Industrial Revolutions and their impact on managerial practice: Learning from the past
-
Author(s)Lucia KohnováLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4787-3901
,
Nikola SalajováLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9941-7740
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.36
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2019, Issue #2, pp. 462-478
- Cited by
-
Funding dataFunder name: Agentúra na podporu výskumu a vývojaFunder identifier: APVVAward numbers: APVV-17-0656
- 4052 Views
-
1744 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Technological changes that come with industrial revolution have largely affected businesses, as well as society. With the current technological shift and Fourth Industrial Revolution, many questions arise regarding the impacts and effects on current ways businesses operate. This study presents a retrospective analysis and overview of previous industrial revolutions. The aim of the retrospective analysis is to identify common characteristics that may lead to lessons learned for the forthcoming Fourth Industrial Revolution and thus complement the current debate on technological change. All previous industrial revolutions have led to change in business environments and new challenges for managers and owners. The findings show that all previous revolutions have led to increase in the number of service jobs created. The key approach of successful countries during the times of industrial revolution has included education as the source of new skills and knowledge necessary for adaption. Countries that were able to produce high skilled people could not only invent, but also adapt to new technologies sooner than others. Similarly, these approaches included introduction of new managerial practices in order to be able to utilize new technologies and new skilled workers effectively. The research article processes secondary data together with literature review on this topic.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)O14, O32, N1
-
References62
-
Tables2
-
Figures14
-
- Figure 1. Demand for occupations in 1850–2010, US
- Figure 2. Demand for factory workers
- Figure 3. Demand for secretaries
- Figure 4. Demand for professors
- Figure 5. Demand for health care workers
- Figure 6. Demand for engineers
- Figure 7. Demand for blacksmith
- Figure 8. Employment share change in 1850–2015, US
- Figure 9. Relation between number of steam engines per person and unskilled workers in Britain
- Figure 10. Share of high-skilled employment in total employment per sector, 2002
- Figure 11. Employment shares by occupational skill level, 1986 and 2006
- Figure 12. Employment trends by level of qualification, 2000–2020
- Figure 13. Which jobs require social skills? Change in share of jobs, 1980–2012
- Figure 14. Technology adoption in US households
-
- Table 1. Actual and projected supply of workers, aged 25+ by educational attainment
- Table 2. The evolution of learning
-
- Agostini, L., & Filippini, R. (2019). Organizational and managerial challenges in the path toward Industry 4.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3), 406-421.
- Atack, J., Bateman, F., & Margo, R. A. (2008). Steam Power, Establishment Size, and Labor Productivity Growth in Nineteenth Century American Manufacturing. Explorations in Economic History, 45, 185-98.
- Basl, J. (2017). Pilot study of readiness of Czech companies to implement the principles of Industry 4.0. Management and Production Engineering Review, 8(2), 3-8.
- Berkeley, E. C. (1949). Giant Brains or Machines That Think (270 p.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
- Bersin, J. (2017). Catch the wave: The 21st-century career.
- Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review.
- Brenner, R. (1976). Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Past and Present, 70, 30-75.
- Bussler, L., & Davis, E. (2002). Information system: The quiet revolution in human resource management. Journal of Computer Information System, 19(3), 41-50.
- Čapek, K. (2004). R.U.R. (Rossum’s universal robots). New York: Penguin Books.
- Chandler, A. D. Jr. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Chandler, A. D. Jr. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (800 p.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Chatzis, K. (2009). Coping with the Second Industrial Revolution: fragmentation of the French engineering education system, 1870s to the present. Engineering Studies, 1(2), 79-99.
- Chin, A., Juhn, C. H., & Thompson, P. (2006). Technical Change and the Demand for Skills during the Second Industrial Revolution: Evidence from the Merchant Marine, 1891–1912. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 572-578
- Climent, J. (2015). Postwar America: An encyclopedia of social, political, cultural, and economic history. New York: Routledge.
- Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2004). Cross-country technology adoption: Making the theories face the facts. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(1), 39-83.
- Cook, I. (2014). Five Signs Your Company’s HR Strategy is Stuck in the 90s.
- De Pleijt, A., Nuvolari, A., & Weisdorf, L. J. (2018). Human Capital Formation during the First Industrial Revolution: Evidence from the Use of Steam Engines (CEPR Discussion Papers No. 12987).
- Deane, P. (2000). The first industrial revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Deloitte. (2005). 2005 Skills Gap Report – Survey of the American Manufacturing Workforce. Washington, DC: Deloitte Development LLC.
- Desjardins, J. (2016). How Machines Destroy and Create Jobs.
- Desjardins, J. (2019). Visualizing 150 Years of U.S. Employment History.
- Eden, L. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Seven Lessons from the Past (pp. 15-35). In R. van Tulder, A. Verbeke, & L. Piscitello (Eds.), International Business in the Information and Digital Age (Progress in International Business Research, Volume 13). Emerald Publishing Limited,
- European Commission. (2011). Transferability of Skills across Economic Sectors: Role and Importance for Employment at European Level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- European Union. (2010). New Skills for New Jobs: Action Now.
- Fayol, H. (1916). Administration industrielle et Generale. Paris: Dunod.
- Fuchs, V. R. (1968). The Service Economy (266 p). New York and London: Colombia University Press.
- Gazova, A., Papulova, Z., & Papula, J. (2016). The application of concepts and methods based on process approach to increase business process efficiency. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 197-205.
- Handel, M. (2012). Trends in Job Skill Demands in OECD Countries (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 143). OECD Publishing.
- Hendrson, W. O. (2006). The Industrial Revolution on the Continent: Germany, France, Russia, 1800-1914. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge,
- Holzer, H. J., & Lerman, R. I. (2007). America’s forgotten middle-skill jobs. Washington, DC: The Workforce Alliance.
- Howes, A. (2016). The Relevance of Skills to Innovation during the British Industrial Revolution, 1651-1851 (Working Paper).
- Hudson, P. (Ed.) (1989). The regional perspective. In Regions and industries: a perspective on the industrial revolution in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Jensen, M. C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. The Journal of Finance, 48, 831-880.
- Kapás, J. (2008). Industrial revolutions and the evolution of the firm’s organization: an historical perspective. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 2(2), 15-33.
- Katz, M. B. (1987). Reconstructing American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections, American Economic Review, 63, 247-258.
- Lamoreaux, N. R. (1985). The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lund, S., & Manyika, J. (2017). Five lessons from history on AI, automation, and employment.
- Mathias, P. (2001). The first industrial nation. An economic history of Britain 1700–1914 (493 p.). London; New York: Routledge.
- McCloskey, D. (2011). Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World (588 p.). University of Chicago Press.
- McKinsey Global Institute. (2012). The world at work: Jobs, pay and skills for 3.5 billion people.
- McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: workforce transition in a time of automation.
- Mokyr, J., & Strotz, R. H. (2000). The Second Industrial Revolution, 1870–1914.
- NPR. (2015). How Machines Destroy (And Create!) Jobs, in 4 Graphs.
- Occupational Outlook Quartely. (2000). Futurework: Trends and challenges for work in the 21st centry.
- OECD. (n.d.). Quarterly Labor Force Statistics, various issues, and Labor Force Statistics, 1985–2005.
- Papula, J., & Papulová, Z. (2014). Konkurenčné stratégie: tradičné prístupy vs. nové pohľady a techniky. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer.
- Papula, J., & Volná, J. (2013). Core Competence for Sustainable Competitive Advantage, Multidisciplinary Academic Research. Praha: MAC Prague consulting.
- Park, H. A. (2016). Are We Ready for the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 25(1), 1-3.
- Perkin, H. (1996). The Third Revolution: Professional elites in the modern world. London: Routledge.
- Quatraro, F. (2012). The Economics of Structural Change in Knowledge (224 p.). London: Routledge.
- Rifkin, J. (2012). The Third Industrial Revolution: How the Internet, Green Electricity, and 3-D printing are Ushering in a Sustainable Era of Distributed Capitalism.
- Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2019). Technology Adoption.
- Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
- Shiri, S. (2012). Effectiveness of Human Resource Information System on HR Functions of the Organization – A Cross Sectional Study. US-China Education Review, 9(A), 830-839.
- Stearns, P. N. (2012). The Industrial Revolution in World History (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
- Sugayama, S. (1992). White-collar workers in the industrial revolution. Keiei Shigaku (Japan Business History Review), 27(4), 1-31.
- Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.
- Tortorella, G. L., & Fettermann, D. (2017). Implementation of Industry 4.0 and lean production in Brazilian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2975-2987.
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2006). Occupational Projections and Training Data. Labor Dept., Labor Statistics Bureau.
- UNESCO-IBE. (2013). Glossary of Curriculum Terminology.
- Wölfl, A. (2005). The Service Economy in OECD Countries (STI Working Paper No. 2005/3). Paris: OECD Publishing.
-
Influence of employee-manager relationship on employee performance and productivity
Nosipho Pearl Dlamini ,
Sachin Suknunan ,
Anrusha Bhana 
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.03
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022 Issue #3 pp. 28-42 Views: 3150 Downloads: 677 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯOrganizational performance can be seen as dependent on employee job performance and productivity. One of the factors that influence employee job performance and productivity is the working relationship between employees and their managers. This paper examines the influence of the relationship between employees and their managers on enhancing employee performance and productivity. The study was conducted in a financial organization based in Durban (South Africa). A quantitative approach was utilized with a census method targeting a total population of 40 administrative employees. A questionnaire was constructed based on the research aims and was administered to all 40 respondents. As a result, the response rate was 65%. Key findings indicated that the relationship between managers and employees did affect employee performance and productivity. A positive relationship with a manager is closely linked to increased motivation and performance, while a negative relationship is linked with poor performance. An overall negative impact and high level of dissatisfaction amongst employees were found due to the current bureaucratic management style that managers adopt in their organization. Thus, it makes employees less productive and decreases their work performance. Furthermore, it was found that employees’ perception of their relationship with managers plays a significant role in predicting job performance. Recommendations for a better working relationship to promote employee performance and productivity include manager-employee training, team building activities, skills development programs for managers, employee rewards and recognition, increased communication platforms, and more consideration for employee well-being.
-
Transformational leadership for organizational change in the Lebanese public sector
Bissane Harb ,
Dina Sidani
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.15
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 17, 2019 Issue #2 pp. 205-216 Views: 2631 Downloads: 1221 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe public sector is facing multiple changes. In a constantly changing environment, that is more and more demanding in terms of innovation and performance, the concept of leadership is of particular importance, as it is one of the few tools available to public managers.
Based on the transformational leadership theory, the aim of this study is to explore how transformational leadership characteristics influence organizational change within the public sector in Lebanon. To serve this purpose, a qualitative approach is adopted based on a series of semi-focused interviews conducted with ten public managers running 10 public administrations. These administrations have undergone significant changes over the past five years.
The results point out the importance of transformational behaviors adopted by public managers in leading change within the public sector in Lebanon, despite the multiple obstacles. They confirmed the role of two transformational dimensions related to idealized influence and inspirational motivation in the successful implementation of organizational change. This study contributes to better understanding of the role of transformational leadership in promoting change in the public sector. -
Waste management policy and employment: the case of France
Environmental Economics Volume 9, 2018 Issue #1 pp. 38-46 Views: 2319 Downloads: 287 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper examines whether a causal relationship exists between waste tonnage and employment when the waste collection is entrusted to a private operator in France (i.e. waste management policy by delegation of service). The empirical investigation is based on weekly data for four waste streams for the period from January 2015 to June 2017. Using nonstationary time series techniques including cointegration, VECM (Vector Error Correction Model) and long-run causality test of Toda and Yamamoto (1995) within a bivariate framework, the results demonstrate potential causal negative relationship between waste tonnage and employment. For three waste streams (i.e. household waste, outdoor garbage waste and miscellaneous waste), the results suggest that waste management practices that aim at entrusting the collection and treatment to a private operator (i.e. waste management by delegation of service) are not economically beneficial to society, because this policy does not favor environmental jobs creation. The paper calls for the adoption of other waste management practices to preserve employment in the waste collection sector.
