Historical Trends and Patterns in Media Management

Objective

The lecture is aimed at imparting the knowledge, about historical trends and patterns in the field of management and their implications in the media industry, among the students of Mass Communication. It takes an overview of the “Classical and Human Relations Schools of Thought in Management” and the Contemporary Approaches and Management in the 21st century.

To understand contemporary trends and patterns in media management research, it is first helpful to review the major historical contributions to general management theory. The study of management began near the start of the 20th century, in the United States and abroad. Among the first to be engaged in the study of what would someday be called management was the philosopher Mary Parker Follett.

Ironically, Follett’s works were not appreciated until many years after her death, but her contributions to management thought and inquiry are now widely recognized as important foundation literature for the field of management.

Most management texts review the study of management by examining the major schools of thought that dominated early management science. These schools are reviewed in the following paragraphs, the earliest of which is referred to as the classical school of management.

CLASSICAL SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

The classical school of management (the late 1800s–1920s) parallels the industrial revolution, which marked a major shift from agrarian-based to industrial-based societies. This philosophy of management centered primarily on improving the means of production and increasing productivity among workers. Three different approaches represent the classical school: scientific management, administrative management, and bureaucratic management.

Scientific Management

Scientific management offered a systematic approach to the challenge of increasing production. This approach introduced several practices, including determination of the most effective way to coordinate tasks, careful selection of employees for different positions, proper training and development of the workforce, and introduction of economic incentives to motivate employees. Each part of the production process received careful scrutiny toward the goal of greater efficiency. Frederick W. Taylor, by profession a mechanical engineer, is known as the father of scientific management. In the early 20th century, Taylor (1991) made a number of contributions to management theory, including the ideas of careful and systematic analysis of each job and task and identification of the best employee to fit each individual task. Scientific management also proposed that workers would be more productive if they received high wages

in return for their labor. This approach viewed the worker mechanistically, suggesting that management could guarantee more output if better wages were promised in return. Later approaches proposed that workers need more than just economic incentives to be productive. Nevertheless, many of Taylor’s principles of scientific management are still found in modern organizations, such as detailed job descriptions and sophisticated methods of employee selection, training, and development.

Administrative Management

Henri Fayol, a French mining executive, approached worker productivity differently from Taylor by studying the entire organization in hopes of increasing efficiency. Fayol (1949) introduced the POC3 model, which detailed the functions of management the author identified as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and control. In addition, the author established a list of 14 principles of management that must be flexible enough to accommodate changing circumstances. In that sense, Fayol was among the first theorists to recognize management as a continuing process. One can find Fayol’s management functions and principles widely used in contemporary business organizations.

Bureaucratic Management

German sociologist Max Weber focused on another aspect of worker productivity—organizational structure. Weber (1947) theorized that the use of a hierarchy or bureaucracy would enable the organization to produce at an optimal level. Weber called for a clear division of labor and management, strong central authority, a seniority system, strict discipline and control, clear policies and procedures, and careful selection of workers based primarily on technical qualifications. Weber’s contributions to management are numerous, manifested in things like flow charts, job descriptions, and specific guidelines for promotion and advancement.

The classical school of management concentrated on how to make organizations more productive. Management was responsible for establishing clearly defined job responsibilities, maintaining close supervision, monitoring output, and making important decisions. Individual workers were thought to have little motivation to do their tasks beyond wages and economic incentives. These ideas would be challenged by the next major approach to management.

HUMAN RELATIONS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

The belief that workers were motivated only by wages and economic factors began to be challenged in the 1930s and 1940s, giving rise to the human relations school of management. The human relations school recognized that managers and employees were indeed members of the same organization and

thus shared in the accomplishment of objectives. Further, employees had needs other than just wages and benefits; with these needs met, workers would be more effective and the organization would benefit.

Many theories relating to the behavioral aspects of management arose in this era from a micro perspective, centering on the individual rather than the organization. Key contributors include Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, Frederick Herzberg, Douglas McGregor, and William Ouchi. Their contributions to the human relations school are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Hawthorne Experiments

Perhaps the greatest influence on the development of the human relations approach to management involved this series of experiments conducted from 1924 to 1932 often identified with Harvard professor Elton Mayo. These experiments were actually commissioned by General Electric, with the goal of ultimately increasing the sale of light bulbs sold to business and industry.

In 1924, AT&T’s Western Electric Hawthorne plant in Cicero, Illinois, was the location to investigate the impact of illumination (lighting) on worker productivity. Efficiency experts at the plant used two different groups of workers in the seminal experiment. A control group worked under normal lighting conditions while an experimental group worked under varying degrees of illumination. As lighting increased in the experimental group, productivity went up. However, productivity in the control group also increased, without any increase in light.

Mayo and other consultants were brought in to investigate and expand the study to other areas of the plant. Mayo concluded the human aspects of their work affected the productivity of the workers more than the physical conditions of the plant. In other words, worker behavior is not just physiological but psychological as well. The increased attention and interaction with supervisors led to greater productivity among employees.

Workers felt a greater affinity to the company when management showed interest in the employees and their work. The term Hawthorne effect has come to describe the impact of management attention on employee productivity. The Hawthorne experiments represent an important benchmark in management thought by recognizing that employees have social as well as physical and monetary needs. In this era, new insights were developed into ways that management could identify and meet employee needs as well as motivate workers, and the results of the experiments stimulated new ways of thinking about managing employees.

The Hierarchy of Needs

Psychologist Abraham Maslow contributed to the human relations school through his efforts to understand employee motivation. Maslow (1954) theorized employees have many needs resembling a hierarchy. As basic needs are met, other levels of needs become increasingly important to the individual as the person progresses through the hierarchy.

Maslow identified five areas of need: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. Physiological needs are the essentials for survival: food, water, shelter, and clothing. Safety or security concerns the need to be free from physical danger and to live in a predictable environment. Social includes the need to belong and be accepted by others. Esteem is both self-esteem (feeling good about the self) and recognition from others. Self-actualization is the desire to become what one is capable of being—the idea of maximizing one’s potential.

The utility of Maslow’s hierarchy lies in its recognition that each individual is motivated by different needs, and individuals respond differently throughout the life cycle. Some people may have dominant needs at a particular level and not everyone moves through the entire hierarchy. Regardless, Maslow’s hierarchy suggests managers may require different techniques to motivate people according to their needs.

Hygiene and Motivator Factors

Psychologist Frederick Herzberg, studied employee attitudes through intensive interviews to determine which job variables determined worker satisfaction. Herzberg (1966) identified two sets of what the author called hygiene or maintenance factors, and motivators.

Hygiene factors were analogous with the work environment, including technical and physical conditions and factors such as company policies and procedures, supervision, the work itself, wages, and benefits. Motivators consisted of recognition, achievement, responsibility, and individual growth and development. Herzberg recognized that motivators positively influence employee satisfaction. Herzberg’s work suggests managers must recognize a dual typology of employee needs—hygiene factors and the need for positive motivation—in order to maintain job satisfaction.

Theory X and Theory Y

Whereas Maslow and Herzberg helped advance an understanding of motivation in management, industrial psychologist Douglas McGregor (1960) noted many managers still held traditional assumptions that workers held little interest in work and lacked ambition. McGregor labeled this style of management Theory X, which emphasized control, threat, and coercion to motivate employees.

McGregor offered a different approach to management called Theory Y. Managers did not rely on control or fear but instead integrated the needs of the workers with the organization. Employees could exercise self-control and self-direction and develop their own sense of responsibility. The manager’s role in Theory Y centers on matching individual talents with the proper position in the organization and providing appropriate rewards.

Theory Z

Ouchi (1981) used characteristics of both Theory X and Theory Y in contrasting management styles of American and Japanese organizations. Ouchi claimed U.S. organizations could learn much from a Japanese managerial model, which the author labeled as Theory Z.

Theory Z posits employee participation and individual development as key components of organizational growth. Interpersonal relations between workers and managers are stressed in Theory Z. Ouchi also drew from Theory X, in that management makes key decisions, and a strong sense of authority must be maintained. The human relations school signified an important change in management thought as the focus moved to the role of employees in meeting organizational goals. In particular, the ideas of creating a positive working environment and attending to the needs of the employees represent important contributions of the human relations school to management science.

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT

By the 1960s, theorists began to integrate and expand concepts and elements of both the classical and human relations schools. This effort, which continues into the 21st century, has produced an enormous amount of literature on modern management thought in the areas of management effectiveness, leadership, systems theory, total quality management (TQM), and strategic management.

Management Effectiveness

The classical and human relations schools share organizational productivity as a common goal, although they differ on the means. The former proposes efficiency and control, whereas the latter endorses employees and their needs and wants. Neither approach considers the importance of effectiveness, or the actual attainment of organizational goals. In both the classical and human relations schools, effectiveness is simply a natural and expected outcome.

Modern management theorists have questioned this assumption. Drucker (1973) claimed effectiveness is the very foundation of organizational success, more so than organizational efficiency. Drucker (1986) developed Management by Objectives (MBO), promoting exchange between managers and employees.

In an MBO system, management identifies the goals for each individual and shares these goals and expectations with each unit and employee. The shared objectives are used to guide individual units or departments and serve as a way for management to monitor and evaluate progress.

An important aspect of the MBO approach is an agreement between employees and managers regarding performance over a set period of time (e.g., 90 days, 180 days, etc.). In this sense, management retains external control, whereas employees exhibit self-control over how to complete their objectives. The MBO approach has further utility in that one can apply it to any organization, regardless of size. Critics of MBO contend it is time-consuming to implement and difficult to maintain in organizations that deal with rapidly changing environments.

Leadership

The interdependent relationship between management and leadership represents a second area of modern management thought. Considered a broader topic than management, leadership is commonly defined among management theorists as “the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation” (Hersey & Blanchard, 1996, p. 94). Although leadership is not confined to management, there is wide agreement that the most successful organizations have strong, effective leaders. Most organizations contain both formal and informal leaders, some of which are in management positions, some are not.

Leadership can be studied from many different perspectives. Among the more significant scholars is Warren Bennis (1994) who claims leadership consists of three basic qualities: vision, passion, and integrity. Regarding vision, leaders have an understanding of where they want to go and will not let obstacles deter their progress. Passion is another trait of a good leader, whereas integrity is made up of self-knowledge, candor, and maturity.

Bennis makes several distinctions between someone who is a manager versus someone who is a leader. To Bennis, the leader innovates, whereas the manager administers. Leaders offer a long-range perspective, whereas managers exhibit a short-range view. Leaders originate, managers imitate. The author argues that most business schools—and education in general—focus on narrow aspects of training rather than on development of leadership qualities in individuals. Only one study related to the media industries has dealt with leadership aspects; Perez-Latre and Sanchez-Tabernero (2003) conducted a qualitative study to assess how leadership affects change among Spanish media firms.

There is an emerging body of literature that deals with leadership that is more practical in nature and less theory-driven. Publications like Strategy and Leadership, Fast Company, and Leadership Wired (an

online publication) provide articles related to leadership principles. Strategy and Leadership occasionally features specific articles that deal with the media industries (see Parker, 2004; Sterling, 2002).

Systems Theory

Systems theory approaches management from a macro perspective, examining the entire organization and the environment in which the organization operates (Schoderbek, Schoderbek, & Kefalas, 1985). Organizations are engaged in similar activities involving inputs (e.g., labor, capital, and equipment), production processes (converting inputs into some type of product), and outputs (e.g., products, goods, and services). In a systems approach to management, organizations also study the external environment, evaluating feedback from the environment in order to recognize change and reassess goals.

Organizations are not isolated; they interact interdependently with other organizations in the environment. The systems approach recognizes the relationship between the organization and its external environment. Although managers cannot control this environment, they must be aware of environmental factors and the impact they may have on the organization. Covington (1997) illustrates the application of systems theory to television station management.

Another approach to systems theory is the resource dependence perspective developed by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). An organization’s survival is based on its utilization of resources, both internal and external. All organizations depend on the environment for resources, and media industries are no exception (Turow, 1992).

Much of the uncertainty organizations face is due to environmental factors. As Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) state, “Problems arise not merely because organizations are dependent on their environment, but because this environment is not dependable . . . [W]hen environments change, organizations face the prospect either of not surviving or of changing their activities in response to these environmental factors” (p. 3).

Organizations can alter their interdependence with other organizations by absorbing other entities or cooperating with other organizations to reach mutual interdependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Mergers and acquisitions, vertical integration, and diversification are strategies organizations use to ease resource dependence.

Total Quality Management

Another modern approach to management theory is total quality management (TQM). TQM is best described as a series of approaches to achieving quality in organizations, especially when producing

products and serving customers (Weaver, 1991). Under TQM, managers combine strategic approaches to deliver the best products and services by continuously improving every part of an operation (Hand, 1992). Although management implements and leads TQM in an organization, every employee is responsible for quality.

A number of management scholars have contributed to an understanding of TQM, which is widely used. Considered the pioneer of modern quality control, Walter Shewart originally worked for Bell Labs, where early work focused on control charts built on statistical analyses. Juran (1988) and Deming (1982) contributed to Shewart’s early work, primarily with Japanese industries. Deming linked the ideas of quality, productivity, market share, and jobs; Juran contributed a better understanding of planning, control, and improvement in the quality process. Other important contributors to the development of

TQM include Philip Crosby, Armand Feigenbaum, and Karou Ishikawa (Kolarik, 1995). The popularity of TQM in the United States increased during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when U.S. business and industry were suffering from what many industrial experts labeled declining quality. Organizations adopted quality control procedures and strategies to reverse the negative image associated with poor-quality products. TQM is still used as a way to encourage and demand high quality in the products and services produced by organizations.

Strategic Management

The growth of companies and industries during the second half of the 20th century led to the importance of strategic management. Strategic management is concerned with developing the tools and techniques to analyze industries and competitors and developing strategies to gain competitive advantage. The most significant scholar in the area of strategic management is Harvard professor Michael Porter, whose seminal works Competitive Strategy (1980) and Competitive Advantage (1985) form the primary literature in studying strategy in business schools all over the world.