netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (NYSE: ALEX) is a Honolulu-based company that was once part of the Big Five companies in territorial Hawaii. The company today operates businesses in shipping, sugar cane, real estate, and diversified agriculture. It is also the only "Big Five" company that still cultivates sugar cane. It remains one of the State of Hawaii's largest private landowners, owning about 89,000 acres (36,000 ha) throughout the state. In addition, the company owns over a dozen income properties in the continental United States.
Alexander & Baldwin has its headquarters in downtown Honolulu at the Alexander & Baldwin Building, which was built in 1929.
CEO
Stanley Kuriyama
Chairman of the Board
Walter Dods
2
Director
Constance Lau
2
Director
Douglas Pasquale
Director
Blake Baird
2
Director
Jeffrey Watanabe
Director
Maryanna Shaw
2
Director
Michael Chun
2
Director
Charles King
Director
Allen Doane
A&B Properties
Norbert Buelsing
Matson Navigation
Matthew Cox
Secretary & Assistant Counsel
Alyson Nakamura
CFO
Christopher Benjamin
Legal
Nelson Chun
Government & Community Relat...
Meredith Ching
Development & Investor Relat...
Kevin Halloran
Human Resources
Son-Jai Paik
Control
Paul Ito
“The principal object of management should be to ensure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee (Taylor, 2003, 235)”.
This is the cardinal rule of the scientific management which underscored the traditional management system of the “rule-of-thumb”. For Taylor, there four principles that would ensure an effective management: (1) Develop a science for each element of a man’s work, which replaces the old rule-of-thumb. (2) Scientifically select and then train, teach and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his work and trained himself as best as he could. (3) Heartily cooperate with the men so as to ensure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. (4) Equal distribution of the work and responsibility between the management and the workmen. This management became effective in the modern era and the rapid influence of such theory reaches the door of Japan and other developing countries. This significant theory arise organizations and corporations to be more productive and plummeted profit and income.
However, this theory derives from the problem in the level of production and workforce. Taylor descriptive illustration of the status of work done by a workman insufficiently and ineffectively produce high quality products and the production level is low. He then suggests that in order to solve the problem of “soldiering” or “hanging it out” among the workmen, organizations should devise an effective and systematic management scheme in order to avoid such behavior among workmen. Hence, the emphasis on giving a “maximum prosperity on employees and the same with the employers” is the best medication to invoke.
According to Michael Freeman (1996), scientific management, though, in this contemporary setting is no longer used a s a term, however, various elements of the theory is customized in accordance to the need and context of a certain organization. Its doctrine is still useful today, due to a constant updating, and revising of the theory depending on the current need. In Freeman’s journal, he cited the constant revision made by the Scientific Management Society or Taylor society in order to adapt to the demands of the current time. The four principles were revised and justified by Harlow Person namely, Management Research, Standards, Control, and Cooperation.
This four revised principles are significant in identifying related concepts methods, approaches and theories applied in the organizational structures of various organizations. Only in this way we can identify the use of scientific management.
Understanding the historical context from which some of today's organizational structures have developed helps to explain why some structures are the way they are. For instance, why are the old, but still operational steel mills such as U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel structured using vertical hierarchies? Why are newer steel mini-mills such as Chaparral Steel structured more horizontally, capitalizing on the innovativeness of their employees? Part of the reason, as this section discusses, is that organizational structure has a certain inertia—the idea borrowed from physics and chemistry that something in motion tends to continue on that same path. Changing an organization's structure is a daunting managerial task, and the immensity of such a project is at least partly responsible for why organizational structures change infrequently.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States business sector was thriving. Industry was shifting from job-shop manufacturing to mass production, and thinkers like Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri Fayol in France studied the new systems and developed principles to determine how to structure organizations for the greatest efficiency and productivity, which in their view was very much like a machine. Even before this, German sociologist and engineer Max Weber had concluded that when societies embrace capitalism, bureaucracy is the inevitable result. Yet, because his writings were not translated into English until 1949, Weber's work had little influence on American management practice until the middle of the twentieth century.
Management thought during this period was influenced by Weber's ideas of bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylor's scientific management, or the "one best way" to accomplish a task using scientifically-determined studies of time and motion. Also influential were Fayol's ideas of invoking unity within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline, task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures, or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure.
Alexander & Baldwin has its headquarters in downtown Honolulu at the Alexander & Baldwin Building, which was built in 1929.
CEO
Stanley Kuriyama
Chairman of the Board
Walter Dods
2
Director
Constance Lau
2
Director
Douglas Pasquale
Director
Blake Baird
2
Director
Jeffrey Watanabe
Director
Maryanna Shaw
2
Director
Michael Chun
2
Director
Charles King
Director
Allen Doane
A&B Properties
Norbert Buelsing
Matson Navigation
Matthew Cox
Secretary & Assistant Counsel
Alyson Nakamura
CFO
Christopher Benjamin
Legal
Nelson Chun
Government & Community Relat...
Meredith Ching
Development & Investor Relat...
Kevin Halloran
Human Resources
Son-Jai Paik
Control
Paul Ito
“The principal object of management should be to ensure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee (Taylor, 2003, 235)”.
This is the cardinal rule of the scientific management which underscored the traditional management system of the “rule-of-thumb”. For Taylor, there four principles that would ensure an effective management: (1) Develop a science for each element of a man’s work, which replaces the old rule-of-thumb. (2) Scientifically select and then train, teach and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his work and trained himself as best as he could. (3) Heartily cooperate with the men so as to ensure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. (4) Equal distribution of the work and responsibility between the management and the workmen. This management became effective in the modern era and the rapid influence of such theory reaches the door of Japan and other developing countries. This significant theory arise organizations and corporations to be more productive and plummeted profit and income.
However, this theory derives from the problem in the level of production and workforce. Taylor descriptive illustration of the status of work done by a workman insufficiently and ineffectively produce high quality products and the production level is low. He then suggests that in order to solve the problem of “soldiering” or “hanging it out” among the workmen, organizations should devise an effective and systematic management scheme in order to avoid such behavior among workmen. Hence, the emphasis on giving a “maximum prosperity on employees and the same with the employers” is the best medication to invoke.
According to Michael Freeman (1996), scientific management, though, in this contemporary setting is no longer used a s a term, however, various elements of the theory is customized in accordance to the need and context of a certain organization. Its doctrine is still useful today, due to a constant updating, and revising of the theory depending on the current need. In Freeman’s journal, he cited the constant revision made by the Scientific Management Society or Taylor society in order to adapt to the demands of the current time. The four principles were revised and justified by Harlow Person namely, Management Research, Standards, Control, and Cooperation.
This four revised principles are significant in identifying related concepts methods, approaches and theories applied in the organizational structures of various organizations. Only in this way we can identify the use of scientific management.
Understanding the historical context from which some of today's organizational structures have developed helps to explain why some structures are the way they are. For instance, why are the old, but still operational steel mills such as U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel structured using vertical hierarchies? Why are newer steel mini-mills such as Chaparral Steel structured more horizontally, capitalizing on the innovativeness of their employees? Part of the reason, as this section discusses, is that organizational structure has a certain inertia—the idea borrowed from physics and chemistry that something in motion tends to continue on that same path. Changing an organization's structure is a daunting managerial task, and the immensity of such a project is at least partly responsible for why organizational structures change infrequently.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States business sector was thriving. Industry was shifting from job-shop manufacturing to mass production, and thinkers like Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri Fayol in France studied the new systems and developed principles to determine how to structure organizations for the greatest efficiency and productivity, which in their view was very much like a machine. Even before this, German sociologist and engineer Max Weber had concluded that when societies embrace capitalism, bureaucracy is the inevitable result. Yet, because his writings were not translated into English until 1949, Weber's work had little influence on American management practice until the middle of the twentieth century.
Management thought during this period was influenced by Weber's ideas of bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylor's scientific management, or the "one best way" to accomplish a task using scientifically-determined studies of time and motion. Also influential were Fayol's ideas of invoking unity within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline, task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures, or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure.
Last edited: