The History of Management Thought. by Claude S. George,Review by: William D. LitzingerAdministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 139-140Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,Cornell UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391375 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 08:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:34:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 139

plication of the systems model especially appro- priate. The systems model is not, however, a theory, or at least not an explanatory theory. The book is inductive and its product is a systems oriented categorization and aggregation of hy- potheses. The lack of a general or grand theory, such as economic rationality, coalition, or incre- mentalism, which attempts to account for the be- havior of the appropriations process is countered by Fenno's skillful use of middle-range theories such as role and decision-making. The combina- tion of middle-range theories set in a systems framework seems entirely appropriate in light of the stable yet complex character of the institutions and processes being analyzed.

Methodologically, some alternatives to the semi- structural interview might have been productive. The use of the so-called "unobtrusive measures" would have resulted most likely in similar find- ings and conclusions. These findings, however, would have been derived in a fashion that allows for more explicit measurement and greater poten- tial for replication, thus enhancing the possibility of gauging changes over time. Similarly, the uti- lization of structured interview techniques would have facilitated measurement and replication. Fi- nally, the product of the appropriations process is by definition measurable. Fenno does some modest quantitative analysis of policy outcomes or ex- penditures primarily in his two chapters on deci- sion. His quantitative findings are associated with his non-quantitative findings in a descriptive way. If, as suggested here, some of the phenomena he chooses to describe in narrative could have been more precisely measured and then used as inde- pendent variables in the explanation of expenditure patterns, he might have generated even more exciting results. And, this kind of analysis would fit comfortably in the systems framework.

Readers interested in either legislative behavior or the politics of money will find this book an invaluable contribution. If Fenno were not already ensconsed among the leading authorities in these two fields, The Power of the Purse would surely do it.

H. George Frederickson

Assistant Professor of Political Science Syracuse University

The History of Management Thought. By Claude S. George, Jr. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 210 pp. $7.50.

The title of this work suggests that the science of administration has reached a stage of develop- ment warranting historical perspective. Although there has been a burdgeoning volume of literature in this field, particularly during the past decade, one wonders about the sagacity of a chronicle

for a "discipline" that has been discernible for only about half a century. The author attempts to circumvent such a question by viewing the evolu- tion of management thought from the beginning of time. This is no small task especially within the confines of 210 pages!

George observes that a true and comprehensive history of management would be a history of man (the purview of the Durants). He judiciously acknowledges his book is a selected bringing to- gether of the most pertinent examples of manage- rial thought in an effort to unite them into a logical whole. This could then act as an outline or frame- work for subesequent endeavors.

The format of the book encompasses thirteen rather short chapters with summaries at the end of most. The beginnings of management are de- duced from prehistoric and ancient civilizations (Egypt, Babylonia, Hebrews, China, Greece, and Rome). The Medieval period which included the feudal organization and the Merchants and Arsenal of Venice is utilized as a bridge between antiquity and the Renaissance. It was during this period the author feels the first insights into a real system of managerial practice emerged. A quote from Alfarabi about the year 900 describing the traits for managing a kingdom or state has a rather modern pertinence:

. . . great intelligence, excellent memory, elo- quence, firmness without weakness, firmness in the achievement of good, love for justice, love for study, love for truth, aversion to falsehood, temperence in food, drink, and enjoyments, and contempt for wealth.

Two hundred years later Ghazali identified four musts for the King of the world: justice, intelli- gence, patience, and modesty. Conversely, four things he should never have are: envy, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and malice.

The evolution of production with its domestic, putting-out, and factory systems appears next in the collage and familiar names appear: Arkwright, Steuart, Adam Smith, and Robert Owen's New Lanark Mill. The writings of economists about this period identified managerial concepts, func- tions and applications. Thus, management emerged as a separate entity worthy of study giving rise to further thinking and writing on the subject among scholars and managers. It followed logically that formal education programs would appear at the university level as happened at Pennsylvania, Chicago, and California.

The author continues tracing the emergence of management as a discipline through the early twentieth century writers (Taylor, Gilbreths, Fayol) followed by minor writers and critics of scientific management. He notes the role of these individuals was to expand, explore, popularize,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:34:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

140 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

nationalize, and nurture the movement through its infancy by providing theoretical soundness and practical applicability.

As with other disciplines, not long after tussling with the nitty-gritty or mechanical level, sights are raised to focus on the realm of values and value judgment. Hence, managerial philosophers ap- pear on the scene to raise questions dealing with opportunities and obligations (Sheldon, Mayo, Mooney, Follett, Barnard, Urwick). It comes as no surprise that this should lead to the identifica- tion or classification of various "schools" of man- agement thought. However, a rather unusual lapse occurs here. Having dutifully acknowledged most contributors along the way, this thorough manage- ment historical scholar gives no credit to who were early in categorizing the various schools, Koontz and Scott!

The impact of the Quantitative School may be inferred as evidenced by a separate chapter on Management Science-Operations Research. A very tidy tabular picture which shows the techniques, contributors and areas of application of the con- tributions from this field is presented.

Having touched most of the bases, the author is now ready to formulate a general theory of management-determining the collective objectives of an undertaking and generating an environment for their achievement is the total function of a manager. The managerial eclecticism encompasses planning, organizing, directing, and controlling in a physical and conceptual environment. This is pre- sented in a schematic mathematical model, thus paying deference to the quantitative thrust.

After arriving at this stage, the author seemed to feel obliged to justify or tie history and contem- porary managers together. Would not Santayana's aphorism have sufficed (those who cannot remem- ber the past are condemned to repeat it) ? Perhaps also the current efforts to involve business and hence managers in the solution of urban problems brought forth what appear as afterthoughts in the last chapter. It comments on social responsibility, employee welfare, efficiency, and wages.

There are two very worthwhile items in this work. First, the elaborate table portraying the Continuum of Management which includes years, individual or ethnic group and major managerial contribution from 5000 B.C. through 1955. Sec- ondly, the extensive selected bibliography of man- agement Literature. It is arranged by century initially, then half and quarter centuries followed by four year increments starting with 1901-1905 up through 1966-67.

On balance, this book is a noble and commend- able effort which helps trace the conceptualization of management thought and the field of manage- ment itself. The fact that this "discipline" is so young might justify this all encompassing yet

necessarily sketchy presentation. The book per- haps serves best as a guide to the major readings in the field with a semblance or thread of theory tying it together.

William D. Litzinger

Professor and Chairman of Management University of Rhode Island

The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior. By John H. Goldthorpe, David Lockwood, Frank Beckhofer and Jennifer Platt. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1968. 206 pp. $7.00.

This book reports the results of a study of the behavior and attitudes of affluent workers toward their job, workmates, firm, union, and finally their view of the economic future. The study is only a part of a larger treatment of the sociology of the affluent worker which is a continuing research project. The research is based upon empirical data gained by means of personal interviews with almost 300 blue collar and white collar employees of three progressive firms in Luton, England.

The main objective of the authors was to test the thesis of working-class "embourgoisement," namely that as manual workers and their families achieve relatively high incomes and living stan- dards, they assume a more "middle class" posture. This part of the research focuses primarily on the effects of affluency on the worker's view toward his job. The aim of the authors is both descriptive and theoretical in nature. Throughout the book they seek to relate their findings to previous re- search by the human relationists and those re- searchers advocating the socio-technical viewpoint.

Before discussing some of their findings, it is perhaps wise to first outline their methodology in some detail. The city of Luton was chosen as the location of the study primarily because it represents an area of England experiencing major economic growth. The firms (Vauxhall Motors Ltd., Skefco Ball Bearing Company Ltd., and Laporte Chemi- cals Ltd.) were chosen for several reasons. First, these firms were the leading ones in Luton in terms of size, progressiveness, technology, and wage level. Secondly, the firms represented the three major types of production systems as outlined by Wood- ward. And finally, the firms were willing to par- ticipate in the study.

The authors admit that the sample was not ran- domly chosen, but still feel that some generaliza- tions can be made from the data. For inclusion in the study, the blue collar worker had to be in one of five occupations (craftsman, setter, process worker, machinist, or assembler), be male, between the ages of 21-46, married, and living in Luton, and earning at least 17 pounds per week. Simple tabulation of responses was the primary method of

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:34:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions