Management and Organizations: Taylorism, Structure & Zappos Case

This report examines key concepts in management and organizational theory. It begins by discussing the implementation of Taylor's scientific management theory in Ford's production methods and considers its modern-day applicability, particularly in call centers and startups. The report then explores the relationship between organizational structure and strategy, arguing that structure often follows strategy but acknowledging scenarios where this is reversed. Finally, it analyzes holacracy as an alternative organizational structure, using Zappos as an example, and considers the contingent factors that influence organizational design, such as age, size, technology, and environment. The report concludes that organizations are continuously seeking new and innovative approaches in management, structure, and operational methodologies.

Running head: MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
Management and Organizations
Student name
University name
Author note

1
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
Executive Summary
In this report, in the first activity, it is mentioned that Taylor’s scientific management theory got
implemented inside the production method of Ford. But currently workers across Australia, Europe or
America would not be accepting Taylorism as there lies no wisdom in applying an established theory. In
call centres application of this concept can be thought about to some extent and there would definitely be
industries across the world that would be requiring the judicious application of the concepts. In the second
activity it is mentioned that organizational structure is always following its strategies, which is most often
the case. In the final one, holacracy and innovative structure is supported with reference to Zappos.
Week 1. Activity 1: Ford and Taylorism
In 1908, Henry Ford with the help of his visionary ideas while having a partnership with
Alexander Malcomson, formed an organization with the purpose of manufacturing cars under the name of
“Ford Motor Company”. The idea was manufacturing of cars cheaply and with simplicity, which was
only possible by altering the present method of car production. Taylor’s management theory was created
on the belief that productivity of the individual workers would get improved if they are assigned tasks that
is properly suited to their individual strengths and capabilities. It was only achievable by reducing
unnecessary physical movement of the workers (Waring 2016). Ford examined these statements by
Taylor and in 1908 Taylor’s scientific management theory got implemented inside the production method
of Ford. For reaching the milestone production level, Ford adopted the revolutionary idea and introduced
assembly line concept, which in turn reduced the time consumed for car production. The principle of
rewarding the employees was promoted, all the while making sure that employees are properly
recognized for their contribution (Aitken 2014).
The major idea of breaking the long procedures into pieces are the key to success for any
organization in information technology, with what I was associated previously. The procedure of working

2
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
that was adopted at that organization was restrictive, limited and had no scope of accountability
delegation, resulting in productivity loss and attrition of employees.
Currently workers across Australia, Europe or America would not be accepting Taylorism as
there lies no wisdom in applying an established theory. In call centres application of this concept can be
thought about to some extent as the operation there is basically divided into different divisions
specializing in niche. On the other hand, there would definitely be industries across the world that would
be requiring the judicious application of the concepts discussed above. Principles inside this theory would
be having a long lasting effect, especially helpful for startups. Proper application and utilization of these
principles in the present time would be guaranteeing success (Giordano 2016).
Week 4. Activity 1: Structure and strategy
In accordance with Morieux and Tollman (2014), organizational structure is involving the way
activities like coordinating, supervising, directing and allocating work gets performed for assisting the
organization for arriving at their objectives. Conversely, strategies are defined as the summation of the
plans the business is wishing to be undertaking for achieving their goals. Yves Morieux states that
organizational structure is always following its strategies, which is most often the case. Not just is
structure is referring to the discussed activities, but that is also including employees, work positions,
processes and culture of the organization.
Structure is the next step after strategy and majority of the organizations fail in having a concrete
plan for building the structure until they are transparent and clear regarding generic strategy that needs to
be followed. However, that is not always the scenario as majority of the organizations fail in having a
strategy in place prior to deciding the structure and therefore this kind of organizations have a clear idea
of how the power can be distributed and arranged at different levels. This would be leading to a very good
approach of placing structure in front of strategy, which at times backfires as the structure asks changing
after there is an alteration in the strategy. For the businesses to be achieving their set plans, which in this

3
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
scenario are referred as strategies, the organizational structure would be directed in the direction of the
guidelines and processes explained by the policies (Cannon and Goldberg 2014).
An example for supporting the discussed statement can be described inside a sales and marketing
business that has the aim of improving their sales in the succeeding month. This would be a short term
strategy that would make each person working in the organization wish to adopt the taken initiative and
effort towards accomplishing it. The structure would have to be following plans.
Week 4. Activity 2: Holacracy
Holacracy is something presenting an alternate mechanism of organizational structure in which
the decision making power is divided amongst the team members instead of a management power centre.
Inside the organization, holacracy removes micro-management, which is an essential idea of bureaucracy.
This concept is completely opposite in meaning of a management in comparison to the bureaucratic
environment and considers people accountable for the decided tasks and even promoting flat structure
inside an organization (Bernstein et al. 2016).
Contingent factors that influence organizational design are age, size, strategies, technology used
and the environment of the workplace. Zappos is in its last stages of business, making their decision of
adopting holacracy suitable for them. New businesses would be facing ambiguities due to the employees
not having proper knowledge and skills. Zappos is a medium sized organization. For holacracy a large
firm is required for the management to be dealing with teams instead of individual employees for saving
time and providing more information. Finally Zappos boasts of a serene work environment that presents
them with near raw materials (Eremina and Puhakka 2017).
Creative culture characterizes an organization but encourages and sustains innovation for
uncertainty reduction. Innovative culture drives active organization structure as it introduces recruiting
and retaining (Park et al. 2014).

4
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
Conclusion
The discussed activities all support ideas that are new and innovative, providing good examples
of situations where that has been seen. Be in case of Taylorism, structure or holacracy, organizations are
always looking for something new.

5
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
References
Aitken, H.G., 2014. Scientific Management in Action: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal, 1908-1915.
Princeton University Press.
Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N. and Lee, M., 2016. Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business
Review,94(7/8), pp.38-49.
Cannon, D.M. and Goldberg, S.R., 2014. Managing Complexity, and Twenty‐First Century
Capital. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 25(6), pp.69-72.
Eremina, A. and Puhakka, V., 2017. Comparison of organizational structures–case Zappos. International
Business Management.
Giordano, L., 2016. Beyond Taylorism: computerization and the new industrial relations. Springer.
Morieux, Y. and Tollman, P., 2014. Six simple rules: how to manage complexity without getting
complicated. Harvard Business Review Press.
Park, Y.K., Song, J.H., Yoon, S.W. and Kim, J., 2014. Learning organization and innovative behavior:
The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1/2),
pp.75-94.
Waring, S.P., 2016. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. UNC Press Books.