Running Head: Criminal Justice Administration
Student Name: Courtney Evans
Course Title: Organization and Administration of Criminal Justice Professor Name: Dr. Odo
Submission Date: September 29th, 2011
This research paper addressed and discussed the three types of management styles and its role within an organization. Specifically, these management styles are the scientific management, human relations management, and the systems management. Though the early styles, scientific management and human relations management were acceptable for the times in which they were developed. Neither was perfect. Hence, today both exist in modified forms. However, both are being replaced in many organizations by a new style—systems management. This is due to recent changes and the criminal justice organizations are demanding a more strategic management who can lead and manage the criminal justice system. This has placed increased pressure not just on the criminal justice managers but also to other criminal justice employees to be more productive and innovative and change oriented.
According to Gerald Lynch (2006), the history of criminal justice system management can be divided into three types and time periods: (1) scientific management (1900–1940), (2) human relations management (1930–1970), and (3) systems management (1965–present). 1. Scientific Management
Scientific management has perhaps received the most recognition and study. It was the dominant orientation in the preunion (1900–1940s) industrialization era. The dominant writers on the scientific management approach were persons such as Taylor (1911), Fayol (1949), and Gulick & Urwick (1937). Their writings are still central in the early training of contemporary managers. The basic orientation of scientific management is that “people are replaceable” and should be treated as if “they are parts in a machine.” It is, as Rogers and Agarwala-Rogers (1976) describe it, a “mechanistic view of behavior” (p. 30). People should be pushed or driven like machines, it is argued, as they were treated as if they were cogs in a machine that could be replaced if the job was not done well. The ultimate scientific manager, therefore, is the skilled efficiency expert. Scientific management exists today, but circumstances certainly are not as brutal as they once were. Under scientific management, people are seen as being in organizations to work—not to communicate. The presumption is that the people at the top know how things should be done, and it is the duty of those at the bottom to do as they are told. The emphasis is on written or oral formal communication that follows the channels of the top-down chain of command. Most personnel learn to do their jobs, work hard, and stay out of the way of management. If they get into trouble or try to change the system, they are likely to be replaced. Unemployment still is feared by many workers. In conclusion, the scientific approach is a mechanistic, driving type of management style. The management tolerates little change, allows limited communication, and expects people to work, work, work. Although it is less popular than it once was, it still exists in a few criminal justice system organizations as I have observed today. Most people employed in such organizations simply accept the conditions management requires and do their job. They are not necessarily pleased with the conditions, but they need their job. Fortunately, not everyone has to work under this form of management. 2. Human Relations Management
Mayo (1933), Barnard (1938), and others led the way for the human relations style of management. Mayo is still considered by many to be the founder of the Human Relations School. Mayo, Roethlisberger, Dickson, and many others were asked to complete a series of studies...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document