The Norton Company vs 3m
In the case of the article about the Norton Company and 3M, the quantitative and systems school of management thought was presented. The Norton Company adopted this school of thought since that was their technique to expand new product lines. Even though the company started on the time during the classical school of management thought was used mostly, wherein there should be a developed efforts to find the best way to perform and managed tasks, their management team or board of directors division was not doing a good job in their operations. They have sophisticated management teams that made the approval of decisions too complicated and maybe time consuming. This did not made The Norton Company embraced the classical school of management thought. The Norton Company thought that the use of Quantitative and systems schools of management will improve their decision making through the use of quantitative techniques. The Norton Company used scientific improvement such as computer modeling because they were thinking that this will improve their product lines and in the long run will improve the company. On the other hand, 3M Company is more on the classical school on management thought. They are more focused on the workforce and how they will deal with each individual’s initiative, which is more on developing each individual to contribute to a better job. I think Norton’s decline was because they did not use functions of management well and they did not treat each of these functions in equal consideration. They were more focused on improving their product. Of course, a company should also focus on the product, because the consumers are the one’s buying the product to their satisfaction, but if people under these products are not well equipped and not well trained to do their tasks, then the production won’t be as efficient. Norton can still adapt the quantitative and systems school of management, but it should also have considered improving its workers. Developing