Foundation of Management: Analyzing Managerial Ideologies & Theories

This essay delves into managerial ideology within the context of industrial development, highlighting its connection to labor exploitation and power dynamics. It examines Morgan's metaphors, particularly the 'instrument of domination,' and relates managerial ideologies to Marxian theory. The essay further explores the rational bureaucratic organization, drawing from Weber's concepts of formalization and legal-rational authority, while also considering criticisms from Merton, Selznick, Gouldner, and Blau. It discusses the human relations theory, emphasizing the importance of human factors and incentives in achieving organizational goals, contrasting this with the scientific perspective on economic motivation. Finally, the essay addresses the transformation of organizational forms, comparing Fordist and post-Fordist models and emphasizing the need for flexibility and economies of scope. Desklib provides access to more solved assignments and resources for students.

Student’s Last Name1
Foundation of Management
By (Name)
Course
Professor
University
Date

Student’s Last Name2
Question One
Bendix defines managerial ideology in the context of industrial development in various
countries such as Russia, the United States, England, as well as the German Democratic
Republic in the 18th and 19th centuries. The term incorporated industry bureaucratization and
other significant ideological disparities which conflict in regard to managerial use between East
and West. Moreover, the phase was justified through the subordination of a large group of
persons, employee’s authority, and disciplinary challenges (Berry, Coad, Harris, Otley, and
Stringer, 2009 p.10). The term managerial ideology is based on a selfish interest as the
bureaucrats focus on gaining monetary advantages. Conversely, it is associated with labor
exploitation and dominance creation. Morgan’s (1986) metaphors are closely associated with
managerial ideology. These metaphors include metaphors of the organism, brain, culture,
organization, political system, psychic prison, machines, and instrument of flux, domination, and
transformation (Birkinshaw, Hamel and Mol, 2008 p.823). The metaphor of instrument of
domination is closely connected to managerial ideology as exploitation instrument and power are
featured amongst individuals in the organization. Morgan (1986) discussed metaphor as
associations fulfilling their wishes including labor exploitation, environmental challenge, and
others. Managerial ideologies have been featured in the formal subordination since
industrialization began, and also, is related to high human factor production (Cornelissen and
Kafouros, 2008 p.368). This factor relates to Marxian theory and is recommended for managers
to achieve organizational productivity as well as labor activities. In the past, organizations were
seen as control systems. Later, there was an increase and development of factory systems which
resulted in scientific concepts based on managerial ideologies.

Student’s Last Name3
Question Two
In reviewing the organizational theory field, the rational bureaucratic organization is a
significant dimension. This concept has been obtained from Morgan’s machine which entails
organization of metaphor. The dimension initiates an association in the organization similarly to
a mechanical device (Gambino, 2007 p.43). Rational bureaucratic organization technique
outlines a structural alignment and an administrative act as a way for attaining the expected goals
as well as objectives in an institution. Max Weber described bureaucracy in the context of
formalization, instrumentation, as well as legal-rational authority. Max and Weber discussed
bureaucracy as an instrument used to oppress and exploit people. Merton, Selznick, Gouldner,
and Blau contribute to the discussion of the bureaucratic organization in the organization
analysis. Rational bureaucracy impacts the management as well as an administrative practice
where differentiation, the hierarchy of command, specialization and formal institutional
principles are followed. Robert Merton (1957) was negative when selecting challenges which are
associated with the concept of rational bureaucracy. He views bureaucratic personality as a
normative relation in regard to the formal regulations and rules that bureaucratic institutions
adopt resulting to a stiff bureaucratic personality obsessed with conformity. Additionally, the
bureaucratic personality stresses on unconditional and unnecessary compliance to rules and
measures without reviewing how to achieve organizational goals effectively (Neo, 2011 p.10).
Individual personality, as well as abilities, is impacted through bureaucratic procedures to attain
goals. However, rational bureaucratic institutions focus on significant organizational goals or the
intermediate goals (Reed, 2006 p.19). Conversely, institutional paradox uncovers that rigid and

Student’s Last Name4
strict compliance to formal techniques may influence displacement of goals as well as undermine
the goals.
Question Three
Based on the theory of human relations and strategies, there is a significant relationship
which is developing between organizational structures and human response. Researchers such as
Hawthorne commented on the human perspective of an organization. Other theories proposed by
Chester Barnard viewed human factors as central of an institution and stated that complex
organizational problems are solved based on the members’ interests since they have to relate to
the organizational objectives. Therefore, Barnard recognized “common moral purpose” as a good
way of achieving organizational goals and objectives. Later, Barnard incorporated the concept of
an organization which covers the managerial ideologies. In this part, Bernard proposed that to
proceed with a sustainable cooperation between members and organization, it was important if
the intrinsic rewards were included. That is a common scenario as organizations use incentives to
achieve members’ contributions to achieve organizational goals (Turi, Mocan, Ivascu, Goncalves
and Maistor, 2015 p.26). However, the shift from Barnard proposition of incentives is seen as a
contradiction. These incentives issued in the organizations serve as motivations for members to
work closely to arrive at institutional objectives (Nonaka, Kodama, Hirose and Kohlbacher, 2014
p.140). Based on the scientific researchers, economic humans are seen to acquire motivation
through incentives while human relations focus on the needs of the society (Gawer and Phillips,
2013 p.1038). Therefore, human relations involve the social associations, communications, and
theories of human associations which attributes to institutional leadership.
Question Four

Student’s Last Name5
The realization of new forms of institutions that focus on achieving the transformation to
match the needs which relate to the marketing of new organizational concepts is evident. In the
current organizations, many want to obtain economies of scale and the scope has emerged.
Therefore, organizations must exercise flexibility regardless of specialization. Economies of
scale are associated with low costs of producing goods and services in the organization. On the
other hand, economies of scope are viewed as the competitive advantage enjoyed by a company
due to certain products and services for a specific market niche. Therefore, the organizational
philosophers utilize the model of Fordist industrial to feature on the managing as well as
organizing abilities of a company to portray the emerging organizational forms. However, in
comparing the Fordist standards to the new companies they differ in the context of the division
of labor or even jobs standardization (Sturdy, Wright and Wylie, 2016 p.200). Clearly, the older
organizational forms do not cope in a dynamic or changing market and economy in reference to
economies of scale and scope. Therefore, organizations need to adopt flexibility, and also due to
economies of scope they should design their products and services so that they can appeal to
specific segments (Williams and Mengistu, 2015 p.13). It is important if organizations focus on
building the competitive advantage in a particular segment for maximum organization of
resources as well as efficiency in the management of workload to cater for other segments. In the
case of economies of scale, companies require manufacturing in large quantities to achieve
substantial costs as well as organizing the productions and management costs (O’Neil, 2015
p.1630). This is because the production and management costs may impact the organizational
productivity if they are ignored. In reviewing the post-Fordist technique, the transition is evident
based on organizational transformations which include hybrid structures.

Student’s Last Name6
Bibliography
Berry, A.J., Coad, A.F., Harris, E.P., Otley, D.T. and Stringer, C., 2009. Emerging themes in
management control: A review of recent literature. The British Accounting Review, 41(1), pp.2-
20.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M.J., 2008. Management innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4), pp.825-845.
Cornelissen, J.P., and Kafouros, M., 2008. Metaphors and theory building in organization theory:
what determines the impact of a metaphor on theory?. British Journal of Management, 19(4),
pp.365-379.
Gambino, F., 2007. A Critique of the Fordism of the Regulation School. The Commoner, 12,
pp.39-62.
Gawer, A. and Phillips, N., 2013. Institutional work as logics shifts: The case of Intel’s
transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), pp.1035-1071.
Neo, E., 2011. Human Resource Management: Gaining Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill.
Boston, USA.
Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A. and Kohlbacher, F., 2014. Dynamic fractal organizations for
promoting knowledge-based transformation–A new paradigm for organizational theory.
European Management Journal, 32(1), pp.137-146.
O’Neil, M., 2015. Labour out of Control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical
organizations. Organization Studies, 36(12), pp.1627-1647.

Student’s Last Name7
Reed, M., 2006. 1.1 Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. The Sage
handbook of organization studies, p.19.
Sturdy, A., Wright, C. and Wylie, N., 2016. Managers as consultants: The hybridity and tensions
of neo-bureaucratic management. The organization, 23(2), pp.184-205.
Turi, A., Mocan, M., Ivascu, L., Goncalves, G. and Maistor, S., 2015, May. From Fordism to
Lean management: Main shifts in automotive industry evolution within the last century. In
MakeLearn International Scientific Conference on Management of Knowledge and Learning (pp.
25-27).
Williams, A.P. and Mengistu, B., 2015. An exploration of the limitations of bureaucratic
organizations in implementing contemporary peacebuilding. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1),
pp.3-28.