Five articles focused on the concept of evolution of management examine the researches done toward the related theories. Three of the articles have a similar emphasis, which is the evolution of management as a development of the economic theory. Simultaneously, others link the improvement of the attitude toward controlling to the shaping of financial accounting. The works have distinct approaches toward management, as the process of resources administering that undergoes stages of development tied to historical events. However, all the articles agree that external factors contribute to the evolution, as the concept is intended to be adaptable to changing environments. The works do not have a united conclusion regarding that is the final point of evolution of management for today, which is related to the difference in perspectives discussed.
Introduction to the Concept (Definition and Overview of the Paper)
It is known that processes, especially global ones, tend to be structured naturally, while humanity recognized the necessity to coordinate and administrate activities of any size, long time ago that conceived the concept of management. Management is defined as a set of processes: planning, organizing, leading, decision-making, and controlling of resources. The primary goal of management is to administrate organizations effectively by allocating appropriate resources and suitable strategy implementation. The world evolves over time, so does the concept of management, as people need to solve more complex issues and face diverse challenges in a rapidly changing environment. Therefore, the evolution of management is a significant topic to research to show how the perspective toward the concept transforms. This essay will examine five articles, which are narratives of investigations devoted to the evolution of management, to provide a review of differences and similarities between the methods of the concept research utilized. A discussion of the uniqueness of the authors’ approaches and an explanation of similarities and differences in research findings will be provided.
What were the Differences and Similarities in the Research Done Regarding the Concept?
All five authors of the articles provide a persuasive and credible discussion of researches done. However, Agogbua et al. (2017), Khorasani & Almasifard (2017), and Bodrozic & Adler (2018) examine the investigations which are different from ones discussed by Berisha & Asllanaj (2017) and Samuel et al. (2017). The first three articles focus on the evolution of management as a theory that has undergone numerous changes during the development process. Mostly, these works examine similar researches and describe the historical shaping of the concept as a transformation from one group’s perspective to their descendants’ adjusted point of view. Therefore, all three articles research one model but discuss it from different angles. The other two articles focused on management accounting rather than the models and theories of management, which make them different from previously described works (Berisha & Asllanaj, 2017; Samuel et al., 2017). Financial accounting is an integral part of management, and it evolves toward the main model, organically complementing it, which is reflected in the articles.
What was Unique in Each Article Regarding the Author’s Approach to the Concept?
In the article written by Agogbua et al. (2017), the evolution of management theory is tied to four historical schools: Pre-Classical, Classical, Neo-Classical, and Contemporary ones. Simultaneously, it represents the evolution of philosophy toward economics and the development of the concept with the stages: Pre-Scientific, Scientific, and Post-Scientific Management. The article written by Khorasani & Almasifard (2017) ties the concept to the process of improving industrial life. It shows the development of management theory as it undergoes further stages: scientific, administrative, and behavioral management theories, and after them, management science and finally organization environment theory. The article written by Bodrozic & Adler (2018) emphasizes multi-layered evolution, implying that a concept undergoes changes under the influences of external factors. Most of the contributing stages that shaped the management model are revolutions, such as steam power and railways, steel and electric power, and automobile and oil ones. Therefore, three articles focused on the concept of management theory evolution revealed distinct but credible approaches.
The article written by Berisha & Asllanaj (2017) reveals the development of accounting, directly indicating the contribution of the system to the concept of management evolution. The stages the model undergoes are tied to historical events describing the development of related disciplines. These events are starting of accounting with symbols, Hammurabi code, the appearance of metal money, feudal system establishment, double system establishment, development of modern mathematics, and direct costs concept establishment. Finally, the article by Samuel et al. (2017) presents the evolution of accounting, and the model of management in general, as the stages of complicating the administering process. These steps are the development of cost determination and financial control, information for management planning, reduction of business resources waste, and creation of value through effective utilization of resources. Therefore, all five articles have their unique nuances of an approach.
What are the Similarities in the Research Findings?
There are some similarities between findings in each of the articles. All of them state that the evolution of management follows the evolution of community as an environment where processes of resource administering are performed. Moreover, the articles reveal that external factors, such as revolution, inventions, and philosophy, also impact the development of the management. The Bible also supports the vision that commanding, which is another word for administering, evolves continuously (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, James 4:1-2). It is explained through the general finding that the management model is intended to adapt to changes in order to ensure the maximal efficiency of the processes that make it evolve toward the environment.
What are the Differences in the Research Findings?
There is a set of differences between findings in each of the articles. They do not agree about the final point of evolution of management for today, as all five works approach the theory distinctly. It brings to a notion that the business environment is complex, and so the concept intended to administrate financial processes. The findings provide different conclusions about what comprises the management model and do not agree about the era that formed the contemporary perspective toward the concept.
It is possible to state that the five articles reviewed are distinct but credible sources of understanding about the concept of evolution of management. The works complement each other rather than are contradictory. Three of the articles are focused on the theory and the model of the concept, while the other two provide insight from the perspective of financial accounting. All of the authors have a unique approach, and the findings provided in their works are mostly similar as they emphasize the contribution of external factors to the management concept. The difference between the articles’ conclusions is in defining the final point of evolution.
Agogbua, S. N., Anekwe, E. A., & Abugbum, H. (2017). Evolution of Management Thought: A Continuous or Discontinuous Process. Evolution, 9(35), 67-75.
Berisha, V., & Asllanaj, R. (2017). Historical Evolution of Managerial Accounting Theories and Practice Development: Evidence from Kosovo. Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives, 11(3), 287-303.
Bodrozic, Z., & Adler, P. S. (2018). The evolution of management models: A neo-Schumpeterian theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 85-129.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Khorasani, S. T., & Almasifard, M. (2017). Evolution of management theory within 20 century: A systemic overview of paradigm shifts in management. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3).
Samuel, A. E., Achema, F., & Fasilat, S. A. (2017). The role of accounting thought in the evolution of management accounting: Where are we really? International Journal of Development and Economic Sustainability, 5(6), 59-83.