Making Sense of Organisation: Can Management Be Treated As Science?

This essay explores the extent to which the management of organizations can be treated as a science. It begins by examining the principles of scientific management, as proposed by Frederick Taylor, and how they aimed to increase production efficiency through the division of labor and financial incentives. The essay then traces the evolution from Taylorism to modern scientific management, incorporating classical and behavioral perspectives. It delves into classical methods, including Taylor's scientific management theory, bureaucratic management by Max Weber, and the four functions of management by Henry Fayol. The essay also discusses the behavioral perspective, including Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Theory X and Y, to understand how employee motivation and behavior can be influenced. The essay highlights the ongoing relevance of scientific principles in management, such as communication, decision-making, and employee motivation, while acknowledging the shifts towards more employee-centric approaches in contemporary organizations.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION
1
To what extent can the management of organisations be treated as a ‘science’?
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor’s Name
Date

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 2
Making Sense of Organisation
The management of the organisation can be termed as a science due to the way they are arranged
to meet the efficiency of the organisation. According to the scientific management as brought out
in the Fredrick Taylor's principle explains how activities are planned, organised and brought
together to increase quality and success in the production (Sandrone, 2005, p 23). The idea of
scientific management was to help companies in mass production. From his study, he ensured
that he studied people's behavior, the way of doing work, the time is taken to complete a task and
the methodology used. Through the analysis, he came up with the division of labor where people
could do single task repetitively that increased their productivity. As a result of specialisation,
time for doing the chores was reduced, and the production rose as expected by the management.
Also, in another study, he realised that people are willing to work hard when they are promised
of a higher pay due that led increased production. Therefore, from Taylorism, it clear that
management is a science which increases the efficiency in production as it increases the volume
produced (Wilkinson et al., p.13). There has been an evolution from Taylorism to modern
scientific management where an organisation tries to improve efficiency and care for the
employees who are entrusted the production process.
Scientific Management is shaped by classical and behavioral perspective where each contributes
positively to improving the production in a firm. The traditional theories focus much on direct
input while the behavioral perspective concentrates on the indirect inputs (Morden, 2017, p. 34).
Some of the classical methods that illustrated that management is a science include scientific
management theory by Fredrick Taylor that focused on the production efficiency where he
thought the employees' input could be controlled. In his study, he developed a system in
management where several subtasks had managers and employees had to report to different

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 3
people for different tasks. Additionally, the theory brought about the idea of training and
managing employees to achieve the desired result of the firm. For instance, an increase of
training strengthens the skills in the employees where they give the best in the field thereby
contributing directly.
Additionally, to an extent, many organisations still trust Taylorism to increase the productivity of
the employees. In the scientific management theory, Taylor set aside the management to take up
the tasks of making the decision and planning the production activities where they leave for the
employees to perform the job to their best (Waring, 2016, P.56). Though some of the
organisation have developed a strategy where the employees feel that they are part of the
decision-making process, the most complicated decisions are still left for the management. The
theory itself sets standards of communication, doing activities and reduces confusion throughout
the supply chain since each group of people knows how to do since there is a uniform way of
doing things.
The communication set a standard in Taylorism error where the top-down management was
regarded the best and the most influential in achieving the desired performance. Today's
organisation tries to narrow down the gaps in communication to increase efficiency in problem-
solving. The connection and control of the management to the employees is still active in the
current administration. In the organisational contact, there are different hierarchies where
executives develop the goals and communicate them to the low-level workers through the help of
the subordinate staffs. To an extent, the top down communication may not be the only way, but it
is stronger than the down up (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2015, p.38). So, the standard of
communication still portrays the firms' authority as science despite the few changes that have
occurred in the system. The information theory suggests how information can be disseminated

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 4
from the source to destination without distortions. Despite following a single way of
communication, increasing efficiency in the channels of communication has led to changes in the
conversation where a better standard is realised and which that can be followed to reduce the
errors. The ways of the communication control the operations and how employees need to pass
information or use the hierarchy provided to communicate with the executives. Therefore, both
the top down and down up communication portrays the scientific management of the companies.
Management is the backbone of the organisation performance, and it should be designed expertly
to reduce the obstacle in the ability to solve problems. As supported by the bureaucracy theory
by max weber, it focuses on the theme of rationalisation, rules and expertise for an organisation
(Oberoi, 2016, p.65). The management is set aside to make decisions on the production process,
employees' welfare and customer's interactions with the organisation. Bureaucratic management
ensures that there are clear and efficient roles in the organisation. Highly bureaucratic control is
not effective in solving problems that need, and therefore the organisation should maintain the
flat management system that comprises a few levels of hierarchies. Considering the meaning of
bureaucracy, that is the organisational structure with rules, processes, a division of labor
responsibilities and interpersonal relationship between employees it shows the ability of control
of people to act uniformly. As mentioned in the scientific theory, Max Weber also emphasises on
the specialisation of tasks to increase efficiency and for economic effectiveness.
In the modern organisations, they work to eliminate the high levels of hierarchy since it does not
seem sufficient in communication. The service industry, as well as the production industry, need
an efficient channel that disseminates information on time to remain competitive. So, the
organisation has been able to decentralise some managerial roles and reduce and adopted a flat
management system for a more comfortable and quick decision making. Lowering of the

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 5
hierarchy does not do away with the rules and rationalisation in an organisation since rules are
stills observed and help people to conduct their duties as entrusted to them (Collins, 2005, p.34).
Due to the current competition and the increasing attention of the firm to the customers, there is a
need to reduce the gaps or delays that may result from the hierarchy of management. For
instance, a customer complaint or concerns need to be acted upon quickly, and therefore when
the employees are in contact with them, they need to report to people who work immediately to
improve the company's image to the customers. In a high-level hierarchy where a decision needs
to be made by the executive, it may take a longer time before they get the response which can
lead to loss of customers.
The management roles of planning, organising, leading and controlling is an example of a
scientific approach (Marquis and Huston, 2009, p.12). The theory was developed by Henry
Fayol and ended up concentrating on the administration for the efficient performance other than
looking into individual employees (Fayol, 2016, p.67). Over the decades, the four roles have
been the guide to the management of the firms where the most top decisions are left for the
control. They come up with a plan and the objectives which are communicated to the employees
who are entrusted to implement and give the best as desired. Also, they organise how different
task will be achieved which team will effectively deliver on the plan. All the resources are
mobilised and deployed to a different department to ensure that the resources get to the workers
in achieving the goals. After everyone is set to implement the plans, the managers are supposed
to lead their teams in performing their tasks where they play as the role models. So I mean the
determination of the manager can affect the productivity of the workers. For instance, if the
leader show determination and willingness to carry a task as required, the employees get
motivated to do their best. Lastly, ensuring that the activities do not deviate from the plan is also,

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 6
and it controls employee behavior from acting independently. The four roles of management are
an example of the classical perspective that shows control of outcome in an organisation.
The four activities remain relevant into today management, and it has become like a culture.
Different changes may occur in the organisation but planning, organising, leading and
controlling stay the part of the management. For instance, in the industries that have
decentralised the decision-making process to the middle-level managers, they ensure that the
executive management outlines the plans and the goals and maps what need to be done and the
desired outcome. After a clear vision is drawn the middle managers in making minor decisions
that are not complex (Goetsch and Davis, 2014, P.15). Multinational companies, the managers
in different countries are given authority to make a choice depending on the need in the state of
operation but should line them to the overall vision of the larger corporation.
The behavioral perspective gives another approach on how employees can be motivated to
increase productivity. Abraham Maslow theory showed that workers were motivated with a
series of a lower level to higher levels of needs (Cherry,2014, p.2014). Achievement of each
level motivates one to work to achieve another level. The Hierarchy of needs shapes people
thinking and particularly the management. The organisation must be aware of the position of the
employees and which needs they are striving to achieve so that they can know which kind of
incentive to give. A person who is in the lower level of meeting the basic needs will be
motivated by incentives that can help to achieve the requirements. On the other side, a person
trying to accomplish the placement or social status will feel motivated when they are promoted
to match a group of desire. The Maslow theory has been used by any organisation to ensure that
they motivate their employees depending on the levels of their needs.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 7
Theory X and Y show how managers perceive their employees as well shows how psychological
characteristics improve employees' performance. Theory X assumes that managers are lazy and
need to be micromanaged while theory Y gives employees the freedom to do their work with less
management (McGregor, 2001, p.374). So the theory shows different groups and how their
behavior is managed to increase work efficiency. Both of the approaches can shape people to act
in a certain way. When the organisation wants to improve production under theory X, they
ensure that they include close supervision to reduce laziness that automatically increases the
output. On the theory Y, leaving employees under low control helps them to define their way of
conducting their duties, and they are motivated when they work freely.
Organisational behavior portrays the control as a science since the managers need to use different
tactics to increase performance, improve job satisfaction and ensuring that innovative ideas are
brought up. People work differently when they know that they are being observed. So when there
is low supervision people would be willing to work and give their best (Rahim, 2017, p.44). The
field of organisational behavior has given rise to different scholars to examine the area and how
they can shape the activities. Corporate behavior view management as a science4 where they can
be able to control and make people act in a certain way that is desired (Gelfand et al., 2017, p
514). In the current organisations, the human workforce is no longer regarded as an extension of
machinery, and every human resource manager uses different tactics to encourage and motivate
the employees to increase their productivity.
Historically, people were able to increase productivity with the promise of higher pay and
increment of wages. The notion has changed over time since the workforce is viewed as a
resource in an organisation that contributes to increased income. Some of the concerns and that
which can help increase the productivity include job satisfaction, better job placements,

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 8
favorable working conditions, promotion and more than the current human resource managers
use to improve the level of work done in the company. All the tactics are shaped to help people
do activities in a certain way and enhance efficiency within them (Collins, 2005, p.34). People
are willing to leave their jobs to a workplace that provide favorable working conditions even if
they pay less than what they earn. People are more aware of their position and will not trade their
welfare for money. As a result, the organisations are aware of the same and design the
management to provide the demands of employees that help them increase productivity and
efficiency in their performance. Under the organisational behavior management is viewed as a
science that helps to shape and standardise the behavior in the firm without denying their
freedom.
In the sociological perspective, an organisation is a planned, well-coordinated and purposeful
action that give a tangible or intangible product (Weber, 2013, p.6). Also, it is the permanent
arrangement of elements where through the coordination they can complete tasks that cannot be
solved by a single component. The coordination all the elements illustrate a scientific makeup of
the organisation where each plays a defined role in the rules (Kathryn, n.p.) No item can override
the provisions of performing their duty. The organisations act like a scientific con that has
different elements with different tasks with the aim to accomplish the primary goals. Just as
discussed in Taylorism, an organisation is made up of components like time, supervision and
standardisation of work methods. All these elements perform a task to ensure that the best way is
efficient economically and reduces time.
Also, people come from a different background with different believes and cultures and there the
management give a standard way of communication and interaction among the people (Bingol
Dursun, Sener Irge & Cevik Emin, 2013, p. 45). It indicates the science in an organisation where

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 9
a culture or a standard behavior is achieved to make it easier to control and supervise the
employees. Organisational culture has been developed that is scientific and that which guide and
influence the actions of the company. The culture comprises of different social elements in the
society, and it is used as management tools. Various processes are used to ensure that the
organisational community has distinctive rules and values other than those found in the larger
society and those that foster the success of the organisation (Owoyemi and Ekwoaba, 2014,
p.56). For instance, consider a company like Amazon.com that have a very distinctive culture
that helps employees to think over and challenge ideas to solve a problem (Rossman, 2016, n.p).
The company has received criticism from the employees and the broader community on the
pressure they put their employees into, but the CEO ensures that the culture has rules that are so
clear to them and which makes the organisation the best online retailer in the world.
In different aspects it clear that management is science that develops standardised behavior that
calls people to increase efficiency. All the theoretical perspective discussed aims to reduce the
time of operation, determine a better method of action that is economically effective (Levin-
Waldman, 2015, p.34). Different human resource management strategies have embraced
workforce training which aims to equip the members with skills and techniques to use the
modified method of operation and settle to the best. In other instances, when the manager selects
a plan and learns that it will increase productivity and reduce the time consumed to finish an
activity, they subject the employees to learn the new method to achieve the desired result. The
whole idea of training is not far much from what Taylorism stand for task division in the
scientific management. The workforce must be matched with the right job to ensure that
maximum benefits are realised. Additionally, when people are competent and equipped with
skills, it reduces the time used in production as well as increase productivity.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 10
The significant principles of management that are recognised include the development of an
exact science. A well-developed science is incorporated in the organisation culture and which
make the management activity easy and better (Thompson, 2017, p. 34). In some cases, it
becomes hard to change the culture and sometimes it may never succeed. The culture determines
people's behavior and motivates them to work in a standardised way to achieve the vision of the
organisation. In most of the organisation today they have embraced performance evaluation
where those who score high are rewarded for their hard work. It is a scientific way of calling
people to work hard to get the reward. It has become even more comfortable compared to the
historical time of scientific management since, most employees can have self-drive in what they
want to achieve and therefore they are not forced to act in a particular way (Taylor, 2004, p.30).
Companies have a defined and scientific idea of selecting the workers which contribute to an
efficient workforce that can be trusted to perform as expected.
In the industrial revolution all the way before the existence of scientific management, people
were forced to work, and they went home with little wages. The unwillingness of the employees
and the poor working conditions made it hard to produce enough as expected by the
management. With the existence of the management theory that increased the willingness of the
people to work harder without being forced became a better deal that was adopted by firms
(Terry, 2017, p.5). Though due to revolution and the fight for the rights of the workers, the use
of management theory has evolved most firms do not employ people who do not have the skills
and ability to conduct a task. Before people were just placed in the production where they could
learn in the organisation, but currently many employers do not give jobs to unqualified
candidates or willingness to train people from scratch. In my experience, I attended an interview
where all the qualified candidates had experience of 3 years and above. It indicates that the need

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 11
for skills and ability to reduce the errors in the workplace and people who know what is
entrusted to them.
In conclusion, despite the criticism of management theory, it is still applicable in most of the
organisation since the management wants to eliminate errors in production and the disruption
that may hinder expected performance. Taylorism is still in effect also since most of the plans are
broken down to be achieved in subtasks that collectively form the significant goals. Historically
things have changed though Taylorism is still in effect and makes the management science. In
the current organisation, the theory is established in the organisational culture that makes it
easier for people to be motivated and adapts to the management need. The culture standardises
the behavior of the employees and conforms to a designed way of interaction between them and
the management.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 12
References
Terry Lea, 2017. Classical and Scientific Management Theory.
https://www.business.com/articles/classical-and-scientific-management-theory/
Bingol Dursun, Sener Irge & Cevik Emin , 2013. The Effect of Organizational Culture on
Organizational Image and Identity: Evidence from a Pharmaceutical Company, volume 99,
Turkey Pages 222-229.
Owoyemi, O. and Ekwoaba, J.O., 2014. Organisational Culture: A Tool for Management to
Control, Motivate and Enhance Employees' Performance, Vol. 3, No. Lagos 3, 168-177
Kathryn A. Baker, n.p. Organizational Communication.
Sandrone, V., 2005. Frederick W. Taylor: Master of Scientific Management. International
Journal of Management Vol. 28, 20-34
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A.,
Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E. and Bouwman, J., 2016. The
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3.
Morden, T., 2017. Principles of management. Routledge.
Thompson, J.D., 2017. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.
Routledge. Pp 54-66.
Rahim, M.A., 2017. Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge. 2 Park Square, Milton.
https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2017-0-51587-
1&isbn=9781351507288&format=previewPdf.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 13
Oberoi, R., 2016. Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucracy. Public Administration: Approaches and
Applications, India, p.65.
Weber, M., 2013. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge.
Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015. Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning.
Taylor, F.W., 2004. Scientific management.
https://www.mindtools.com › Team Management › Historical Management Theories
Collins, D., 2005. Organisational change: sociological perspectives. 1st Edition, Published 23,
Routledge, 19-45.
McGregor, D., 2001. Theory X and theory Y. Organization theory, 6th ed. New York 358, p.374.
Fayol, H., 2016. General and industrial management. Reprint of 1949 Edition, Ravenio Books,
pp 15-58.
Marquis, B.L. and Huston, C.J., 2009. Leadership roles and management functions in nursing:
Theory and application. (5th ed.). Philadelphia. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Pp 12-18.
Cherry, K., 2014. Hierarchy of needs. Retrieved Aug, 16, p.2014.
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.
Rossman, J., 2016. The Amazon way: 14 leadership principles behind the world's most disruptive
company (Vol. 1). Clyde Hill Publishing.
Levin-Waldman, O.M., 2015. Taylorism, Efficiency, and the Minimum Wage: Implications for a
High Road Economy (Doctoral dissertation, School of Public Affairs & Administration,
Metropolitan College of New York), pp 33-44.

MAKING SENSE OF ORGANISATION 14
Waring, S.P., 2016. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. UNC
Press Books.
Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
Gelfand, M.J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M. and Leung, K., 2017. Cross-cultural industrial
organizational psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(3), p.514.