Abstract :

Management has taken place in human actions since ancient times. Over time, scientists and researchers developed ways and approaches to get the best advantages of managing organizations and employees. Many theories appeared in this field to improve management techniques, such as classical, neoclassical, and modern theories. However, this paper aims to focus on and explore modern theories’ features (Quantitative, System, and Contingency theories). As well as studying the development of the theories and comparing them.

The study is a literature review and has a descriptive nature, and the researcher relied on secondary data, using Google Scholar as the main database, to provide a deep insight into the perception of management modern theories.

the results of comparing the theories indicated that the quantitative theory depends on mathematical procedures to analyze and make decisions, which means it is a numerically based approach. This theory applies logical or reasoning practices. The system approach depends on dividing the system into sub-parts, and all parts are related to and follow a super system. The system theory is a goal-oriented approach, so all sub-parts move toward one goal. The contingency theory depends on making decisions according to the situation. As it considers the internal environment of the organization as well as the external environment so the organization’s response is related to the changes in the environment.

the study concludes that none of the theories can be used alone. The theories have to be integrated to achieve the ultimate benefits for the organizations because using modern management theories separately could cause failure. Quantitative, System, and Contingency theories have some limitations if used separately, but together could achieve the organization’s goals and objectives perfectly.

---

Keywords :

Contingency theory, Management, Modern theories, Quantitative theory, System theory.

---

References :

1. Agoston, Simona. (2009) “New Management Theories-An Alternative To The Current Crisis?.” Review of International Comparative Management.
2. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of management review, 2(2), pp. 217-230.
3. Alpan, G. (2011). Bir yönetim modeli önerisi: Toplam entropi yönetimi (Doctoral dissertation, Bursa Uludag University (Turkey).
4. Arrow, K. (1974).The limits of organization. New York: Norton & Co.
5. Atkins, P. (2010). The laws of thermodynamics: a very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6. Augustine, A. N., & Agu, O. A. (2013). Effects of classical management theories on the current management practice in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(19), pp. 208-218.
7. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of management review, 14 (4), pp. 496- 515.
8. Baykan, H., & Uzunboylu, H. (2018). Administrator’s management preferences and management theories. IIOAB Journal: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Science and Technology, 9(3), pp. 21-29.
9. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Reyes, L., & Chen, C. K. (2018). The evolution and convergence of total quality management and management theories. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(9-10), pp. 1108-1128.
10. Donaldson, L. (2006). The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. In Organization design (pp. 19-40). Springer, Boston, MA.
11. Donaldson, L., 2001, The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
12. Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), pp. 413-433.
13. Edewor, J. (2017). APPRAISING MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND PRACTICES IN NIGERIA.
14. Ferdous, J. (2016). Organization theories: From classical perspective. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 9(2), pp. 1-6.
15. Ferdous, J. (2017). A Journey of Organization Theories: From Classical to Modern. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 12(2), pp. 2289-1552.
16. Godwin, A., Handsome, O. E., Ayomide, W., Enobong, A., & Johnson, F. (2017). Application of the Henri Fayol Principles of Management in Startup Organizations. Journal of Business and Management, 19(10), pp. 78-85.
17. Higgins, J. M. (1991). The management challenge: An introduction to management. New York, NY: Macmillan
18. Hitt, Michael A, Middle Mist, R Dennis and Mathis, Robert L. (1979). Effective Management: New York : West Publishing Company
19. Hryhorenko, A. S. (2017). Quantitative, system and contingency management approaches such as modern management theories.
20. Hryhorenko, A. S. (2017). Quantitative, system and contingency management approaches such as modern management theories.
21. Hussain, N., Haque, A. U., & Baloch, A. (2019). Management Theories: The Contribution of Contemporary Management Theorists in Tackling Contemporary Management Challenges. Journal of Yaşar University, 14, pp. 156-169.
22. Husted, B. W. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(1), pp. 24-48.
23. Inyang, J. I. (2008). The Challenges of Evolving and Developing Management Indigenous Theory and Practice in Africa. International Journal of Business Management, 3(12), pp. 122- 131
24. Islam, J., & Hu, H. (2012). A review of literature on contingency theory in managerial accounting, African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), pp. 5159-5164.
25. Karaivanov, D. (2019, July 1). How Can Kanban Help You Break Murphy’s Law and Avoid Entropy. Retrieved from Kanbanize: https://kanbanize.com/blog/kanban-breaking-murphys-law/
26. 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).
27. Kitana, A. (2016). Overview of the managerial thoughts and theories from the history: Classical management theory to modern management theory. Indian Journal of Management Science, 6(1), pp. 16.
28. Koontz, H. (1988). Management, 9th Edition, USA, NY: McGraw Hill Inc.
29. Leifer, R., & Huber, G. P. (1977). Relations among perceived environmental uncertainty, organization structure, and boundary-spanning behavior. Administrative science quarterly, pp. 235-247.
30. Lemak, D. J. (2004). Leading Students Through the Management Theory Jungle by Following the Path of the Seminal Theorists: A Paradigmatic Approach. Management Decision, London. 42-10, pp. 1309- 1326
31. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Mechanistic-organic organizations-An Axiomatic Theory: Authority based on bureaucracy or professional norms. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 14(1), pp. 1-7.
32. Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A General Contingency Theory of Management, The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), pp. 181-195.
33. Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A General Contingency Theory of Management, The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), pp. 181-195.
34. Malik, S., & Baek, J. (2019). Comparison of Different Management Theories.
35. Martínez-Berumen, H. A., López-Torres, G. C., & Romo-Rojas, L. (2014). Developing a method to evaluate entropy in organizational systems. Procedia Computer Science, 28, pp. 389-397.
36. Mavrofides, T., Kameas, A., Papageorgiou, D., & Los, A. (2011). On the entropy of social systems: A revision of the concepts of entropy and energy in the social context. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(4), pp. 353-368.
37. McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2017). Systemic thinking in career development theory: contributions of the Systems Theory Framework. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, pp. 229-240
38. McNamara, D. E. (2009). From Fayols Mechanistic To Todays Organic Functions Of Management. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 2(1), pp. 63-78.
39. Mele, C., Pels, J., & Polese, F. (2010). A Brief Review of Systems Theories and Their Managerial Applications. Service Science, 2(1/2), pp. 126-135.
40. Nadrifar, A., Bandani, E., & Shahryari, H. (2016) An Overview of Classical Management Theories: A Review Article. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(9)
41. Nhema, A. G. (2015). Relevance of Classical Management Theories to Modern Public Administration: A Review . Journal of Public Administration and Governance , pp. 165-179
42. Ochoa, R. M., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2009). The Application Of Historical And Modern Management Theories In The Financial Industry: An Analysis Of How Management Practices Affect Employee Turnover!. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 7(8).
43. Otley, D. (2016). The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Management accounting research, 31, pp. 45-62.
44. Otley, D. T. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. In Readings in accounting for management control (pp. 83-106). Springer, Boston, MA.
45. Parker, L. D., & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: anticipating contemporary management. British Journal of Management, 16(3), pp. 175-194.
46. Pfeffer, J., 1982, Organizations and Organization Theory, Pitman, Marshfield. Priem, R.L., and Rosenstein, J., 2000, Is organization theory obvious to practitioners? A test of one established theory. Organization Science, pp. 509-524.
47. Pindur, W., Rogers, S. E., & Kim, P. S. (1995). The history of management: A global perspective. Journal of Management History, 1(1), pp. 59–77
48. Proops, J. L. (1987). Entropy, information and confusion in the social sciences. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 1(4), pp. 225-242.
49. Rana, M. M., Ali, M. J., & Saha, A. (2016). Contemporary Theory of Management: A Comparative Study on Quantitative Approach, System Approach, and Contingency Approach. International Journal of Business and Management Invention. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(5), pp. 14-22.
50. Reigle, R. F. (2001). Measuring organic and mechanistic cultures. Engineering Management Journal, 13(4), pp. 3-8.
51. Robbins, S. P., Bergmen, R., Stagg, I. and Coulter M. (2003). ‘Foundations of Management’. Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forrest, NSW.
52. Santosh, K. ( 2021). Systems Theory Management | System Theory Approach | System Theory: Definitions, Contributions and Limitations. Availableat:https://www.gyankovandar.com/2021/07/systems-theory-management-and-system-theory-approach.html#:~:text=Limitations%20of%20Systems%20Theory,practical%20application%20of%20this%20theory.
53. Sapkauskiene, A., & Leitoniene, S. (2010). The concept of time-based competition in the context of management theory. Engineering Economics, 21(2).
54. Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency” theory”. Administrative science quarterly, pp. 349-377.
55. Sridhar, M. S. (2017). Schools of management thought. Retrieved from.
56. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of management journal, 24(2), pp. 289-305.
57. Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. (1984). The concept of fit in contingency theory. Minnesota Univ Minneapolis Strategic Management Research Center.
58. Walonick, D. S. (1993). Organizational theory and behavior. Organizational Theory and Behavior.
59. WEBER, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (trans. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, T. Parsons [ed.]). New York Oxford Uni. Press
60. Wiener N. 1961. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press— John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, London.
61. Yasin, O. (2013). MODERN MANAGMENT THEORIES AND PRACTICES. Main Issues Of Pedagogy And Psychology, 2(2), pp. 15-27.
62. Yaya, J. A., Akintayo, O. A. & Uzohue, C. E. (2016).The Application of Humanistic Management Theories in Effective Administration of public University Libraries in Nigeria. International Journal of Advance Library and Information sciences, 4(2), pp. 346-358
63. Zanzi, A. (1987). How organic is your organization?–determinants of organic/mechanistic tendencies in a public accounting firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(2), pp. 125-140.