The "Science" of modern management

For a very long time, I have been debating the role of managers in any organization that has a lot of people that deal with tacit knowledge such as software, medicine, architecture, etc. My own thoughts with respect to my employer have been ranging between extremes. On one hand, I prefer a slightly open environment where I can learn and grow. On the other hand, I would have preferred that there was some structure to day to day workplace battles. If on a day when I am dragged into different roles- the kinds I think would be handled by at-least 4 different persons in a more structured organization, I feel that I am subsidizing the employer's business model or lack thereof.

As I was looking for answers, I came across a book titled False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management And Why Their Ideas Are Bad For Business Today by James Hoopes. The editorial review claimed that most modern day management gurus are simply misleading people with management fads. The review claimed that the book exposes the deeper conflict between the authority of managers and the freedom granted by Jeffersonian ideals of a free-man, a concept on which most modern democracies are based.

Intrigued, I finally picked up the book and read it cover to cover. Overall the book offered many interesting facts and insights on the people whose theories most management students study as a part of the curriculum. Based on the reviews, I expected a lengthy discourse on why management conflicts with a persons' freedom as an individual.

What I found was a lot of historical and well-researched facts about the gurus themselves. Another bonus was a sort of comparative discourse of different management theories. Most importantly, it traces the individuals along their own professional and personal paths, as they came up with the theories, something I always am curious about.

I would recommend this book because, I feel a lot of management theories have to be studied in the context they were proposed, which may or may not be valid today.

While many of the critiques I felt were justified, I felt the author over-demonized FW Taylor and got off easy on Peter Drucker. The author built the most convincing case against Edwin Mayo, who conducted the famous Hawthorne experiments. To management students, the Hawthorne experiments are presented as conclusive evidence for morale based management, just like Michelson-Morley experiments are to students of physical sciences as evidence of the absence of ether. Mr. Hoopes evidence proves that the experiments were a farce and the results were mainly fudged.

As for Frederick Taylor, father of modern management, I thought was over-demonized. That his motives were not altruistic is easy to understand, however, by raising production, he was able to offer workers a more decent standard of living.

Some names that the author presented in a good light were Peter Drucker, Deming and Mary Parker Follett. I was familiar with both Drucker and Deming (thanks to management courses and software quality workshops, respectively), the name that surprised me was Ms. Follett.

I must say, I was intrigued by a woman who articulated so many things that I have been trying to resolve in my own head for quite some time. Not only did she answer so many questions almost 90 years before they were bothering me, she took the discussions to a new level and provided answers that are as elegant as E=mc^2.

As a follow up, I read her 1918 book - The New State about which I will write in a later post.