In a time where relationships and networks determine the backbone of our society, a re-innovation in the way managers interpret the essence of managing people wants to satisfy a dynamic class of individuals that, now more than ever, is continuously in search of self-actualisation and personal growth.
‘The large corporation that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was built on a military model of organisation: everyone had their place in a rank, every place defined a function, and authority flowed through a chain of command from top to bottom. If you were unsure what to do next, you looked at your job description and if that did not provide an answer you asked the next person up in the chain of command for instructions’ (http://www.wethinkthebook.net/book/home.aspx).
In a time where increasing technology, globalisation and uncertainty have evolved an even more educated, diverse and unsettled workforce, dehumanised and bureaucratic ways of approaching management should be abandoned. However, it seems that doing business with spasmodic and blind conventionalism is mainly perceived as wrong, but is practically done by the most. Throughout the preparation of my research paper coming across Taylorist modus operandi and old-school business practises was ordinary.
Almost a century ago Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific management, claimed an essential effectiveness of the labour force. The social contract between employer and employee was presented as a sort of mutual exchange of favours interconnected in a space of reciprocal respect and trust.
Surely, managers should aim toward optimal efficiency and productivity, and employees must receive appropriate incentive and security as counterpart of their work. However, prevailing social values and current economic situations reject the pivotal principles through which Taylor’s assumption was originally developed. Specifically, it can be affirmed that scientific management combines two main incongruities: firstly, the essential full control during the whole business process; secondly, it was diffused the belief that material rewards were sufficiently able to empower motivation and effectiveness.
Taylor alluded to an apparent equality that could encourage cooperation and avoid serious quarrel. Conversely, it can be argued that the intrinsic nature of human beings is predominately prepared for learning rather than for being controlled. The impulse to learn is an innate desire that explores and experiments with change. In a world of chaos that requires instinct and natural intuition, there is no space for a top-bottom system of learning. Innovation takes place in a system based on the nourishment of creativity and communication, rather than inhibition of risk and punishment of mistakes.
Human beings, as learning creatures, are adaptable to changes and new events. The creation of appropriate platforms of collaboration and communication will avoid situations of pressure and stress, furthermore satisfying the need for organisation and proficiency. In a time where relationships and networks determine the backbone of our society, a re-innovation in the way managers interpret the essence of managing people wants to satisfy a dynamic class of individuals that, now more than ever, is continuously in search of self-actualisation and personal growth.
Meet other experts on the topic, and check out their ideas in the following video: http://bit.ly/13TNT8a
Interested in finding out more about building a creative economy? Be sure to attend the MA Innovation Management Grad Show June 19-23 at Central St. Martins College of Arts & Design.