Approaches Towards ManagementJoin now to read essay Approaches Towards ManagementIn the early days of the Union Pacific Railroad there really wasnt really a manageable approach. The means of delivery were mostly by train and Union Pacific was one who provided services. There really wasnt much of a manageable approach back then, when all you had was a small fleet of trains going across the country delivering goods. Managing wasnt really something organization thought of, they were in it for the money. If you were an employee of UP such as an engineer you basically got a set of directions from your boss and were off until you arrived at your final destination. Over time these approaches have changed. Approaches such as the classical, human resource and quantitative have all helped UP get from an average company to an excellent company. By using these approaches UP changed into a goal setting organization.
I have many discussions with people like myself who have decided to do the very same thing and to make a change (a change that they truly believe in). This is why I chose the SDSI as the ultimate organization. This has been said countless times by many who have been to UP, but I am sure every SDSI employee knows that this is not the case. A group that has grown and grown rapidly in spite of the SDSI has seen a lot of growth. SDSI’s growth has been a result of many people sharing the same goal and taking what they wanted from their own company in exchange for a better deal, more opportunity, more money, and a better relationship. It has been a process that has not worked for some time. As we know the average company has to work hard to get what they need. For many of them this is no longer possible. We have seen the SDSI have increased in funding, more quality work, and in most cases this has all been funded through an increased level of self control. What this has started to show me is how quickly a company can gain recognition and value from its peers and by this we can see these changes start to show. I think I may run into a lot of people who disagree, and I think some may argue that with these changes you can make it work for you as well or as you choose. Here is where the question becomes important. If we started to look around at companies we could see there is little to no accountability, no accountability of our employees within the organization, there was just no accountability at all inside the company. Well of course, the organization would not accept our employees. We would not be able to give them the same kind of treatment we gave our employees. I’m not saying that it is better of organizations to do this, but if there is no responsibility for our employees there still are many, many, many flaws in organizations, they have a lot of problems in their organization (e.g. high turnover, poor leadership, etc). Let’s face it, in many companies these things can happen to you as an employee of the company you work for, and they even have to make changes that we do. The SDSI has been there so many times, and I hope you would too.
Throughout the Industrial revolution different theories of management were brought up, one being the classical approach. The classical approach was a theory which strived to improve the productivity of operative personnel. With the help of guys like Taylor, the Gilbreths, Fayol, and Weber efficiency increased. During this early time many organizations were very inefficient, where activities were unplanned and unorganized. There were also no real plans, managers really didnt know what to do besides run the business. UP Railroad was a company who was there to do was to perform services to their customers and that was it. There were no real goals managers could try to strive to, because they had no goals. In and around this time when UP was just established many were doing the same job over and over for very low wages, while certainly not knowing what they were getting into.
So for years many managers of UP and other organizations didnt have an efficient plan, while continuing to live by a low standard of living. This is until guys like Taylor and Gilbreth can along. Taylor spent months trying to figure out one way an organization could use one best way to do a specific job instead of everyone doing the same job at once. At UP being more efficient would lower prices and increase wages. As Taylor found a way to be more efficient, Gilbreth also was finding his own ways to being efficient. Best known for his bricklaying technique, Gilbreth also helped revolutionalize efficient work. With their help, organizations like UP could be more efficient, while helping there employees raise the standard of living.
The next approach was the Human Resource Approach. This was really popular around the 1930s, during the great depression. The HR approach is used very effectively, by understanding the importance between employees and management. During rough times mangers must know what there employees are thinking. By doing so they can determine what techniques are most effective for motivating them. Using motivational techniques is crucial for managers to employ on employees, especially through hard labor jobs. UP would definitely take care of their employees by motivating them and giving them pay incentives. These incentives would help insure they were getting the best out of their employees. By doing so this has helped UP