260 likes | 415 Views
Classical Management Foundations for the Future of Management Education . Ellen S. O’Connor, Ph.D., M.B.A. ( ellensoconnor@gmail.com ) P hilosophie & Management ( www.philoma.org ) Brussels, June 23, 2014. Chester Barnard 1886 - 1961. Mary P. Follett 1868 - 1933. What must
E N D
Classical Management Foundations for the Future of Management Education Ellen S. O’Connor, Ph.D., M.B.A. (ellensoconnor@gmail.com) Philosophie & Management (www.philoma.org) Brussels, June 23, 2014
Chester Barnard 1886 - 1961 Mary P. Follett 1868 - 1933 What must bedone? 3. Build on this knowledge 2. Understand Why it was forgotten 1. Recover forgotten knowledge
Industrialization & the new organizational form • Unlike familiar forms (church, state & military) • Relating to (discovery) & applying basic science (exploitation) • Converting to scale reliably & continuously (formal organizing) • Spreading quickly
More artificial More fictitious New organizationalform More complex More ephemeral Potentially generating massive wealth Potentially Very large scale
Education gap for the new industry • “Business” schools: Clerks • Colleges: Gentlemen • Scientific schools: engineers Wealthyindustrialists look for new institutions
Accelerating factors Pennsylvania state militiafires 1877 Injunctionsagainstunions 1877 Panic of 1873 1879 Credit mobilierfraud 1870’s Great railroad strike 1877
First Collegiate school of business curriculum Modern industry requires us to organize under single leaders… great amounts of capital & numbers of laborers The fruits of organized labor must be properly divided among capitalist, leader & workman The importance of educating men to combine their energies for the accomplishment of any desirable object, and the principles upon which such combinations should be effected Joseph Wharton 1826 - 1909
Instillnew values Wharton’s agendas Teachnew subjects Makenew discoveries
Regimentation Decentralization New organizationalform (deeper) Uncertainty Suboptimization
New organizational form’s consequences • New individual, collectivity & interdependencies • New knowledge But no institutional support for generating & growing that knowledge
Missed opportunities: the 4 crises 1890 New York University College 1948Carnegie Graduate School of Industrial Admin. 1881Wharton Collegiate School of business 1919 Harvard Business School
Comprenhensiveknowledge transfer(Barnard & Harvard in 1930’s-40’s); Simon’s seminars on Barnard in late 40’s) The Classics’ contribution Generaltheory of organization Barnard (1938) Basic science ofcollective value(s) creation Follett (1924)
Exertingcentripetal force The Classics’ Key managerial roles Securingcreative contribution of all Building aninterdependence culture
Agenda: Short-Term Wealth Maximization • Microeconomics • Corporate strategy • Shareholder value theory • Neoclassical economics No pursuit of problems & solutions identified by classical management
Next steps? • 3. Build on classical management theories & findings • Research • Rigorous testing • Living case method • 2. Understand why it was forgotten • Developing historical sensibility • Recover forgotten knowledge • Educate educators
Classical Management for today A workshop Ellen S. O’Connor, Ph.D., M.B.A. (ellensoconnor@gmail.com) Philosophie & Management (www.philoma.org) Brussels, June 24, 2014
Purpose of management education Develop members & leaders of formal organization who master the tool of organization, in pursuit of individual & collective value(s) creation at the highest level, continuously, and in the long run
Need for a higher-order institution with the knowledge to provide that education • Develop members and leaders of formal organization who master the tool of organization, in pursuit of individual and collective value(s) creation at the highest level, continuously, and in the long run. • This calls for a higher-order institution with the knowledge to provide that education. Need for a consensus on • Vision • Terminology • Tested & proven findings
What We Know So Far Names & titles Historical figures Living insights Key findings Educational experiments
“Failed” educational experiments: the 4 crises 1890 New York University College 1948Carnegie Graduate School of Industrial Admin. 1881Wharton Collegiate School of business 1919 Harvard Business School
Follett (1868-1933) Taylor (1856-1915) Fayol (1841-1925) Wharton (1826-1909) Barnard (1886-1961) Donham (1877-1954) Rowntree (1871-1954)
Key findings Key Findings Core knowledge grown piecemeal in a small group of scientifically & developmentally minded executives Science based on individual experience “in the physiological condition of personal responsibility” in formal organization Business schools: so far organized to serve academic & technical specialists
Comprenhensiveknowledge transfer(Barnard & Harvard in 1930’s-40’s); Simon’s seminars on Barnard in late 40’s) Living Insights (key classics’ contributions) Basic science ofcollective value(s) creation Follett (1924) Generaltheory of organization Barnard (1938)
Discovery v. Exploitation Centrifugal v. Centripetal Management Value(s) creation pivot multiplier, in pursuit of creative tension betweenconflicting forces (sensedwithin) Individual v. Group Individual v. Regimentation Freedom v. Subordination Contributing v. Witholding
The Conflicting and Creative Forces Discovery v. Exploitation Centrifugal v. Centripetal • Organization: Centrifugal v. centripedal • Organization: Discovery v. exploitation • Organization: The individual v. the group • Individual: Individualism v. regimentation • Individual: Freedom v. subordination • Individual: Contributing v. withholding Management Value(s) creation pivot multiplier, in pursuit of creative tension betweenconflicting forces (sensedwithin) Individual v. Group Individual v. Regimentation Freedom v. Subordination Contributing v. Witholding
(re)invent purposes (re)invent moral codes Executivesexert centripetal force integrate internally integrate externally incarnate through ownperson (Subordination, predictability & sincerity)