Theories Of Management

Theories of Management:
heritage, classical and contemporary.

Rubén Martínez Gómez
Principles of Management
23/11/2012

Management has been around as long as there has been a need for decision making. Even though scientific management began and established itself in the early twentieth century, references to planning and organization are found in ancient Greek and Biblical literature,the
Roman
armies, the
Roman Catholic
Church, the
East
India
Company…
The way of how to manage people and organizations has evolved and changed considerably over a period of time. It has continuously adopted new theories and practices and replaced old ones so as to make management activity increasingly efficient. That’s why both theory and history are important to all managers today.
Here we canobserve a simple timeline showing a few of the most important management breakthroughs and practices over the last 4,000 years:
Management in antiquity
The practice of management can be traced back thousands of years: the Egyptians used management functions such as planning, organizing and controlling in the construction of the pyramids; Socrates and Plato discussed about management concepts andjob specialization; the ancient Babylonians used management in governing their empire; the Roman Empire developed a well-defined organizational structure that greatly facilitated communication and control…
People have also long been writing about how to make organizations efficient and effective, since long before terms such as “management” came into common usage. Along the history, we can findseveral prominent and instructive examples of ancient authors, but here we will focus only in three of them: Sun Tzu, Aristotle and Machiavelli. Although none of them was trying to develop a theory of management per se, their insights teach us an important lesson about history.
Aristotle and Machiavelli’s visions were focused on the management of the political system, but they had differentconcepts of the basic goals of politics. To Aristotle the goal of politics was summed up in the phrase “the good life.” In other words, the goal of politics was to create a society that allowed its citizens to prosper. Machiavelli on the other hand, believed in much less loftier goals. To him, the goal of politics was simple and could be summed up in three words – control, stability, and power.Citizens make up an important part of the political process, but were seen in very different light. Aristotle viewed citizens as the backbone of the state and believed that they had a responsibility to the state, while Machiavelli simply believed that citizens should do what they are told (i.e. follow their leader) and preferred that they don’t think about politics at all.
They also differed greatly intheir views of virtue and ethics and the roles they play in politics To Aristotle, civic virtue was central to politics and a good state. On the surface, Machiavelli claimed that the ruler has to be prepared to act without virtue because those around him will do likewise.
When considering the differences between their opinions on the goals of politics, the roles of the citizens, and forms ofstate, it was fairly obvious that one sought lofty goals and the other sought practical ones. Aristotle focused on what should happen, what would be the ideal way of governance, while Machiavelli claims to be focusing on what really happens rather than mere theories or speculations.
Now, let’s talk about Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese thinker, author of 'The Art of War'. Sometimes Sun Tzu andMachiavelli are mentioned as part of the same pragmatic, realist approach, focusing on the arts of war rather than the art of peace, but this view misunderstands certain key aspects of their thought. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli were the masters of leadership, and their philosophies, through their respective masterworks – The Art of War and The Prince, have taught generations of leaders the basics of being...