Braverman (1974) likens management to controlling a horse through the use of reins, bridle, spurs, carrot, whip and training. How far do you consider this analogy as offering an accurate view of management and managing?
Management and managing is a complex issue, and has been part of some serious study and debate amongst academics during the past century. We must not forget that each of these academics, intellects and commentators have their own perspective of management usually resulting from their beliefs and backgrounds. ...
In this revolutionary book written on the backdrop of increasing unrest amongst workers throughout the industrialized world, Braverman highlights how management, carved into shape by capitalist regimes is able to tightly control and oppress its labour.
I believe that Braverman in his analogy is over critical of management and does not show enough respect to the workers resistance. Management does require a need to substantiate its legitimate authority in order to be effective, but effectiveness is also achieved through informal management as the works of McGregor (1960) and Maslow (1968) indicate. ... Management has evolved over the past 40 years, only recently has ‘informal management’ received the accolade that it deserves from the profession. ...
Braverman’s analogy between management and controlling a horse is very effective, and does paint a dire picture of management. ... Furthermore, spurs are pointed devices attached to the riders (management) heel and used to urge the horse on. To add further insult to the horse (labour) the riders (management) are equipped with a whip to push home their advantage.
This clearly shows the extent to which Braverman feels labour is exploited and mistreated by a capitalist management. ... In other words employees are paid by management, which allows them to keep operating and thus returning the following day. ...
As mentioned before Braverman’s analogy clearly identifies how he views management and managing. Braverman believes that in a capitalist society management is the oppressor and the workers are the oppressed. In which management has complete dominance over their subordinates, who have no real option but to simply roll over and die.
Braverman supports his notation that management exercises complete supremacy through the work of FW Taylor and his scientific management. Scientific management which Braverman believed was ‘institutionalized and formed the basis of production control within organizations’. ... Therefore, his work contained aspects whereby management closely monitored worker activities. ...
Harry Braverman uses the work of FW Taylor very effectively to justify his examination that management has tight control over their workforce and treat them like horses. He believes that the scientific approach was embedded in organizations and proves that his view of management and managing is an accurate one.
The work of the influential Max Weber (1948) can also be used to support Bravermans view on management and managing and deem it accurate. ... Weber felt that this efficiency in organizations could only be achieved through management control of labour. He believed effective management control was Top-down, with centralized power and decision-making where management gives commands and workers obey
This helps to support Braverman’s view on management and managing and seems to suggest that it is indeed an accurate one.
However, Harry Braverman’s views have been challenged by various academics and commentators, who believe that Bravermans view on management and managing is not entirely accurate one.
Foucault’s (1979) views contradict both Braverman and Weber. Instead of Top-down management Foucault argues the Bottom-up thesis. ... He questions the historical importance of Taylorism and believes that Braverman had exaggerated the influence of scientific management. ...
These views clearly show that this topic is complex. ... Overall, the views allow us to bring into question the accuracy of the Braverman’s analogy.
Other writers have also attacked Braverman’s view on management and managing. ...
Other critics of Braverman and his work believe he continually overstates management’s objectives of controlling labour. Buchanan (1983) and Boddy (1983) argue Braverman underestimates the diversity and complexity of management objectives. ...
Management control is dynamic concept with conflicting views ever present. ...
Harry Braverman believes that management is like controlling a horse through the use of reins, bridle, spurs, carrot, whip and training. An analogy, which is saying to me that management, exercises complete dominance over labour. ... Braverman believed that this scientific management approach was embedded in organizations. ...
The analogy does suggest that there is no consensus present and management exerts total domination over the workers. This is deemed inaccurate by Friedman, Burawoy and Thompson, who believe that management also deploys consensus methods at work Thompson states that management can never exercise total domination over its labour, as the analogy suggests.
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
All Papers Are For Research And Reference Purposes Only!
You may not turn these papers in as your own! You must cite our web site as your source!
