EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT THEORY

ABSTRACT
Without a smart thinking, the cacophony of management tools
could lead to managers confusion, which in turn would bring
to a stagnant and frustrated situation. The paper was aimed
at: (1) describing the evolution of management theories with
their basic assumptions, and (2) offering a single framework
through the integration all of the theories to be an effective
manager.
Simply, all of the management theories can be categorized into
two schools of thought, i.e. instrumental account and social
action account. Instrumental account, departing from
organization as a basis of analysis, saw organization as a
tool for achieving shared goals, so this account offered a
number of recipes about how managers should do in managing
organizations. With such assumptions, managerial work was
to manage people for achieving organization goals; then
peoples action seen as the product of managerial work. This
accounts consisted of four theories, i.e.: classical management
theories, human relation theories, organic systems theories,
and contingency theories. On the contrary, social action
account performed its analysis departing from social action
of the actors involved, then organization seen as the product
of peoples action in negotiating meanings (cultural theories)
or in competing interests (political theories). Making use of this
assumption, there was no separation between managers

action and actors action; all conducted negotiation of meanings

in every event, or competing resource for meeting actors
interests.
At the end of the paper, it has been shown the integration of all
management theories in a single framework. In order to be an
effective manager, one should be able to select the basic roles
or theories in such a way that the selected roles or theories
was matching with organizational event the manager faced
(mimicry phenomenon). In other words, contingency was not
based on the variance of organization but based on the variance
of event the manager faced

EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT THEORY

Based on the analysis of the way the starting point
of view on a variety of management theory can
grouped into two: analysis
analysis of institutional and social action. Analysis
institutional opposite of 'organization' has
spawned an instrumental perspective. It is
is consistent with the term 'organization' is
derived from the word meaning organonyang tool. Way
instrumental perspective see the 'organization' as
tool to achieve a common goal. Thinkers in the group instrumental
perspective
trying to investigate 'what do
members of the organization in organizational life
and try to create recipes for managers
to run the organization in achieving
purpose '.
Discourse in perspective
instrumental always concerned with "what managers
should do in the organization ", because it departed from
'Organization', thinkers in perspective
instrumental use of the assumption that
organization existed before the action of its members (pre-existent), not
dependent, free, and not a product
from the action of its members. This perspective view or
managers assume that the action is neutral,
rational, can be planned, and free from
interests of the individual manager.
In a group of instrumental perspective
includes several subgroups theories
form a 'spectrum' is very luas3
for example,
have divided this into perspective instrumental
in 25 types of perspective (theory). However
Thus, in order to facilitate the mapping
and understanding, this paper divides perspective
instrumental to the four major groups of theories,
namely the classical management theory (rational), management
humanity (human relations theories), management
organic systems, and contingency management.

Discipline
science that supports the group's perspective
is management science, administration, economics,
psychology, mathematics, statistics, and other disciplines
the groups 'objective science'. Largely
discourse of management sciences are taught
fall into this category. Further discussion of
about this instrumental perspective will be described
on its own subtitle.
By using such axiomaterbalik
puzzle which comes first: the chicken or the egg.
Thought began its analysis of social action is not
opposite of 'organization' but the opposite of 'social action'
of the actors involved in the organization.
This group of thinkers analogize organization
as 'social group', the 'structure' pattern
antaraktor behavioral interactions within social groups
based on individual goals and not the goals
group. Thinkers in this group hold
on the proposition that the organization can not be separated,
not free, and is a product of social action
the actors involved. Therefore, the investigation
be directed to 'what was done by
each actor in framing behavior
to form the organization (getting organized) '.
In contrast to the instrumental perspective,
discourse in social action perspective related
with "what the actors really do in the organization".
This viewpoint to see the action manager and actor
Another member of the organization is not neutral, it is not rational,
political, and not free of the interests of the
actors.
In the perspective of social action groups
There are at least two subgroups, namely theory theory
management culture (symbolic) and management
politics. Discipline that sustains perspective
This is sociology, anthropology, politics, and discipline
others that are 'interpretive science' as
groups are often distinguished by objective science.
In contrast to the instrumental perspective
dominate the discourse of knowledge management, how to
social action perspective represents only a fraction
discourse of management science.

If we look at the historical development of the theory

management ranging from classical theory, the theory
humanity, organic systems theory, contingency theory,
cultural theory, political theory, and finally, it seems
there has been a process of 'evolution' of the theory to the theory of
other. Can be regarded as an evolutionary process
as the next emerging theory is
response to dissatisfaction with the previous theory.
For example, the emergence of the theory of humanity
in management theory is a response
dissatisfaction with the management prescriptions
classic too technical and depersonalized.
Apparently the management theory of evolution process continues
continues to this day in an effort to
gain an understanding and practice proper
about management.
Morgan
stated that people see what
The management of the organization and what it is like
a group of blind men who try to understand
elephants by fingering. Each person
would interpret the elephant in accordance with section
which of the elephant's body dirabanya successful.
Elaboration of a variety of management theory is analogous
with the phenomenon of the blind man. Each
management theory approach developed by
'Metaphor' or 'binoculars'. Excess metaphor is
able to see something complex into
simple and detailed even tend to exaggerate, but loses its ability to
seeing things 'intact'. For this reason, Morgan
management practitioners reminded not to
fixated and stuck on one of the 'tools'
management so as not to run into stagnasidan
frustrated in management practices.

INSTRUMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
Grouping various management theories
by tracing the basic assumptions used
is important, because it will be able to
identify how each theory
interpret 'what the organization' and 'what it
management '. In the instrumental perspective,
organization seen as a means to an end
so that the organization is pre-existent, while the
management seen as a rational activity,
sequential (sequence), predictive, and free from
interests of actors. In other words, the activity
management is the mastery of nature
'Technique', because the starting point discussion departs from
'Organization', the discourse in perspective
This instrumental leads to 'how
should design and memanageorganisasi '.
The subject in this view, for example
course, the purpose of the organization, organizational structure
(Departemenisasi), duties, authority, roles, functions,
effectiveness, efficiency, planning, mobilization,
monitoring, evaluation, and so on.
Degelin
divide the group theory in a way
instrumental view into four subgroups
theory that classical management theory (rational),
humanitarian management, system management
organic, and contingency management. Each
subgroup management theory can be mapped
of the basic assumptions used and
how to interpret each of the theories about
'What is the organization' and 'what is management'.
Next will be discussed a little depth to
each subgroup theory.
Several authors in management theory
classic example is the management group
POAC (Terry), POSDCORBE (Gulick), the principle
Management of Fayol, management principles
of Taylor
, Including the management model
Planning (P1), Mobilization (P2), Supervision

and Assessment (P3) are often used Department

Health (MOH) and other similar models