What Are The Contemporary Approaches to Management and Why They Should Replace The Classical Ones

Introduction

In this era of a technical boom, the world will have a hard time keeping up with the exponential growth of every field that has technology involved in it. This essay is to identify how contemporary business ideology is slowly taking the world by surprise and how it is not be stopped as it favours more workers-centric business modules also outlined by the human relations and post-bureaucratic perspective. While the main objective of the essay is to clarify why contemporary modules should completely do away with outdated classical approaches. I do agree on the point on contemporary approaches to management as it gives more freedom to the workers at the bottom of the line rather than just being a name on the paper. This also leads to better performance and productivity among the workers given that they have a definite of grabbing the opportunities given to them.

The Classical Approach

The classical approach was developed in an industrial age that applies the scientific method and. It is highly subjective to the belief that people's motivation to work is solely based on the monetary gain to achieve their physical and economic goals. The classical approach mostly bases on efficiency, productivity and the overall output produced by its employees as well as the organization as a whole leaving behind the human or behavioural aspects or variation that is found in employees (Raman and Thapliyal, 2019). We also find the classical approach being criticized over the past decade on how it ignores the voice of their employees by ignoring their emotional attributes while working for the organization. Even in this given scenario classical method does have its importance making it usable in many cases. The clear structure for managing its functions and operations are its key factor of attraction. Given its simple and effective stricture, it is much easier to manage and makes tasks easier and more efficient to be completed which directly or indirectly improves and enhances the rate of productivity. When the theory of contemporary approach in implemented companies does see their production number. Increase but the creativity lying under each individual is left unseen. The emotion that drives people motivation to work in today’s generation is highly neglected hence by attempting to predict and manipulate what makes us human; creativity and relations. In another word this method sees workers a machine but fails to identify the impact of job satisfaction, employees’ feelings and morale can bring into the company. This can be the. the reason why this approach slowly started falling out after the rise of human relation movement which demanded to gain a better understating of motivation driving factors for productivity (StudyMoose, 2016).

Given in the real world, the classical method has been proven handy and effective in the past century and it cannot be unseen, how the blue-chip companies trading in the stock market have grown in past decades using the same methodology, while all this is true and can be contradicting, the approach has been failing to show any significant importance in this dynamic ever-changing world of internet and technology. Therefore, companies will have to develop logical and reliable business strategies and must be able to utilize management accounting tools and available resources. It is also a fact that globalization along with deregulation of trade, and tech fusion in the world of business has played a vital role in making business this complex and dynamic outperforming the classical approach making it more competitive and provoking to be innovative.

What are the Contemporary Approaches to Management?

On the other hand, the modern or contemporary method is a mode that is ever-changing and adapting. The current business scenario is mostly determined by hyper globalization and technical development (Jones and Comunale, 2019). The reason behind this can be technology which is now inseparable to ion todays module and those not being able to keep up are left behind for example ; Nokia as a smartphone manufacturer once was the definition of cellular phone domination, while being unable to keep up with the technology made them the sale the branding to Microsoft in 2013 after the emerging trend of touch smartphone followed by iPhone. This is due to the reason that technology is the inevitable part of the contemporary management and along with the initiation of the globalization, the management needs to consider more diverse factors in managing the organizations (Hickson and Pugh, 2014). The main concern in this module is not how to communicate but rather about what is to be said to whom and hot how it is meant to be said (Kotler and Keller, 2006). This takes all the concerns that were not lightly taken or not taken at all of the human behaviour seriously and as driving factors for employees (Fleischman, Johnson, Walker and Valentine, 2019). This module will be much more efficient on an individual level as one’s voice is heard and is carries a weight enough to change the whole business model of an organization.This factor is small and can be left unseen but can play a significant role in transforming and evolving the business to something than just a company ran by board members and stakeholders. While in if attempted to figure the organizational structure of in classical module it would look more like a pyramid in which CEO, president of the company and senior management stay on the top of this pyramid. Whereas the middle of the pyramid is middle. Mangers and lower mangers and the bottom are taken by employees hence employees are the scapegoat for all other high seaters.

Given this, the contemporary module is the rigid top-down model of the traditional structure is removed in favour of teams that work on projects together. Where serious managers are. Expected to run and be responsible for the overall. The effort from employees, this organization module was designed in such a way to empower the employees to make. Decisions and products based on the public. Demand. In this structure, the employees are shown goal and the way to achieve it and employees tend to find the a more efficient way to do it. This structure eliminates the pyramid design (Vanharanta and Markopoulos, 2019). That is showed by the classical company and gives employees ownership award of the work they have done.

Conclusion

Putting all this in context we can conclude that the main advantage of a recent structure style is that workers have the liberty to implement their own choices, build changes and take possession of their work while not interference from middle management and senior management. This freedom will cause magnified productivity, larger work quality and a major transaction in worker satisfaction. beneath this structure, workers type stronger bonds, as a result of they need to have confidence every other's experience and talent to accomplish their goals. there's usually additionally a larger level of communication among staff, as a result of each worker depends on the success of another employee. So, making it the way to go as the main approach is more applicable than using the traditional or classical approach. Hence these days is the correct time to accept this business model for any given organization as it fulfils the requirement of the given technology based dynamic system which can maintain stability and a potential growth in an organization. Therefore, I agree that contemporary businesses should completely do away with outdated classical approaches in favour of more people-centric structures outlined by human relations and/or post-bureaucratic perspectives.

References

1. StudyMoose. (2016).Contemporary Approaches to Management. [Online]. Available at:https://studymoose.com/contemporary-approaches-to-management-essay[Accessed: 01 Nov. 2019]
2. Venkat Raman, G, Garg, S & Thapliyal, S 2019, ‘Integrative live case: A contemporary business ethics pedagogy’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 155, no. 4, pp. 1009–1032,
3. Hickson, D and Pugh, D 2014,‘Cooperative strategy: economic, business, and organizational issues’, Organization Studies, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 200-256
4. Jones, G & Comunale, R 2019, ‘Oral history and the business history of emerging markets’, Enterprise and Society, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 19–32
5. Munoz, P & Cohen, B 2018, ‘A compass for navigating sharing economy business models’, California management review, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 114–147
6. Fleischman, GM, Johnson, EN, Walker, KB & Valentine, SR 2019, ‘Ethics versus outcomes: managerial responses to incentive-driven and goal-induced employee behaviour’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 951–967
7. Kotler, P and Keller, K 2006, Marketing Management, 12th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
8. Vanharanta, H & Markopoulos, E 2019, ‘The applied philosophy concept for management and leadership objects through the Company Democracy Model’, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 178–195