Search

The article presents the results of a workshop on the history of management thought. Panelists were asked to discuss those individuals who have contributed the most to the practice of management, subsequent theory formation, and research of management. Conversation focused on the contributions of Alfred Sloan, Mary Parker Follett, Sune Carlson, Whiting Williams, William Foote Whyte, Alexander Leighton, and Fred Fiedler, among many others. The author finds that the informal discussion also led to conversations around the scope of management science, the interrelationship of management with other disciplines, how the development of management thought contributes to today's concerns, and whether management theory can exist independently of value systems, culture, and institutions.

A study is presented that examines the extent to which the ideas and practices of individuals in managerial positions are congruent with the findings in behavioral science. The author aims to assess the effectiveness of the social and behavioral sciences in the field of management due to their increased popularity in research. The author notes that research in these areas has been increasing dramatically; however, the application of that research, by managers, does not appear to have matched the pace of researchers. The author discusses several possibilities for this, noting that gaps in communication between the two groups and differing areas of focus may help explain the problem.

The need for an alternative approach to the analysis of managerial functions arises front the inherent limitations of the "traditional approach.'' (1) The traditionalists have not distinguished between true principles or facts and recommendations about what practice should be. (2) The validity of the "traditional approach" and its conclusions has not been demonstrated. (3) The acceptability of the approach and its conclusions rests in large measure upon frequent repetition by writers in the field. (4) The universality of application sought by the traditionalists is retarded by the very nature of their approach. These limitations impair the effectiveness and weaken the contribution of the traditional analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]