Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Management" in English language version.
Last modified:
There is a difference between management and manipulation. The difference is thin [...] If management is handling, then manipulation is skillful handling. In short, manipulation is skillful management. [...] Manipulation is in essence leveraged management. [...] It is an alive thing while management is a dead concept. It requires a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. [...] People cannot be managed.
Mary Parker Follett, the 'prophet of management' reputedly defined management as the 'art of getting things done through people.' [...] Whether or not she said it, Follett describes the attributes of dynamic management as being coactive rather than coercive.
Lupton's (1983: 17) notion that management is 'what managers do during their working hours', if valid, could only apply to descriptive conceptualizations of management, where 'management' is effectively synonymous with 'managing', and where 'managing' refers to an activity, or set of activities carried out by managers.
In the army barracks, and in the mass co-ordination of men on the battlefield (epitomized by the military innovations of Prince Maurice of Orange and Nassau in the sixteenth century) are to be found the prototype of the regimentation of the factory – as both Marx and Weber noted.
When salaried managers first appeared in the large corporations of the late nineteenth century, it was not obvious who they were, what they did, or why they should be entrusted with the task of running corporations.
The manager as bureaucrat is the guardian of roles, rules, and relationships; his or her style of management relies heavily on working according to the book. In the Weberian tradition, managers are necessary to coordinate the different roles that contribute to the production process and to mediate communication from the head office to the shop floor and back. This style of management assumes a world view in which the bureaucratic role is seen as separate from, and taking precedence over, other constructions of self (including the obligations of citizenship), at least for the working day.
Original management models, such as the Harzburg model, also had a great effect. [...] Many firms found this model attractive; after the 1950s and 1960s, it was widely adopted in Germany [...].
[...] six central elements of the Harzburg Model: leadership principles, decentralization of the decision-making process, communication pattern, job description, delegation of responsibility and employee's development and organizational support.
{{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |citeseerx= (help){{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |citeseerx= (help){{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help){{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |citeseerx= (help)