Managerialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
K11679965.jpg

Managerialism is a belief in the value of professional managers and of the concepts and methods they use. It is associated[by whom?] with hierarchy, accountability and measurement, and a belief in the importance of tightly managed organizations, as opposed to individuals, or to groups that do not resemble an organization.

In 1993 Albert A. Anderson summarized managerialism as the ideological principle that sees societies as equivalent to the sum of the decisions and transactions made by the managements of organizations.[1]

Historian James Hoopes wrote (2003):

"[...] the main genesis of managerialism lay in the human relations movement that took root at the Harvard Business School in the 1920s and 1930s under the guiding hand of Professor Elton Mayo. Mayo, an immigrant from Australia, saw democracy as divisive and lacking in community spirit. He looked to corporate managers to restore the social harmony that he believed the uprooting experiences of immigration and industrialization had destroyed and that democracy was incapable of repairing."[2]

Managerialism Ideology[edit]

The managerialist society is not one which responds to the needs, desires, and wishes of a majority of its citizens, but one which is influenced by organizations. The managerialist society responds to the managements of various organizations in relation to their transactions with each other. The needs, desires and wishes of the individual is heard through their membership of an organization. Furthermore, Managerialism is both a process and a substantive ideology. Managerialism says that the fundamental social units are not individuals, as capitalism would declare, but rather the fundamental social units are organizations. Ultimately, Managerialism specifically denies that the fundamental nature of society is an aggregation of individuals.[3]

Political[edit]

Managerialism in Political science is a set of beliefs, attitudes and values which support the view that management is the most essential and desirable element of good administration and government. Consequently in all enterprises and services, both private or public, expertise in management must be taught by training and incentives to excel. In the political world it may take the form of asserting that much conflict and argument are unnecessary for solving problems. All that is needed is a rational assessment of the problem and this involves gathering and collating information, listing the options, calculating costs of each, evaluating consequences and choosing the best course of action. Recent Managerialism has included such devices as 'performance indicators', purporting to measure the relative efficiencies of different managers and 'market testing' which compares public sector managers' responsibilities and tasks with those of managers in the private sector in order to assess their pay. It is criticized for weakening the public service ethos.[4]

If one were to conceive of society as a nation, such as the United States, Managerialism concludes that there is no single United States and that individual Americans should not be identified as the fundamental nature of the country. Rather, the country is basically composed of numerous groups which collectively make up the country we call the United States. The government is a part of the managerial process. The management of different groups will attempt to influence the direction of government action. Their success or failure will depend upon their ability to pursue their case and upon their ability to blunt the case of competitors. The success of the subunits depends upon the ability of their managements and other factors such as size, cohesiveness, managerial discretion, and control of resources. Government itself is a collection of governmental units. The government is not state.[5]

Economic[edit]

Economically, Managerialism is the application of managerial techniques in businesses. Managerialism in this regard has to do with the strategic approach of goal setting. In order to achieve previously unimagined levels of accumulation and production, business within a capitalist economy needed a way of connecting their strategic plan of actions to desired implementations of those plans. Within an organization, the individuals at the top of the organizational hierarchy determines a mission or set of goals, which is then strategically analyzed by individuals lower on the hierarchy (managers) to devise local goals to carry out the overall mission. Put simply, managerial standard is to receive goals from above and to create new goals for those below.[6]

There is a belief that in Managerialism, organizations have more similarities than differences, and thus the performance of all organizations can be optimized by the application of generic management skills and theory. To a practitioner of Managerialism, there is little difference in the skills required to run a college, an advertising agency or an oil rig.[7] Experience and skills pertinent to an organization's core business are considered secondary.[8]

The term can be used disparagingly to describe organizations perceived to have a preponderance or excess of managerial techniques, solutions, rules and personnel, especially if these seem to run counter to the common sense of observers. It is said that the MBA degree is intended to provide generic skills to a new class of managers not wedded to a particular industry or professional sector.[9]

There have been mixed reviews on the efficacy of Managerialism, explored extensively in university studies of the State. Some have accepted the flaws on the theory, building upon it and putting it forth as a valid theory of the State. Others have outright rejected such a proposition, responding that regardless of the few similarities such a system could not be successful on a political level.[citation needed]

The term can also be used pejoratively as in the definition of a management caste. Robert R. Locke defines it accordingly as "What occurs when a special group, called management, ensconces itself systemically in an organization and deprives owners and employees of their decision-making power (including the distribution of emolument), and justifies that takeover on the grounds of the managing group's education and exclusive possession of the codified bodies of knowledge and know-how necessary to the efficient running of the organization."[10]

New Managerialism[edit]

New Managerialism is an ideology used for legitimizing the development of new organizational forms and relationships. It is has been coined a practical ideology of being ' business like’ in order to make the new arrangements work for all forms jobs, organizations, and education systems. New Managerialism is conceptualized in that it seeks firstly to explain the socioeconomic and political reasons behind why particular organizations have been developed and, secondly, to describe the ways in which public services are currently being delivered. The idea of New Managerialism came to fruition when new organizational forms originated from a view that professional bureaucratic modes of organization were inefficient and could not cope with the challenges rising from increasing globalization. New Managerialism, however, has not remained static over the years as it has had many different versions of its implementation. Its linkage to the changing practices associated with an agenda moves away from a purely Neo-liberal framework. While using business-like mechanisms to ensure great cost effectiveness is still used as a great technique. There has been movements away from purely market based systems that were in place strictly for efficiency, to contractual mechanisms and performance measurement through audit and review. In practice of New Managerialism, consumers are redefined as well. Not only do consumers have choice in regard to where and how they receive their services, but they should be actively involved in determining what services should be provided as well.[11] In new Managerialism consumers are redefined as well. Not only should they have choice regarding where and how they receive their services, but they should be actively involved in determining what services should be provided as well. The new Managerialism explains public services not as production functions or firms, but as governance structures. What is at stake is not so much the ethos and practice of management as the culture and structure of governance. Here governance means the culture and structure of the relationship between what Weber called legitimate domination and the self-constitution of those who are subject to it. What Weber meant by legitimate domination was justified by an authority structure, which was, in turn, legitimated by legal-rational authority. But governance through the new Managerialism is not dependent for its legitimization on Weber’s notion of legal-rational authority, but more on a form of rationality that depends upon efficiency in the market. Although this new Managerialism still draws on models of corporate Managerialism as well as accounts of NPM, it is also imbued with the practices of self in everyday life. What is new here, is recognition of the technologies of self that individuals employ to implicate themselves in their own governance.[12]

Influences[edit]

George Elton Mayo 

"One friend, one person who is truly understanding, who takes the trouble to listen to us as we consider our problems, can change our whole outlook on the work"[13]

George Elton Mayo was an Australian psychologist and organizational theorist. A former professor of Industrial Management at the Harvard Business School, Mayo heavily researched the behavior of workers at Western Electric; a manufacturing facet of AT&T. Today he is considered a major contributor to the intellectual though process and ideas of business management, as well as critical theories of industrial and organizational psychology. His book, The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization articulates his collective thoughts taken from the famous Hawthorne research study conducted while at Harvard University.

Karl Marx

"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."[14]

Karl Marx has set many standards in the fields of philosophy, economics, and sociology as one of the worlds most prominent thinkers. Commonly known for his ideas outlined in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital Marx has exemplified ideas of management and order with his very apparent socialistic views. Sociologically Marx has identified core interrelations between groups of people classified by class structures, and how those relations lead to the success or failures of a collective society.

Friedrich Nietzsche 

"To do great things is difficult; but to command great things is more difficult"[15]

A 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche heavily contributed to the fields of management and leadership. Focussing in on ideas of morality; particularly distinguishing the differences between what he labeled the, "master morality," and "slave morality," Nietzsche has exemplified the development of managerial practices through the subjections of moral emphasis and control. "He was especially interested, therefore, in a probing analysis and evaluation of the fundamental cultural values of Western philosophy, religion, and morality, which he characterized as expressions of the ascetic ideal."http://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Nietzsche

History[edit]

The history of Managerialism is linked to the teachings of Karl Marx. In his collection of books over capitalism appropriately named Das Kapital he writes about how when capitalist merge with other capitalist and two corporations come together, they are more likely to become diluted and when that happens those who were once wise business leaders were to be just aimless managers he stated his belief in his books (only volume 1 was published while he was alive) as follows, "Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, an administrator of other people's capital, and of the owners of capital into mere owners, mere money-capitalists.".[16] Marx is talking about what would later be known as Managerialism which is first used by James Burnham who in his book The Managerial Revolution expresses his ideas on the difference between Capitalism and Managerialism stating that when the owners of capital are no longer the ones in charge, and managers, relying on only principle are in charge then it is no longer Capitalism, it is now considered Managerialism.

Compare:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Enteman, Willard F. (1993). Managerialism : the emergence of a new ideology. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299139247. Managerialism rests upon the notion that 'the society (nation) is nothing more than the summation of the decisions and transactions which have been made by the managements of the organizations.' 
  2. ^ Hoopes, James (September 2003). "MANAGERIALISM: ITS HISTORY AND DANGERS". Historically Speaking: The Bulletin of the Historical Society (The Historical Society) 5 (1). Retrieved 5 November 2012. But the main genesis of managerialism lay in the human relations movement that took root at the Harvard Business School in the 1920s and 1930s under the guiding hand of Professor Elton Mayo. Mayo, an immigrant from Australia, saw democracy as divisive and lacking in community spirit. He looked to corporate managers to restore the social harmony that he believed the uprooting experiences of immigration and industrialization had destroyed and that democracy was incapable of repairing. 
  3. ^ Enteman, Willard F. (1993). Managerialism : the emergence of a new ideology. Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299139247. 
  4. ^ Enteman, Willard F. (1993). Managerialism : the emergence of a new ideology. Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299139247. 
  5. ^ Bealey, Frank (1999). The Blackwell dictionary of political science (1. publ. ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 9780631206958. 
  6. ^ Preston, David Seth. "The Rise of Managerialism". Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education. Retrieved 5 November 2012. 
  7. ^ Quiggin, John (2003-07-02). "Word for Wednesday: managerialism (definition)". johnquiggin.com. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 
  8. ^ Emmanuel, Mathew (2010). Methodology of Business Studies. India: Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 978-81-3173069-0. 
  9. ^ "Managerialism Explained." Managerialism Explained. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
  10. ^ "Managerialism and the Demise of the Big Three, Real-world Economics Review" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-09-26. 
  11. ^ Nickson, Alicen. 2014. "A Qualitative Case Study Exploring the Nature of New Managerialism in UK Higher Education and Its Impact on Individual Academics' Experience of Doing Research." Journal Of Research Administration 45, no. 1: 47-80. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 8, 2016).
  12. ^ Fitzsimons, Patrick (01/07/1999). "Managerialism and Education". EEPAT. The Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Retrieved 2016-04-25.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Mayo, Elton. "Elton Mayo Quotes". QuoteHD. Retrieved 2016-04-25. 
  14. ^ Marx, Karl, and David McLellan. The Grundrisse. Print.
  15. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Walter Arnold. Kaufmann. The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Penguin, 1976. Print.
  16. ^ Jessop, Bob, and Russell Wheatley. Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought. London: Routledge, 1999. Print.

.