Frank Gilbreth

He was born on July 7, 1868 in Fairfield, Maine. He was a bricklayer, a building contractor, and a management engineer. Also a member of the ASME, the Taylor Society (precursor to the SAM), and a lecturer at Purdue University. Brick-laying He was much concerned with the relationship between human beings and human effort. His well-known work in improving brick-laying in the construction trade is a good example of his approach. From his start in the building industry, he observed that workers developed their own peculiar ways of working and that no two used the same method. In studying bricklayers, he noted that individuals did not always use the same motions in the course of their work. These observations led him to seek one best way to perform tasks. He developed many improvements in brick-laying. A scaffold he invented permitted quick adjustment of the working platform so that the worker would be at the most convenient level at all times. He equipped the scaffold with a shelf for the bricks and mortar, saving the effort formerly required by the workman to bend down and pick up each brick. He had the bricks stacked on wooden frames, by low-priced laborers, with the best side and end of each brick always in the same position, so that the bricklayer no longer had to turn the brick around and over to look for the best side to face outward. The bricks and mortar were so placed on the scaffold that the brick-layer could pick up a brick with one hand and mortar with the other. As a result of these and other improvements, he made brick-laying more efficient. Key Work He refined the field of motion study and laid the foundation for modern applications of job simplification, meaningful work standards, and incentive wage plans. He was now one of the most widely known American engineers in the United States and Europe, reaping financial rewards and many professional honors. He suggested the first international management congress in history to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and it was held in Prague in 1924. He was posthumously honored with the Gantt Gold Medal in 1944 from the American Society of Engineers and the American Management Association(The honor was shared with his wife).

References: http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/bio.html http://www.bookrags.com/biography/frank-gilbreth/

Henry Gantt (Henry Laurence Gantt)

Henry Laurence Gantt (1861 1919) was born in Calvert County, Maryland, USA. He graduated from McDonogh School in 1878 and Johns Hopkins College. He was a management consultant and also had a background in mechanical engineering by trade.Whatever we do must be in accord with human nature. We cannot drive people; we must direct their developmentthe general policy of the past has been to drive; but the era of force must give way to that of knowledge, and the policy of the future will be to teach and lead, to the advantage of all concerned. (Henry Gantt, n.d.) Key Works Henry Gantts legacy to management profession is the following: The Gantt chart: Accepted as the most important project management tool until today. It provides a graphic mechanism of planning, controlling work and recording the progress of workers toward the task standard. The Chart also led to its modern variation PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique). Industrial Efficiency: Industrial efficiency can only be produced by the application of scientific analysis to every aspect of work and industrial management role is to improve the system by eliminating chance and accidents. The Task and Bonus System: He linked the managers bonus to how well he teaches his employees to perform better. The social responsibility of business: He believed that the business had obligations to the welfare of society that it operates in. References: http://www.ganttchart.com/history.html

http://henrygantt.net/ http://www.gantt-chart.biz/henry-laurence-gantt/

Frederick Taylor

Dealing with Life He was born in Philadelphia. He studied at Harvard for college, but his eyesight failed and he became an industrial apprentice in the depression of 1873. He became a machine shop laborer at Midvale Steel Company .In 1883, he earned a degree by night study from Stevens Institute of Technology. He became general manager of Manufacturing Investment Company, 1890, and then a consulting engineer to management. Principles of Scientific Management In 1911, Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management. He proposed that by optimizing and simplifying jobs, productivity would increase. He also advanced the idea that workers and managers needed cooperation. There was no standardization, and a workers main motivation was often continued employment, so there was no incentive to work quick or efficient as possible.Taylor believed that money motivated all workers, so he promoted the idea of a fair days pay for a fair days work. He applied the scientific method to study the optimal way to do any type of workplace task. As such, he found that by calculating the time needed for the various elements of a task, he could develop the best way to complete that task. He experimented with shovel design until he had a design that would allow workers to shovel for several hours straight. With bricklayers, he experimented with the various motions required and developed an efficient way to lay bricks. These time and motion studies also led Taylor to conclude that certain people

could work more efficiently than others. Selecting the right people for the job was another important part of workplace efficiency. Four Principles of Scientific Management also known as Taylorism Taylors four principles are as follows: Replace working by rule of thumb, or simple habit and common sense, and instead use the scientific method to study work and determine the most efficient way to perform specific tasks.Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, match workers to their jobs based on capability and motivation, and train them to work at maximum efficiency. Monitor worker performance, and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that theyre using the most efficient ways of working. Allocate the work between managers and workers so that the managers spend their time planning and training, allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently. References: http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/ http://accel-team.com/scientific/scientific_02.html http://www.vectorstudy.com/management_gurus/frederick_taylor.htm

Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his work, The Principles of Scientific Management, in which he described how the application of the scientific method to the management of workers greatly could improve productivity. Scientific management methods called for optimizing the way that tasks were performed and simplifying the jobs enough so that workers could be trained to perform their specialized sequence of motions in the one "best" way. Prior to scientific management, work was performed by skilled craftsmen who had learned their jobs in lengthy apprenticeships. They made their own decisions about how their job was to be performed. Scientific management took away much of this autonomy and converted skilled crafts into a series of simplified jobs that could be performed by unskilled workers who easily could be trained for the tasks. Taylor became interested in improving worker productivity early in his career when he observed gross inefficiencies during his contact with steel workers. Soldiering Working in the steel industry, Taylor had observed the phenomenon of workers' purposely operating well below their capacity, that is, soldiering. He attributed soldiering to three causes: 1. The almost universally held belief among workers that if they became more productive, fewer of them would be needed and jobs would be eliminated.

2. Non-incentive wage systems encourage low productivity if the employee will receive the same pay regardless of how much is produced, assuming the employee can convince the employer that the slow pace really is a good pace for the job. Employees take great care never to work at a good pace for fear that this faster pace would become the new standard. If employees are paid by the quantity they produce, they fear that management will decrease their per-unit pay if the quantity increases. 3. Workers waste much of their effort by relying on rule-of-thumb methods rather than on optimal work methods that can be determined by scientific study of the task. To counter soldiering and to improve efficiency, Taylor began to conduct experiments to determine the best level of performance for certain jobs, and what was necessary to achieve this performance. Time Studies Taylor argued that even the most basic, mindless tasks could be planned in a way that dramatically would increase productivity, and that scientific management of the work was more effective than the "initiative and incentive" method of motivating workers. The initiative and incentive method offered an incentive to increase productivity but placed the responsibility on the worker to figure out how to do it. To scientifically determine the optimal way to perform a job, Taylor performed experiments that he called time studies, (also known as time and motion studies). These studies were characterized by the use of a stopwatch to time a worker's sequence of motions, with the goal of determining the one best way to perform a job. The following are examples of some of the time-and-motion studies that were performed by Taylor and others in the era of scientific management. Pig Iron If workers were moving 12 1/2 tons of pig iron per day and they could be incentivized to try to move 47 1/2 tons per day, left to their own wits they probably would become exhausted after a few hours and fail to reach their goal. However, by first conducting experiments to determine the amount of resting that was necessary, the worker's manager could determine the optimal timing of lifting and resting so that the worker could move the 47 1/2 tons per day without tiring. Not all workers were physically capable of moving 47 1/2 tons per day; perhaps only 1/8 of the pig iron handlers were capable of doing so. While these 1/8 were not extraordinary people who were highly prized by society, their physical capabilities were well-suited to moving pig iron. This example suggests that workers should be selected according to how well they are suited for a particular job. The Science of Shoveling In another study of the "science of shoveling", Taylor ran time studies to determine that the optimal weight that a worker should lift in a shovel was 21 pounds. Since there is a wide range of densities of materials, the shovel should be sized so that it would hold 21 pounds of the substance being shoveled. The firm provided the workers with optimal shovels. The result was a three to four fold increase in productivity and workers were rewarded with pay increases. Prior to scientific management, workers used their own shovels and rarely had the optimal one for the job. Bricklaying Others performed experiments that focused on specific motions, such as Gilbreth's bricklaying experiments that resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of motions required to lay bricks. The husband and wife Gilbreth team used motion picture technology to study the motions of the workers in some of their experiments.

Taylor's 4 Principles of Scientific Management After years of various experiments to determine optimal work methods, Taylor proposed the following four principles of scientific management: 1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. 2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves. 3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed. 4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks. These principles were implemented in many factories, often increasing productivity by a factor of three or more. Henry Ford applied Taylor's principles in his automobile factories, and families even began to perform their household tasks based on the results of time and motion studies. Drawbacks of Scientific Management While scientific management principles improved productivity and had a substantial impact on industry, they also increased the monotony of work. The core job dimensions of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback all were missing from the picture of scientific management. While in many cases the new ways of working were accepted by the workers, in some cases they were not. The use of stopwatches often was a protested issue and led to a strike at one factory where "Taylorism" was being tested. Complaints that Taylorism was dehumanizing led to an investigation by the United States Congress. Despite its controversy, scientific management changed the way that work was done, and forms of it continue to be used today.

Max Weber As a German academic, Weber was primarily interested in the reasons behind the employees actions and in why people who work in an organization accept the authority of their superiors and comply with the rules of the organization. Legitimate Types of Authority by Max Weber Weber made a distinction between authority and power. According to Weber power educes obedience through force or the threat of force which induces individuals to adhere to regulations. In contrast, legitimate authority entails that individuals acquiesce that authority is exercised upon them by their superiors. Weber goes on to identify three types of legitimate authority: Traditional authority Traditional authority is readily accepted and unquestioned by individuals since it emanates from deeply set customs and tradition. Traditional authority is found in tribes and monarchies. Charismatic authority Charismatic authority is gained by those individuals who have gained the respect and trust of their followers. This type of authority is exercised by a charismatic leader in small and large groups alike.

Rational-legal authority Rational-legal authority stems from the setup of an organization and the position held by the person in authority. Rational-legal authority is exercised within the stipulated rules and procedures of an organization. The Key Characteristics of a Bureaucracy Weber coined this last type of authority with the name of a bureaucracy. The term bureaucracy in terms of an organization and management functions refers to the following six characteristics: Management by rules. A bureaucracy follows a consistent set of rules that control the functions of the organization. Management controls the lower levels of the organization's hierarchy by applying established rules in a consistent and predictable manner. Division of labor. Authority and responsibility are clearly defined and officially sanctioned. Job descriptions are specified with responsibilities and line of authority. All employees have thus clearly defined rules in a system of authority and subordination. Formal hierarchical structure. An organization is organized into a hierarchy of authority and follows a clear chain of command. The hierarchical structure effectively delineates the lines of authority and the subordination of the lower levels to the upper levels of the hierarchical structure. Personnel hired on grounds of technical competence. Appointment to a position within the organization is made on the grounds of technical competence. Work is assigned based on the experience and competence of the individual. Managers are salaried officials. A manager is a salaried official and does own the administered unit. All elements of a bureaucracy are defined with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and are managed by trained and experienced specialists. Written documents. All decisions, rules and actions taken by the organization are formulated and recorded in writing. Written documents ensure that there is continuity of the organizations policies and procedures. Advantages and Disadvantages of Webers Bureaucracy Webers bureaucracy is based on logic and rationality which are supported by trained and qualified specialists. The element of a bureaucracy offers a stable and hierarchical model for an organization. Nevertheless, Webers bureaucracy does have its limitations since it is based on the roles and responsibilities of the individuals rather than on the tasks performed by the organization. Its rigidity implies a lack of flexibility to respond to the demands of change in the business environment.

Henri Fayol

Henri Fayol (born 1841 in Istanbul; died 1925 in Paris) was a French management theorist. Henri Fayol was one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management, having proposed that there are five primary functions of management: (1) Planning, (2) Organizing, (3) Commanding, (4) Coordinating, and (5) Controlling (Fayol, 1949, 1987). Controlling is described in the sense that a manager must receive feedback on a process in order to make necessary adjustments. Fayol's work has stood the test of time and has been shown to be relevant and appropriate to contemporary management. Many of todays management texts including Daft (2005) have reduced the five functions to four: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) leading, and (4) controlling. Daft's text is organized around Fayol's four functions.

Fayol believed management theories could be developed, then taught. His theories were published in a monograph titled General and Industrial Management (1916). This is an extraordinary little book that offers the first theory of general management and statement of management principles.

Fayol suggested that it is important to have unity of command: a concept that suggests there should be only one supervisor for each person in an organization. Like Socrates, Fayol suggested that management is a universal human activity that applies equally well to the family as it does to the corporation.

Fayol has been described as the father of modern operational management theory (George, p. 146). Although his ideas have become a universal part of the modern management concepts, some writers continue to associate him with Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor's scientific management deals with the efficient organisation of production in the context of a competitive enterprise that has to control its

production costs. That was only one of the many areas that Fayol addressed. Perhaps the connection with Taylor is more one of time, than of perspective. According to Claude George (1968), a primary difference between Fayol and Taylor was that Taylor viewed management processes from the bottom up, while Fayol viewed it from the top down. George's comment may have originated from Fayol himself. In the classic General and Industrial Management Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the "bottom up." He starts with the most elemental units of activity -- the workers' actions -- then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy...(Fayol, 1987, p. 43)." He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of command (p. 44)." Fayol criticized Taylors functional management in this way. the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses(Fayol, 1949, p. 68.) Those eight, Fayol said, were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian (p. 68). This, he said, was an unworkable situation, and that Taylor must have somehow reconciled the dichotomy in some way not described in Taylor's works.

Fayol graduated from the mining academy of St. Etienne (cole des Mines de Saint-tienne) in 1860. The nineteen-year old engineer started at the mining company Compagnie de Commentry-FourchambeauDecazeville, ultimately acting as its managing director from 1888 to 1918. Based largely on his own management experience, Fayol developed his concept of administration. The 14 principles of management were discussed in detail in his book published in 1917, Administration industrielleet gnrale. It was first published in English as General and Industrial Management in 1949 and is widely considered a foundational work in classical management theory. In 1987 Irwin Gray edited and published a revised version of Fayols classic that was intended to free the reader from the difficulties of sifting through language and thought that are limited to the time and place of composition (Fayol, 1987, p. ix). Gray retained the 14 points shown below. Fayol 14 Principles of Management

1. Specialization of labour. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods. 2. Authority. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. 3. Discipline. No slacking, bending of rules. The workers should be obedient and respectful of the organization. 4. Unity of command. Each employee has one and only one boss. 5. Unity of direction. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. 6. Subordination of Individual Interests. When at work, only work things should be pursued or thought about. 7. Remuneration. Employees receive fair payment for services, not what the company can get away with.

8. Centralization. Consolidation of management functions. Decisions are made from the top. 9. Chain of Superiors (line of authority). Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization, like military 10. Order. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place, and they must remain there. 11. Equity. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) 12. Personnel Tenure. Limited turnover of personnel.Lifetime employment for good workers. 13. Initiative. Thinking out a plan and do what it takes to make it happen. 14. Esprit de corps. Harmony, cohesion among personnel. It's a great source of strength in the organisation. Fayol stated that for promoting esprit de corps, the principle of unity of command should be observed and the dangers of divide and rule and the abuse of written communication should be avoided.

Henri Fayol Henri Fayol, a French engineer and director of mines, was little unknown outside France until the late 40s when Constance Storrs published her translation of Fayol's 1916 " AdministrationIndustrielle et Generale ". Fayol's career began as a mining engineer. He then moved into research geology and in 1888 joined, Comambault as Director. Comambault was in difficulty but Fayol turned the operation round. On retirement he published his work - a comprehensive theory of administration - described and classified administrative management roles and processes then became recognised and referenced by others in the growing discourse about management. He is frequently seen as a key, early contributor to a classical or administrative management school of thought (even though he himself would never have recognised such a "school"). His theorising about administration was built on personal observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organisation. His aspiration for an "administrative science" sought a consistent set of principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly. F. W. Taylor published "The Principles of Scientific Management" in the USA in 1911, and Fayol in 1916 examined the nature of management and administration on the basis of his French mining organisation experiences.. Fayolsynthesised various tenets or principles of organisation and management and Taylor on work methods, measurement and simplification to secure efficiencies. Both referenced functional specialisation. Both Fayol and Taylor were arguing that principles existed which all organisations - in order to operate and be administered efficiently - could implement. This type of assertion typifies a "one best way" approach to management thinking. Fayol's five functions are still relevant to discussion today about management roles and action.

1. to forecast and plan - prevoyance examine the future and draw up plans of action

2. to organise build up the structure, material and human of the undertaking 3. to command maintain activity among the personnel 4. to co-ordinate bind together, unify and harmonise activity and effort 5. to control see that everything occurs in conformity with policy and practise Henri Fayol Fayol was a key figure in the turn-of-the-century Classical School of management theory. He saw a manager's job as: * planning * organizing * commanding * coordinating activities * controlling performance Notice that most of these activities are very task-oriented, rather than people-oriented. This is very likeFrederick Taylor and Scientific Management. Fayol laid down the following principles of organization (he called them principles of management) (Learn more about 14 principles of management): 1. Specialization of labor. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods. 2. Authority. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. 3. Discipline. No slacking, bending of rules. 4. Unity of command. Each employee has one and only one boss. 5. Unity of direction. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. 6. Subordination of Individual Interests. When at work, only work things should be pursued or thought about. 7. Remuneration. Employees receive fair payment for services, not what the company can get away with. 8. Centralization. Consolidation of management functions. Decisions are made from the top. 9. Scalar Chain (line of authority). Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization, like military 10.Order. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place, and they must remain there. 11. Equity. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) 12.Personnel Tenure.Limited turnover of personnel.Lifetime employment for good workers. 13. Initiative. Thinking out a plan and do what it takes to make it happen. 14. Esprit de corps. Harmony, cohesion among personnel.

Out of the 14, the most important elements are specialization, unity of command, scalar chain, and, coordination by managers (an amalgam of authority and unity of direction).

Kurt Lewin Change Management Model Unfreeze, Change, Freeze Kurt Lewin proposed a three stage theory of change commonly referred to as Unfreeze, Change, Freeze (or Refreeze). It is possible to take these stages to quite complicated levels but I don't believe this is necessary to be able to work with the theory. But be aware that the theory has been criticised for being too simplistic. A lot has changed since the theory was originally presented in 1947, but the Kurt Lewin model is still extremely relevant. Many other more modern change models are actually based on the Kurt Lewin model. I'm going to head down a middle road and give you just enough information to make you dangerous...and perhaps a little more to whet your appetite! So, three stages. Unfreezing, Change, Freezing. Let's look at each of these. Stage 1: Unfreezing The Unfreezing stage is probably one of the more important stages to understand in the world of change we live in today. This stage is about getting ready to change. It involves getting to a point of understanding that change is necessary, and getting ready to move away from our current comfort zone. This first stage is about preparing ourselves, or others, before the change (and ideally creating a situation in which we want the change). The more we feel that change is necessary, the more urgent it is, the more motivated we are to make the change. Right? Yes, of course! If you understand procrastination (like I do!) then you'd recognise that the closer the deadline, the more likely you are to snap into action and actually get the job started! With the deadline comes some sort of reward or punishment linked to the job. If there's no deadline, then the urge to change is lower than the need to change. There's much lower motivation to make a change and get on with it. Unfreezing and getting motivated for the change is all about weighing up the 'pro's' and 'con's' and deciding if the 'pro's' outnumber the 'con's' before you take any action. This is the basis of what Kurt Lewin called the Force Field Analysis. Force Field Analysis is a fancy way of saying that there are lots of different factors (forces) for and against making change that we need to be aware of (analysis). If the factors for change outweigh the factorsagainst change we'll make the change. If not, then there's low motivation to change - and if we feel pushed to change we're likely to get grumpy and dig in our heels. This first 'Unfreezing' stage involves moving ourselves, or a department, or an entire business towards motivation for change. The Kurt Lewin Force Field Analysis is a useful way to understand this process and there are plenty of ideas of how this can be done.

Stage 2: Change - or Transition Kurt Lewin was aware that change is not an event, but rather a process. He called that process a transition. Transition is the inner movement or journey we make in reaction to a change. This second stage occurs as we make the changes that are needed. People are 'unfrozen' and moving towards a new way of being. That said this stage is often the hardest as people are unsure or even fearful. Imagine bungey jumping or parachuting. You may have convinced yourself that there is a great benefit for you to make the jump, but now you find yourself on the edge looking down. Scary stuff! But when you do it you may learn a lot about yourself. This is not an easy time as people are learning about the changes and need to be given time to understand and work with them. Support is really important here and can be in the form of training, coaching, and expecting mistakes as part of the process. Using role models and allowing people to develop their own solutions also help to make the changes. It's also really useful to keep communicating a clear picture of the desired change and the benefits to people so they don't lose sight of where they are heading. Stage 3: Freezing (or Refreezing) Kurt Lewin refers to this stage as freezing although a lot of people refer to it as 'refreezing'. As the name suggests this stage is about establishing stability once the changes have been made. The changes are accepted and become the new norm. People form new relationships and become comfortable with their routines. This can take time. It's often at this point that people laugh and tell me that practically there is never time for this 'freezing' stage. And it's just this that's drawn criticism to the Kurt Lewin model. In todays world of change the next new change could happen in weeks or less. There is just no time to settle into comfortable routines. This rigidity of freezing does not fit with modern thinking about change being a continuous, sometimes chaotic process in which great flexibility is demanded. So popular thought has moved away from the concept of freezing. Instead, we should think about this final stage as being more flexible, something like a milkshake or soft servicecream, in the current favouriteflavour, rather than a rigid frozen block. This way 'Unfreezing' for the next change might be easier. Given today's pace of change this is a reasonable criticism. But it might help to get in touch with what Kurt Lewin was actually saying. In 1947 he wrote: A change towards a higher level of group performance is frequently short-lived, after a "shot in the arm", group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. Kurt Lewin, "Frontiers of Group Dynamics", Human Relations, Volume 1, pp. 5-41 (I added the emphasis) Lewin's concern is about reinforcing the change and ensuring that the desired change is accepted and maintained into the future. Without this people tend to go back to doing what they are used to doing. This is probably what Kurt Lewin meant by freezing - supporting the desired change to make sure it continues and is not lost.

More modern models of change, such as the ADKAR model, are more explicit about this step and include Reinforcement as one of their phases. I've also read this final step of freezing referred to as the lock-in effect. Establishing stability only happens when the new changes are locked-in. Thinking about change as a journey might make you think that a journey has a beginning , middle, and an end. While this is useful when thinking about the process of change the reality is that this journey doesn't have an end. Lots of rest stops maybe! Some opportunities for settling down for a while.But no end. So be careful about thinking that a change process has a definite end, as the Lewin change management model might seem to suggest. In what ways do you think this model might be useful for you? I've found the Kurt Lewin model useful to frame a process of change for people that is quite easy to understand. Of course each stage can be expanded to aid better understanding of the process. Applying the concepts of Unfreezing, and especially the Force Field Analysis, at a personal level can give us insight and help us better understand how we deal with change. Mayo Elton Mayo (1880 1949) believed that workers are not just concerned with money but could be better motivated by having their social needs met whilst at work (something that Taylor ignored). He introduced the Human Relation School of thought, which focused on managers taking more of an interest in the workers, treating them as people who have worthwhile opinions and realising that workers enjoy interacting together. Mayo conducted a series of experiments at the Hawthorne factory of the Western Electric Company in Chicago He isolated two groups of women workers and studied the effect on their productivity levels of changing factors such as lighting and working conditions. He expected to see productivity levels decline as lighting or other conditions became progressively worse What he actually discovered surprised him: whatever the change in lighting or working conditions, the productivity levels of the workers improved or remained the same. From this Mayo concluded that workers are best motivated by: Better communication between managers and workers ( Hawthorne workers were consulted over the experiments and also had the opportunity to give feedback) Greater manager involvement in employees working lives ( Hawthorne workers responded to the increased level of attention they were receiving) Working in groups or teams. ( Hawthorne workers did not previously regularly work in teams) In practice therefore businesses should re-organise production to encourage greater use of team working and introduce personnel departments to encourage greater manager involvement in looking after employees interests. His theory most closely fits in with a paternalistic style of management. Jacob Moreno

In human thermodynamics, Jacob Moreno (1889-1974) was a Romanianborn American psychologist noted for his circa 1951 social atom theory, a modified Freudian-Jungian psychology mixed with extrapolated chemistry and physics metaphors, in which each person is defined as a social atom, with focus on the differences in energy levels of different relationships, and how invested energy in specific relationship bondscan cause spontaneous quantum leaps or up or down shifts in relationship structure and dynamics. [1] The concept of a person is discussed in the context of what Moreno calls psychodrama or the drama of interactions between social atoms, which particular focus on the aspects of ambivalence as contrasted with spontaneity involved in choice, and sociometry, the quantitative measurement of social relationships. Social atom Moreno states that in developing his concept of the social atom, that he is borrowing the term from Democritus in the sense of meaning any very small thing. The way in which he uses the word atom, when conjoined with other words, however is somewhat elusive. The following is his attempt at definition of his conception: Social atom, operational definition: plot all the individuals a person chooses and those who choose him or her, all the individuals a person rejects and those who reject he or she; all the individuals who do not reciprocate either choices or rejections. This is the raw material of a persons social atom. Social atom, conceptual definition: the smallest unit of the sociometric matrix.

The following selection of example quotes picket from various works gives an idea of what Moreno tends to mean by the word atom and the various adjectives he employs: [2] The pattern of role relations around an individual as their focus is his cultural atom. Every individual, just as he or she has a set of friends and a set of enemiesa social atomalso has a range of roles facing a range of counter-roles. The use of the word atom can be justified if we consider a cultural atom as the smallest functional unit with a cultural pattern. The adjective cultural can be justified when we consider roles and relationships between roles as the most significant development within any specific culture. The social atom is the nucleus of all individuals toward whom a person is emotionally related or who are related to him at the same time. It is the smallest nucleus of an emotionally toned interpersonal pattern in the social universe. The social atom reaches as far as ones tele [From Ancient Greek (tle), 'at a distance, far off, far away, far from'] reaches other persons. It is therefore also the tele range of an individual. It has an important operational function in the formation of a society.

The focal pattern of role-relations around an individual is called his cultural atom. We are here coining a new term, cultural atom, since we know of no other which expresses this peculiar phenomenon of role relationships. Obviously, the term is selected as an analogue to the term social atom. Our social atoms and the changes which are registered in them are continuously interiorated as well as exteriorated. In the course of sociometricinteriorization the individual has all the individuals of his or her social atom and the relations between them interiorated. He or she can send messages (choice and rejections) out to them and can receive them without any external exchange taking place. Viewing the detailed structure of a community we see the concrete position of every individual in it, also, a

nucleus of relations around every individual which is thicker around some individuals, thinner around others. This nucleus of relations is the small social structure in a community, a social atom. A social atom is thus composed of numerous tele structures; social atoms are again are again parts of still a larger pattern, the sociometric networks which bind or separate large groups of individuals due to their tele relationships. Sociometric networks are parts of a still larger unit, the sociometric geography of a community. A community is again part of the largest configuration, the sociometric totality of a human society itself.

As seen, Moreno seems to be digging into subject of uncharted human chemistry. Social atom volume Interesting, Moreno even makes an attempt to formulate an idea of atomic volume. He states that there are two points connected to the ratio of acquaintance volume to social atom volume: (a) the social atom volume of an individual increases in direct proportion to his acquaintance volume. (b) the individual whose acquaintance volume and social atom volume are constantly identical approximates an ideal sociometric status; for he or she no social contract is lost, each turn immediately into social reality. Energy On energy, Moreno states that: [2] According to the sociometric theory there are two forms of energy: conservable and unconservable energy. An illustration of conservable energy is the law ofconservation of energy as described by physics, or as the cultural conserve as described by sociometry. An illustration of unconservable energy is spontaneity.

In this attempted formulation, Moreno is in the neighbor hood of correctness. Technically, from a chemical thermodynamic point of view, there are three different types of energy involved in the spontaneity (defined by the spontaneity criterion) of human chemical reactions, free energy G, enthalpy H, and entropy S, which in formulation are related as: G = H TS

The sum amount of the three types of energy are conserved, according to the first law, but also able or made to transform in a certain direction according to the second law, in the sense that any given process will lose its spontaneity when the free energy change or variation is zero. Human molecular orbital theory On human molecular orbitals, Moreno states: The social atom is that peculiar pattern of inter-personal relations which develops form the time of human birth. It first contains mother and child. As time goes on, it adds from the first persons who come into the childs orbit such persons as are unpleasant or pleasant to him, and vice-versa, those to whom he or she is unpleasant or pleasant.

The following quote is representative of Morenos view how quantum leaps can occur in the orbital dynamics of existing relationships: [1] For changes in [relationship] level, both literally and figuratively, a quantum leap is required, like the movement of electrons from ring to ring. The energy invested in arelationship builds through the quantity

and diversity of interaction until suddenly and uncontrollably the level of the relationship shifts. Although the conditions for such an energy increase can be induced, e.g. one can bring people together in a group, thus helping them go from nothing to acquaintanceship and even to collective contact, the transitions occur somewhat unpredictably.

In other places, Moreno also expresses the view, modeled on atomic theory, that just in deeper levels of core nuclear relationships, more energy is needed or found, just as the electrons closer to the nucleus are more tightly bound. Social entropy Moreno seems to use the concept of social entropy rather correctly, as compared to most others who make an attempt at extrapolating the Gibbs-Clausius definition of entropy into sociology. Moreno seems to define social entropy as the point at which the collective spontaneity of a community has reached zero. He states: Social entropy reaches its maximum when choices are rejections are entirely extinct. Indifference alone prevails. The group spontaneity has withered away and is replaced by an aggregation of individuals entirely left to change.

This is representative of Morenos hypothesis of sociodynamics decline. Warming up process Moreno seems to devote considerable time to theorizing on what he calls the warming up process, loosely defined as the various starters which brings a person into spontaneous states. [2] This is a type of thermal metaphor (or thermal word) extrapolation, but one which seems to have a certain needed explanation.

Maslow Abraham Maslow (1908 1970) along with Frederick Herzberg (1923-) introduced the Neo-Human Relations School in the 1950s, which focused on the psychological needs of employees. Maslow put forward a theory that there are five levels of human needs which employees need to have fulfilled at work. All of the needs are structured into a hierarchy (see below) and only once a lower level of need has been fully met, would a worker be motivated by the opportunity of having the next need up in the hierarchy satisfied. For example a person who is dying of hunger will be motivated to achieve a basic wage in order to buy food before worrying about having a secure job contract or the respect of others. A business should therefore offer different incentives to workers in order to help them fulfill each need in turn and progress up the hierarchy (see below). Managers should also recognise that workers are not all motivated in the same way and do not all move up the hierarchy at the same pace. They may therefore have to offer a slightly different set of incentives from worker to worker.

Herzberg Frederick Herzberg (1923-) had close links with Maslow and believed in a two-factor theory of motivation. He argued that there were certain factors that a business could introduce that would directly motivate employees to work harder (Motivators). However there were also factors that would de-motivate an employee if not present but would not in themselves actually motivate employees to work harder (Hygienefactors) Motivators are more concerned with the actual job itself. For instance how interesting the work is and how much opportunity it gives for extra responsibility, recognition and promotion. Hygiene factors are factors which surround the job rather than the job itself. For example a worker will only turn up to work if a business has provided a reasonable level of pay and safe working conditions but these factors will not make him work harder at his job once he is there. Importantly Herzberg viewed pay as a hygiene factor which is in direct contrast to Taylor who viewed pay, and piece-rate in particular Herzberg believed that businesses should motivate employees by adopting a democratic approach to management and by improving the nature and content of the actual job through certain methods. Some of the methods managers could use to achieve this are: Job enlargement workers being given a greater variety of tasks to perform (not necessarily more challenging) which should make the work more interesting. Job enrichment - involves workers being given a wider range of more complex, interesting and challenging tasks surrounding a complete unit of work. This should give a greater sense of achievement. Empowerment means delegating more power to employees to make their own decisions over areas of their working life.

McGregor Proposed that all management practices stem from managers' personal "theories" regarding the basic nature of people. McGregor proposed that the way in which a manager interacts with superiors, peers and especially subordinates depends on the manager's philosophy regarding cause and effect relationships in human behavior. For example, the manager who assumes that subordinates generally cannot be trusted will select a cluster of management practices which, in that manager's thinking, will best compensate for, or capitalize on those perceived characteristics of subordinates. This manager may attempt to maintain control through close supervision, demands for strict adherence to rules, and threats of punishment. Such external controls seem clearly appropriate to the manger who believes human beings are basically unreliable and irresponsible. Theory X McGregor summarized that the kinds of managerial practices described above can be derived only from a set of assumptions about human nature which he labled Theory X, which assumes: Work is inherently distasteful to the average employee. Employees have little desire for responsibility, are not ambitious and prefer direction. Employees have low capacities for creativity in solving organizational problems. Employees are motivated by "creature comfort" and security needs. People work toward the organization's objectives or goals only if coerced and closely controlled.

Theory Y Theory "Y" suggests that people are motivated to obtain mastery over their world and to experience feelings of self-respect, self-fulfillment and self-actualization in addition to their search for external gratification. Theory "Y" assumptions include: The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play and rest. Employees are self-directed and do not require external control and the threat of punishment. Employees what to achieve. Employees seek responsibility. Employees have the capacity to exercise a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity.

Theory "X" and "Y" beliefs are the foundation of management values. These values effect how managers and leaders interact with employees and are a driving factor in policy and decision making.