Management science and the U.S. business school

Management science and the U.S. business school

answer the discussion questions using the article attached and book; (Robert R. Locke and J.-C. Spender, Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Lives Out of Balance (London and New York: Zed Books, 2011))

Examine conventional management thinking re: measurement, science and what matters
Readings
Locke and Spender, chapter 1, pp. 22-60
Art Kleiner, “What are the Measures that Matter?” strategy + business (First quarter, 2002), pp. 1-6.
Please after answering the discussion’s questions; answer these short questions
Question 1
The development of silicon-based information technology before 1975, in the form of transistors, large-scale computers, and computer-based communication networks (later known as “internet”) was spearheaded by U.S. government investment and government-sponsored research, not by profit-oriented commercial free-enterprise businesses:
True
False

Question 2
Managers trained in America’s elite MBA programs ran the new Silicon Valley start-up firms that saved the US semiconductor industry from extinction after 1980.

True
False

Question 3
An international organization of economists and management academics that was formed in the year 2000 described the modern neoclassical economics taught in American business schools as “autistic” – i.e., cut off from the real world.

True
False

 

 

Comment briefly on the success American managers had in the 1950s and 1960s solving complex management problems with new statistical and mathematical tools (e.g., operations research, linear programming, queuing theory) developed during World War II to solve logistical, staffing and other military problems.

Responses:
1-

According to Locke and Spender’s account of US business history, including the perspective of Steger, the post-war operations research and management approaches which dominated up until1968 were largely unsuccessful, not useful and, in Steger’s words, “often caused more damage than good in dozens of overly literal applications.”
While these new mathematics-based, post-war tools did make it possible for small groups of managers to make command-and-control decisions centrally as their enterprises expanded, they failed to address human factors or the full complexity of the business and government problems to which they were applied. My favorite quote in this chapter is at the bottom of page 31: “For people managing… important operational events, imaginative management thinking should have started where the numbers left off.”
It’s possible that Kaplan views the adoption of the operations research and management approaches of the 1950s and 1960s as a necessary foundation for results-driven management, upon which activity-based accounting methods and balanced scorecards build. Johnson, in contrast, argues that the stretch goals and other financial result-driven performance measures championed by Kaplan will ultimately, in Kleiner’s words, “cripple organizations in the long run by wearing down their people until they leave or their skills atrophy.”

2-
Mathematics strategies proved themselves successful during WWII and thus carried over into other areas of education, namely the business schools. Due to its’ (Mathematical tools) [confusing break here] in management were widely talked about and praised. This generated a sort of halo-effect around the strategies and with its popularity was tough to measure acurately.
While claims of great success rates were told, it wasnt until after more time passed and business could “experience this new method” that it could be looked at critically enough to evaluate the long term results of managine with the use of OR.
Perception is easily manipulated, especially when there is excitement about something new. Once the dust had settled (late 1960’s), and critics could properly evaluate, it was revealed that the people who were closest to the management techniques were the ones with the most negative views of the tools. The long term effects were not what was anticipated.
Describe a key difference that Fritjof Capra drew between the reductionist and mechanistic view of reality that shaped 20th century American management thinking and the systemic view of reality that underlies modern physics and life science.
Reponses
1-

Capra observes that reductionist science seeks to understand the world by breaking it apart into its individual components while modern physics and life science seek to understand the world by understanding the interconnectedness of systems. Well put. You’ve got it!
The reductionist and mechanistic view of reality that shaped economic and management thinking in the 20th century is based on the belief that everything is made up of matter, and that the best way to understand the world is to break it down into it’s material component parts. In magagerialism, this translates into beliefs that business units are best managed independently from one another, that individuals and units are most productive when they compete against one another to achieve financial goals and rewards, and when change is assumed to result only from external force — from power isheld centrally (like a car engine) and distributed down through the hierarchy of the firm.
In contrast, Capra advocates a systems view in which the world and universe are seen dynamically as an “integrated web of related events,” including the integration of both the physical world and human consciousness. Systems, through Capra’s lens, are “integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of small units. Capra expresses this idea through the metaphor of a tree, with nourishment and energy being shared in both directions, from the leaves down as well as from the roots up, and all aspects of the organization contributing to the health of the whole. In a business context, this suggests organizational structures in which power is more evenly shared, in which all parts are assumed to react not simply to external force but to an internal self-identifying sense of the purpose of the whole, and in which the firm is believed to be the most productive when the parts are working together, and when the firm acts as an integrated and positive part of its larger societal and ecological context.
Briefly comment on one or two differences between the way school children complete assignments and teachers grade them in Japanese and American classrooms since the 1950s.
Response
1-
The Japanese school system emphasizes group process while the American school system emphasizes individual results. In Japan, Loche and Spender share (informed by Deming’s research), small groups of students work collaboratively to complete assignments and to solve problems. Disciplinary power is largely delegated to these self-managed student groups and performance is assessed primarily at the group rather than at the individual level. This contrasts dramatically with the educational models most widely practiced in the US in which individual effort is prioritized, students compete against one another, and teachers practice command-and-control style management and disciplinary methods. Very well put. You’ve hit the bull’s-eye.
Not all elementary schools, high schools or colleges in the US follow this model. On a personal note, for elementary school I attended an alternative model of school in which multiple age groups worked together, students were encouraged to learn at their own paces, and no tests were given. Good point — here I think of the Waldorf schools inspired by Rudolf Steiner and the schools inspired by Maria Montessori. I also chose to attend Bennington College for my undergraduate studies, where there are no required courses, class sizes are small, students pursue their own academic and creative passions, and feedback is provided through discussions and written evaluations rather than through exams or grades. Did you know that Bennington hired two Austrian immigrants (who had been friends and colleagues in prewar Austria) in the 1930s and who were turned away at the time by most American universities — Peter Drucker and Karl Polanyi? Personal trivia: the first “A, B, C…” letter-style grade I ever received was during my first term of the PSU MBA program. That is very interesting. My “mentor” Edwards Deming thought grades were a slippery road to educational hell. As you know, I feel the same way.

2-
Before discussing the education of Japanese V American schools, it is important to talk to the environment in which they existed; After WWII Japanese companies began asking for more highly educated employees – people who were educated in such disciplines as science and engineers. As opposed the their American counterparts, however, Japanese companies did not seek employees educated in business. This was because Japanese companies were based of “webs of interconnectedness” and (the then prevalent) western, numerical management systems did not fit in those companies.
Turning to the educational component, many Japanese students actually get their business training in their lower-level education. Teachers spend large amounts of time simply establishing order in the classroom – and setting students up to learn how to operate within the whole. Yes, getting the individual to identify with the group is a key point. Smarter students are paired with slower learners – so that the “smarter” students can learn how to help those who struggle. Discipline is left up to the group, rather than the instructor. And groups are given collective homework assignments. In a sense, students learn how to operate both as individuals and as whole units (or teams) in all aspects of education. This method is of course in contrast to Western education, where the focus (in lower level education) is on subject (math, reading, etc), rather than process, and on individual achievement rather than group success.
Japanese companies expect potential employees to be educated, but they prefer degrees of science and art, as opposed to business or management degrees. This is because potential employees have been taught as children how to work in business situations – to work simultaneously as an individual and in a whole. Therefore Japanese corporations would rather hire someone who has a degree that the business is built upon, and once that employee has learned about the culture of the business – they can then potentially move to management. Again, this is in contrast to American companies that hire management students – and then have them learn the subjects of that industry/organization.

 

 

 

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]