Management models and theories

Last week, we showed a presentation about Google. Google employs people who are smart and determined and favor abilities over experiences. Although googlers share common goals, they hail from all walks of life and speak dozens of languages. Under such a diversified culture background, people share more view points and experience more brainstormings. It would seem that Google more or less refers to some theories of Henri Fayol and Hawthorne. Henri Fayol advocates to focus on the personal duties of management at a much more regulatory level and believes personal efforts and team dynamic are part of an "ideal" organization. Google shows that points : everyone has their freedom to choose what kind of working methods they prefer and has their own rights to discuss even dispute in order to make decisions. In Google, every individual's effort will be complimented and one of the staff said " In Google, I can direct my future and determine where I want to go". It's quite democratic and harmonious, isn't it ? However, Google does not only concentrate on personal development but does pay attention to group work which shows Henri Fayol's team dynamic. In Google, the design of offices and cafes trend to encourage people to communicate and interact more. There are also some basic disciplines and rules to control the whole managing operations. Planning, organizing, controlling and leading are connected closely in Google. As to Hawthorne, whose theory encompasses human relations and works experiments. He attaches importance to group strength. For example, if women are good at produce product A while men can produce more product B, he will let all female employees to focus on PA and all males handle PB. It is quite wisdom because it can mass production and make the efficiency maximum but I think it may puts too much pressures on shorter hours and employees' stock.

Then, I'd like to talk about some feelings of other theories. Frederick Taylor leads to "the one best" practice and uses a systematic training of workers. It optimizes the performance of subtasks and makes works standardized but to some extent, it shows "dehumanize" to the workers. The similar drawback of  Max Weber's and Lyndall Irwick's. Besides, I think their ideas are similar too. Max focused on bureaucracy. He discovered the tremendous growth of government and wanted to use the power of government to control things. It shows an extremely small span of control and centralization. The head of organization has absolute power to make decisions and the employees only have rights to obey. So does Lyndall's . That let me think about the history of China.  In the past,  The People's Republic of China has not published and there were many dynasties. The kings control everything and the ministers and civilians have no rights to advice or suggest otherwise they will be killed. So, those kind of managing structure made organization to go to disappear. In my option, I do not recommend this kind of structure to others although it still has some advantages.

From all my researches, I reckon the theories of Henri which is still used today and Elton Mayo's are good. Elton Mayo thinks if the company or managers take an interest in employees and care for them, it have a positive effect on their motivation and managers have responsibility for motivating individuals and their teams, which is a little similar with Hawthorne's. In addition, it is worthwhile to point out the contingency theory. It encompasses that managers should use different theories and strategies depends upon a range of situational variables. It shows flexibility and adaptation of a company and I think it is what the whole competitive environment wants and expects.