic to the construction of any predictive model.
•	Game theory. Contributors:  J.von Neumann,  O.Morgenstern,  M.Shubik.                      Area  of  application: timing  and  pricing  in  a  competitive  market, military  strategy.
•	Information theory. Contributors: C.Shannon, S.Goldman, W.Weaver.                   Area  of  application: data   processing  system  design, organization  analysis, advertising effectiveness in market research.
•	Inventory  control. Contributors:  F.W.Harris,  T.W.Whitin,  J.F.Magee, K.Arrow, T.Harris, J.Marschak. Area of application: economic  lot  size  and  inventory  control.
•	Linear  programming.  Contributors:  L.V.Kantorovich,  T.C.Koopmans, W.Leontieff, G.B.Dantzig, R.Dorfman, P.A.Samuelson.
	Area  of  application:  assignment  of  equipment  and  personnel,  scheduling, 	input-output   analysis,   transportation   routing,   product   mix,   allocation 	processes.
•	Probability theory. Contributors: R.A.Fisher, T.C.Fry, W.Feller, H.Cramer. Area of application: probability theory enters almost all areas of application.
•	Queuing theory. Contributors: A.K.Erlang, L.C.Edie, P.M.Morse, M.G.Kendall. Area of application: inventory control, traffic control, telephone  trunking  systems, scheduling of patients at clinics, radio communications, etc.
•	Replacement theory. Contributors: G.Terborgh, J.Dean.                                           Area   of   application: replacement  of  equipment   through  failure  and   deterioration.
•	Sampling   theory:   W.E.Deming,   H.F.Dodge,   H.G.Romig.  Area    of  application:  quality control, simplified accounting and auditing, consumer surveys  and  product preferences  in  marketing research.
•	Simulation  theory.  Contributors:   C.J.Thomas,     W.L.Deemer,   R.E.Zimmerman, N.H.Jennings.                                                                                                         Area of application: system  reliability evaluation, profit planning, logistic-system studies, inventory  control, and manpower requirements.
•	Statistical  decision  theory.  Contributors:  A.Wald,  E.C.Molina,  O.L.Davies, W.A.Shewhart,  R.Schlaifer. Area  of   application: estimation of  model  parameters  in probabilistic models.
•	Symbolic  logic.  Contributors:  G.Boole,  A.N.Whitehead,  B.Russell,  P.F.Strawson, W.E.Cushen.  Area   of   application: circuit  design, legal  interference,   e.g.,  checking contract consistencies.
The  techniques  listed  serve  to  show  the  kind  of  tools  found  in  the  quantitative  school   of   management   thought. Probability  theory   finds  a   use  in  nearly  every quantitative study that is at  all  realistic. It  is, of  course, the  branch  of  mathematics most useful in operations research.
The school has progressed from a war baby  stage  to  rapid  maturity, with its national and international   societies  and  publications, its  acceptance  in  learned  circles  and university  curricula, and    its   adoption   by   business  and  government  alike. It  has  provided  the  academician  the opportunity  to  contribute something  to  the   solution  of real  problems, and simultaneously  has  pointed  out  to  the populace the resources which lie behind the walls of the ivory tower.
The  management  science school of thought is now well entrenched, and its followers are firmly convinced that  any  phase  of  managerial  organizing, decision making,  or  planning  can  be expressed  in  quantitative  terms  for  a  more  exacting  analysis. It  is  so  eclectic  in   nature  that  virtually  every  contributor  might  be  included in this school  which  offers  almost  unlimited  promise  in  the  development  of  the science of management.
	
	A General Theory of Management
	The   job   of   a   manger, is   to   create   an   environment   conducive  to the performance  of  acts by  other  individuals  in order to accomplish personal as well as corporate goals. In building this environment, the manger must first recognize what he is trying  to  accomplish (the goals involved), so  that   he   can  build  an  environment  in  which  individuals  will  contribute  their  efforts.  This environment has a physical and   a  conceptual aspect, and  its  effective development   depends  on  contributions  from  various   schools   or  streams  of   management   thought  as  well  as   from  the physical and behavioral sciences. 
	In    developing    this    environment    managers    perform    a    composite  managerial    function   consisting   of planning, organizing, directing, and  controlling activities-all of which are interwoven  into   the whole cloth  of  management. Finally, we indicated  that  the  acts  of  managers, like  the environment which they build, are both physical and conceptual. 
None of this is intended conceptually  to  place the contemporary manager on any new plane. It is not intended in any manner to minimize  the  contributions  of  the  various  schools  of management  thought  or individual contributors of managerial concepts. It is no way attempts to alter the basic theory  or  practice  of management.  It   is, rather, an attempt to conceptualize and explain the manager's job and how he performs it.
That   concept, it   is  hoped, will  serve  to  link  the  various  schools   or  streams  of management thought together into an understandable and meaningful whole.