SAMPLE ESSAY

Consider this hypothetical situation…

You are applying for a new job in an organization of your choice, whether in the private sector or the public sector.
As part of your job application, your future employer has asked you to reflect on the relation between management
theory and management practice, and how it can benefit the organization. In particular, your future employer would
like to know how management theory can help them deal with practical problems and understand ethical issues that
may arise. Please write a letter to your future employer that addresses these points.

Dear B.C. Kinsey & Co. Hiring Manager,

As part of the application process it was asked of me to think and write on the use of
management theory in current day practice. As this firm’s function and goal is to assist in
organizational strategy and transformations within an array of public, private or non-profit
companies within various industries, it would be natural (and prudent) to question the historical
foundations of management theory and how that translates to current day practice.
Over the next few paragraphs I will examine management theory and its influence in
current day practice. Beginning with a review of the dominant theories, then moving on to
current practice of management consulting firms (such as B.C. Kinsey & Co.) and finally a
discussion on the issues that have become evident in current day practice and evolution of
management in the present day. While the review will be done as objectively as possible, it
would be remiss to not make clear where my personal assumptions lay. Burrell and Morgan
(1979) developed the four paradigms to help define which perspectives and shared set of
assumptions lay behind developed theories of organizations. When we understand the social
assumptions held while theory is developed, we have a greater understanding of the meaning
behind actions, words, and intended outcomes. Personally, I align with an interpretivist
paradigm, more reliant on subjective and qualitative gathering and analysis, while most
management theory, as Burrell and Morgan claim, sits squarely in a functionalist area of
objective and regulatory thought. It is important to be aware of how the theory built and not
allow personal bias to persuade one into not seeing the possible benefits from use of all available
management theory.
 This presentation of theory and current practice is not meant to be one that finds fault in
how management consulting utilizes theory in practice, or by any means be all-encompassing of
the subject. As an aspiring management consultant for B.C. Kinsey & Co., I hope to illuminate
current practice and highlight where I could make an impact through offering observation. Much
like Chris Grey in his discussion on theory in A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably
Cheap Book about Studying Organizations (2017), my argument is not for use of one theory over
another, or to throw them out all-together. Rather, my argument is that management consulting
should lead the way in research and practice by recognizing the historical underpinnings of
current day management practices on offer, and be critical of them when formulating plans and
taking action in consulting for leaders and organizations going forward.
Finally, we end with a summary of my argument for need of being critical, and doing so
openly as a management consulting firm. We will revisit the implications of use of theory and
practice adoption and what needs to happen to move forward.

Section 1: Literature review

I ask that you indulge me in this review of the founders of management theory and practice, as I
realize my audience is a management practice leader. On we go!
We begin with Frederick Taylor, the son of a wealthy white family who became an
engineer and later the “founding father” of management theory and practice. During an era of
transition from skilled workers and workmen guilds into industrialization and capitalist
accumulation, Taylor developed his highly functionalist theory of scientific management. Taylor
ushered in the epoch of management oversight and extracting knowledge and skill from the
worker, placing it instead in the hands of management, which allowed for “the maximum
prosperity for the employer…with the maximum prosperity for each employee” (Taylor 1911,
p.9). Taylor’s four principles of scientific management include the following: First, the
development of scientific observation and methodologies for task oversight and implementation.
Second, the methodical selection and training of workers. Third, the co-operation between
management and workers. And last, the equal division of work split between the management
and worker, unlike past work where the skilled worker held control of production skill and all
aspects of execution (Taylor, 1911, p.36-37). Taylor developed these principles because he was

1
adamant historical ways of organizing did not provide the most value from the workers to the
company.
Following Taylor, Elton Mayo came with his development of Human Relations theory
(HRT). HRT came about after Mayo reviewed the Hawthorne experiments of the Western
Electric Company. After years of research without results, Mayo (1949, p. 78) set about
reviewing the data and found the cause of the productivity increase was due to a therapeutic
method of management interaction. This, Mayo argued, led to an “emotional release” (p.77) and
allowed for better functioning individuals as well as a reconnection of the working group,
meaning workers being more engaged in the workplace (p.80).
Mayo was anti-democratic and pro-capitalist, hence his method involved adopting a
stance that management should be in control. He did this by introducing an “administrative elite”
to assist the workers (p.84) This would allow for workers to off-load their personal and
professional mental blocks and allow them to adapt to the conditions of work, thus ensuring the
management order would remain and industrial capitalism could continue. While having a
tactical difference, both Taylor and Mayo had the same end goal, that is, “to control their teams:
one by avoiding human relationships and one through human relationships” (Grey 2017, p. 44).
In HRT, the distinction between work and life starts to be eroded as employees are urged
to share with managers the intimate details of their private lives. This erosion accelerates with
enterprise culture, developed by Tom Peters, as the optimal management and organizational
solution. Peters believes that bureaucracy is outdated and hinders the worker. Peters’
development of enterprise culture holds onto the principles of the “enterprising self”, namely that
the worker should be in control of the labor process, market their unique skill sets, and bring
their “true selves” to the work sphere. This theory has become popular as it is believed to solve
problems of worker engagement by giving responsibility back to the employee. This places the
sole responsibility of learning, advancement, happiness in work on the employee, not with the
manager as Mayo had with HRT.
Culture management can be seen in current day discussions on the corporate culture,
company values echoing personal values, and capitalist rhetoric seeping into education and
everyday home life. Examples where this is seen is Working Mother magazine and the popular
shift to freelance and gig-economy lifestyles.

2
Section 2: Current practices of management consulting
Now let us take a very brief look at the work of management consulting and how it functions
today and why. It bears repeating that management consulting would not exist were it not for the
emergence of scientific management, since Taylor was the world’s first management consultant.
Consulting would likely also be less in demand if there weren’t continuous shifts into different
styles of management, which gives rise to the market for external consulting services.
Currently, management consulting is a wide reaching field with coverage in many
industries and all sectors of work because the focus is on management practice based in
generalizable science of management. This science, as we see from above, comes from the
dominant historical management theories. Consultant firms hire experts in various fields, but
they still use methods from scientific management and HRT to enable culture management and
develop practices for the largest applicability.
Enterprise culture is prevalent in the ethos of management consultant firms, and their
recruitment of consultants as well as clients. Management consultant firms are able to exist
because they are the entities which house the “best” practices, and they are in demand by client
organizations to help them achieve their goals. This means that management consultants are seen
as experts of both management theory and management practice, holding significant power in
this role.

Section 3: Critical discussion

Here I seek to answer a few questions in a review of personal experience and social lived
realities we find ourselves in currently. Primarily, I want to ask a) whether management
consulting is effective and b) whether it ought to remain in a privileged position in
organizations?
Ethics are called into question by Bravermen’s argument (1974) that scientific
management exploits the worker and does little to help them realize their own goals, thus
dehumanizing them for profit. Consulting firms may be perpetuating the unfair treatment of
workers, especially since they do not take into account the needs of workers to control the labour
process themselves. What’s more, consulting firms may push a culture of overwork on to
employees by increasing the amount of work they do during the day, all in the name of efficiency

3
– just like Taylor did one hundred years ago. One has to ask what the priorities of the consulting
firm are: to serve the workers, or to enrich the company’s owners?
I also feel obligated to discuss diversity and inclusion measures, which is an area of
consulting around the culture management of firms. I wonder if these programs have been
successful, because there still exists a sizable gender gap in the workplace and a rise in racial
justice movement throughout the globe today. In my view, it isn’t effective or ethical to use the
historically dominant theory to inform management practice when it was designed by white men
for white men with obvious biases.
When we see that management consulting is still firmly based in what researcher
Sumantra Ghoshal called “bad management theories” (2005), we cannot take the efforts of
management consulting to affect change in diversity and inclusion initiatives seriously. When
women are still working to break the ‘glass ceiling’, still working the ‘second shift’ (Hochschild
1989) and even more so impacted by the current COVID 19 epidemic, this points to a failure in
these practices. Further, when the management of consulting firms and client organizations do
not reflect the racial spectrum of workers or customers, there is no support for a strategy that
opposes the patriarchal, racially biased practice. I question the ethics of management consulting
firms, which have not used their power and expertise to solve this issue in their organizations use
of theory into practice.

Conclusion
To this day, everything “new” has turned out to be not so new but rather an extension of the
already dominant form of management theory and practice. Scientific management turned into
HRT and HRT turned into enterprise culture, different iterations of themselves in a new tie and
hat. The body of the outfit (to remain with our illustration) is the same as before; maybe with
slight alterations to the shirt and pant patterns to fit in with modernity. But, as illustrated, it is
just that, a suit with a hat and tie, a rigid uniform of the male persuasion. If management
consulting isn’t careful and more introspective of practice formulation and more openly critical
of the single-sided theoretical approach to practice, the industry will be deemed ineffective in
fulfilling on its exact purpose or enabling organizations in a variety of industries and markets to
adapt and succeed because the very entity attempting to help them do so is not adapting or
innovating. Celebrate the successes and do not throw out what has proven to work in some

4
capacity, but, and it is a big but, be aware of that “some” and push for critical theory and practice
approaches for future. What Ghoshal argues for research of management also applies in practice
of management: we do not need to remove existing approaches, but there is a need to reintroduce
the practice of pluralism (2005, p.88).
I look forward to discussing this with you in greater detail and how I can help the B.C.
Kinsey & Co. team thrive in a culture of positive client relationships and critical problem solving
for successful organizations.

Sincerely,
[Name removed]

References
Braverman, H. (1974) Chapter 4: Scientific Management, in Labor and Monopoly
Capitalism.

Burrel, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Introduction and Part 1: In Search of a Framework, in

Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.

Ghoshal, S. (2005) Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management

Practices, Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1).

Grey, C. (2017) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying
Organizations. Sage

Mayo, E. (1945) Chapter 4: Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company, in The Social
Problems of an Industrial Civilization.

Taylor, F. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management.