Foundation of Management: Scientific Approach & Power Conflicts

This essay delves into the core principles of management, focusing on the scientific management approach and its implications in modern organizational settings. It examines the evolution from Taylor's scientific management, highlighting its emphasis on efficiency and workforce optimization, while also critiquing its limitations in the context of contemporary employee motivation and workplace dynamics. The essay further explores conflicts arising from leadership authority within hierarchical structures, contrasting it with the importance of technical expertise. It analyzes how power distribution based on hierarchy versus expertise can lead to workplace conflicts, particularly in technology-driven environments. The paper references relevant literature to support its arguments, offering insights into the challenges of balancing authority, expertise, and employee well-being in a competitive business landscape.

Running Head: FOUNDATION OF MANAGMENT
Foundation of management
Answer
Student Name
[Pick the date]

FOUNDATION OF MANAGMENT 1
Scientific management approach translates into modern organization setting and its
implications
Present business world has been manifest by expert management which is categorized by
optimist strategy approaches in order to achieve the specific purpose of the organization. It is
mainly connected with the workforce in order to increase their capability by offering them an
innovative work environment, motivation, and full management support. These elements can be
linked with the attributes of the Taylor approach which established the scientific management
approach in the late twenties. Taylor work was an important contribution to increasing the
efficiency of the workforce in the organization (Nonaka and Von Krogh, 2009). Earlier when a
worker enters into factor they used to come with their own work mindset which was completed
change with by Taylor with the help of this scientific management approach. Taylor approach
was simply focusing on supervising the workforce throughout the working hours in order to
improve performance. But in present business practices his idea cannot be totally accepted
because workers are also human they are not a machine. On average workers spent almost eight
hours working in the organization and in this situation they are in need of some realization within
office hours in order to feel fresh and overcome work pressure. Present organization totally
disapproved that fact which was connecting with the scientific management approach that
workforces are motivated by rewards in the form of wages (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2009). But
in reality, reward in the form of wages has its limitation in motivating employee performance. In
fact, reorganization and a positive work environment are the two main motivating factors which
motivate the employee performance in the present business world which is full of competition.
Taylors this concept was proven wrong by Hawthorne experiment which proved that people feel
motivated when they are working in a group which is full of support and positivity instead of
working for wage. Wage factor can help in completing the particular task but lack power in
motivating the performance of an individual. Therefore, performance of the employee is totally
dependent on the workplace environment and not on these rewards in the form wage (Cortina et
al., 2013). In present business practice, if this Taylor scientific management approach is being
applied in the business practice. Instead of improving the performance of the workforce, it will
reduce the performance of the workforce. In fact, this approach will create a work environment
which will be full of pressure and stress. In this approach, workforce will feel that they are just
treated as machine and management is not considered them as part of the organization. The
pressure of work will be so high that workforce will not be able to develop a balance between
their professional and personal life (McCambridge, Witton and Elbourne, 2014). This will trigger
a negative feeling in the workforce and will completely impact their performance in a negative
way. In addition to this, it will surely generate an environment of conflict which will be
impossible to manage by the organization and will have to bear heavy loss in terms of high
employee turnover ratio.

FOUNDATION OF MANAGMENT 2
Conflict that can arise from leader authority at hierarchical position and technical
expertise
According to Max Weber, power is considered as the capability to exercise authority over others.
In addition to this, it has been seen that power is able to impact more as compared to a personal
relationship. It helps the person to reshape the organization structure, work environment and
even present approaches used in the current business practices (Houghton, 2010). Powers are not
necessary to build hold control over employee group but to offer proper direction to employee in
order to attain the objective which has been set by the management of the organization. But at
the same time, there have been conflicts related to the distribution of power in the form of
hierarchical position instead of offering position on the base of technical expertise. Many
scholars argued that power and position must be offered on the base of expertise instead of
following a hierarchical pattern because there are ample chances that person which is sitting in
the hierarchical may not have technical knowledge (Reed, 2012). This difference between
technical expertise and hierarchy power pattern will give rise to various conflicts in the
organization. In the present business world which is full of competition, technology innovation
plays one of the most important roles in the development and growth of the organization. In
addition to this technical knowledge or approach is always considered as life line of the
organization. In this position, if power is offering to that person who is not having expertise
related to technology then, it is impossible for the organization to display high performance
because technical knowledge is very important to resolve the issues which may arise in the
business operation. But few scholars believe that hierarchical pattern is mostly followed on the
form of experience and therefore having less knowledge related to technology will not impact the
overall business operation of the organization. In this, it is always better to offer power on the
base of experience because there are many things which have nothing to do with technology
(Mørk et al., 2010). In situation, power must be distributed on the base of hierarchical pattern.
But at the same time, this pattern will also generate a feeling of in-group and out group because
employees will feel that people who are close to the leader will be able to enjoy freedom,
benefits and more chances for promotion. While individual this will belong to out group which
not be able to enjoy freedom in their decision making, benefits and will get fewer chances related
to promotion. In addition to this will also give trigger that leader will form group on the base of
behaviour pattern and people whose behaviour resembles more close to leader will be given good
position as compared to another person who is having good amount of technical knowledge,
deserving this position more due to their technical expertise (Schotter and Beamish, 2011). This
will create a negative work environment in the organization by framing no support and trust from
any individual who are working in the organization. Every person will start feeling that I am
more capable than other person sitting on position and therefore deserve this position power due
to technical expertise.

FOUNDATION OF MANAGMENT 3
References
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E.A., Huerta, M. and Magley, V.J. (2013) Selective
incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of
Management, 39(6), pp.1579-1605.
Fotopoulos, C. B., and Psomas, E. L. (2009) The impact of “soft” and “hard” TQM elements on
quality management results. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(2),
150-163.
Houghton, J.D. (2010) Does Max Weber's notion of authority still hold in the twenty-first
century?. Journal of Management History, 16(4), pp.449-453.
McCambridge, J., Witton, J. and Elbourne, D.R. (2014) Systematic review of the Hawthorne
effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of clinical
epidemiology, 67(3), pp.267-277.
Mørk, B.E., Hoholm, T., Ellingsen, G., Edwin, B. and Aanestad, M. (2010) Challenging
expertise: On power relations within and across communities of practice in medical
innovation. Management Learning, 41(5), pp.575-592.
Nonaka, I. and Von Krogh, G. (2009) Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization
science, 20(3), pp.635-652.
Reed, M.I. (2012) Masters of the universe: Power and elites in organization studies. Organization
Studies, 33(2), pp.203-221.
Schotter, A. and Beamish, P.W. (2011) Performance effects of MNC headquarters–subsidiary
conflict and the role of boundary spanners: The case of headquarter initiative rejection. Journal
of International Management, 17(3), pp.243-259.