Does the Study of Classical Management Theory Have any Value for Managers in Business Today - Research Paper Example

Introduction The ical management theory emerged as a pioneer part of the ical school of thought which was a product of the Industrial revolution. The late 18th and early 19th centuries brought with them a drastic change of views in regard with productivity, labor management and the effectiveness of an organization’s workforce. During this era, production had fast become a profitable business and likewise new industries emerged at a faster rate than ever before. This change brought along with itself an added obstacle for the management of these businesses; since there was now more competition, an increased need for efficient planning and execution of the work was felt. Industrialization brought people from different backgrounds to work in ‘factories’ as opposed to the handicraft system under which they had worked previously in small shops or in homes (Kim et al, 1995). It was felt, therefore at the time, a strong need for efficient planning, organizing and controlling of all work related activities, a need that was the main stimulant in the formation of the principals of “Scientific Management” and “Administrative Management”. Scientific management, in its essence was based upon the improvement of productivity, while Administrative management dealt, on the whole, with the organization as an entity and primarily focused on its overall effectiveness and improvement. The implications and results of the application of these two theories were immense and profound in their times, however, with the passage of time, the debate over the productivity of the classical theory of management became heated. As newer theories, principles and model’s emerged, the number of people who were un-sure of the effectiveness of this school of thought increased in number, and while it has not yet lost all credibility, there are a significant number of people who do not believe in the principles of scientific management and administrative management anymore. This paper deals with the applicability of the classical management theory in today’s age and discusses its usefulness for the management of the modern organization. The paper presents a review of the applications of the theory in the days of its infancy and follows that with a discussion about how relevant those applications are in today’s world. Classical Management Theory: 1894 – 1940 Scientific Management: As mentioned before, a product of the Industrial Revolution, the classical management theory had two major components which were scientific management and administrative management. During that era, efficiency had become a major concern following the fact that while money was available, labor had been in short supply. Therefore, it was with the intent of improving the productivity of the Midvale Steel Company, that Frederick W. Taylor began researching in the early 1880’s about the work methodology of the firm’s employed labor. He concerned himself mainly with the issue of greater and output and resultantly, his studies concluded that by a unique system of “work participation” management could obtain through its labor resources a sound “good day’s work” (Taylor, 1911). This implied that if the management wanted to increase productivity, it should implement a wage system which gave a higher incentive for above average performance, while a lower wage for below standard productivity. Having concluded this, Frederick W. Taylor was just at the beginning of the era which marked the rise to fame of his principles of scientific management, and later years brought out more in-depth research on the subject from him and other scholars. Another central figure in the later development and polishing of the principles underlying scientific management was Henry Gantt, an associate of Taylor’s who was responsible for the implementation of an incentive program at the Bethlehem Steel Works, a program which turned out to be even more productive and popular than the principles laid out by Taylor earlier (Higgins, 1991). Gantt based his program on the simple principle of time-related productivity and initiated the provision of a bonus to the workers who finished a job in less time than the allowed standard. This work, which later evolved into the development of a simple and revolutionary device for planning and organizing a specific work or project, also known as the Gantt chart, was instrumental in laying down the foundation of the principles of “labor management” which aided in increased productivity along with increased efficiency for the firms of that era. “Motion Studies” were another major area, which, apart from the manipulation of wage and incentive systems, played a great role in changing the way the labor worked in those times. The first study of the kind was also carried out by Taylor, who in 1890, carried out a detailed analysis of the work motions that were performed by the workers of Bethlehem Steel workers and he found that through the correct usage of a combination of steps, movements and tools, the workers could make astronomical increases in their productivity. This study mainly dealt with the best possible usage of time and resources by eliminating all unnecessary movements and actions which lead to a waste of time of effort, and although his work had pitfalls and future implications, the productivity at the Steel works increased monumentally, making managers firm believers in the theory at the time. The third main set of protagonists, who were clearly instrumental in the setting out of the principles of scientific management were Frank & Lillian Gilbreth. The husband and wife team were interested in motion studies and aimed to isolate a standardized method of laying bricks which could be founded as the single most productive brick-laying technique possible. The pair studied “job motion” using a motion picture camera and a split-second clock and through their monitoring, were able to identify a set of rudimentary motions, which when used free of all other unnecessary movements, resulted in the increased output of the laying of 2,700 brick as compared to 1,000 brick per person in a full day (Cliffsnotes, Principles of management: Classical schools of management). Administrative Management: The concept of general administrative management was introduced by Henri Fayol, a Frenchman who was introduced the world to “systematic management theory”. Fayol was responsible for implementing models that took the duties of management beyond those prescribed by Taylor and pointed out the basic functions of any manager involved planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling.(Fayol, 1949) General administrative management also dealt with the formation of organizational structures and hierarchies in a manner which was more complex as compared to the functional hierarchy that was suggested by Taylor. In this regard, Max Weber was a notable name as he was the pioneer who introduced the need for more formalized organizational structures based on a set of rules and principles. In Weber’s organizational hierarchy, each individual was granted a set of primary occupations which came with relevant responsibilities within their capacity. Each of these positions were accountable to a higher office and had low eons reporting to them and there was a systematic division of labor in the pursuit of the organizational goals in an efficient manner (Weber, 1947). Classical management theory: Contributions and Limitations Today The management theories of later day and all subsequent movements have had their fair share of believers and non-believers. However, if an in-depth analysis is carried out, it becomes evident that almost all of these theories stem, one way or the other from the old school theories that dealt with the classical management of labor and productivity. Authors such as Kotter, 1996; Humphreys and Einstein, 2000; Witzel, 2002, believe that on comparison of the classical management literature and the contemporary literature, there seems to be no obvious difference apart from the fact that the modern literature focuses more directly on leadership but nonetheless, comprises of a larger portion of the principles put forward by the classical theories in one form or the other. These authors believe that the concepts put forward by both schools are, in their essence, intertwined very closely and that the progress that has been achieved in reference to the management theories of today has been made possible by advancing and building upon the old theories of classic management. Hence, to say that there is no need of the old school management theories in today’s age is a statement without a solid base. To evaluate this connection, it is also important to focus on the differences which exist between the contemporary management literature and that belonging to the classical era and see the extent of those differences. The main discrepancy in the principles of scientific management, as was soon pointed out by scholars and researchers, was that it was short sighted. These authorities noted that the classical management theories ignored the human angle of the business organizations and due to the great emphasize being laid on “labor productivity”, the founders of these theories forgot completely about the behavioral implications of the labor force itself. However, while it can be said that the old school theories on management were short-sighted and incomplete, they were by no means incorrect. The behavioral management movement which arose as a direct retaliation of the scientific management theory had been preceded by theories proposed by Chester I. Barnard who concerned himself with forming a link between scientific management and human relations and behavior and he was successful in pointing out that both could work at the same time if implemented in the correct manner (Barnard, 1938, cited in Kim et al,1995). The review of the relevant literature proves that the classical management movement played a major contribution towards the foundation of principles that lead to later management developments and contributed functions and skills which are still relevant and of importance today. For instance, Nieneber (2007) proposed that in today’s age, classical management could serve the purpose of creating and maintaining an environment in which the employees of the firm can, through both collective and individual contributions, perform to their fullest and in the process achieve the best for themselves and their organization. The author also notes that for the modern management, classical management has another utility apart from ensuring efficient productivity; namely that it can also serve as a tool for ensuring customer satisfaction in the long run. The body of the contemporary literature is in all its essence, an aligned amalgamation of old school and contemporary management principles and the modern organization is best profited by practicing a variety of these principles at the workplace Kim et al (1995) for instance also note that organizations can benefit by using scientific management to promote efficiency in production, whereas behavioral theories can be used by the same management to appreciate and understand the employee behavior and actions Conclusion The management of the modern firm of course is operating in conditions fundamentally different from those of the Industrial revolution. The advancement has technology has brought along with itself a lesser dependency on manual labor and the newer, more efficient production techniques and ergonomics have resulted in less dependency on classical management principles as a basis for ensuring production efficiencies. However the fact remains that even in this age, the basic purpose of a firm in all eventualities is to create wealth. Common deduction indicates that productivity as a consequence is directly related to wealth creation, which proves that at any rate the importance of productivity can never be diminished. To say that the classical management theories deal most fundamentally with increasing productivity, would be a safe enough statement, which also implies that while the principles outlined in the classical management theories may not be relevant in this day entirely on their own, their efficacy does not necessarily diminish. References CliffsNotes.com. Classical Schools of Management. 19 Aug 2010 . Fayol, H. 1949. General and Industrial Management, Pitman and Sons, London. Higgins, J.M. 1991. The Management Challenge: An Introduction to Management, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 33-61. Humphreys, J.H,. and Einstein, W.O,. 2000. Nothing new under the sun: transformational leadership from a historical perspective, Journal of Management History, Vol. 44 No. 1,pp. 85-95. Kim, P. S., Pindur, W., and Rogers, S. E., 1995 . The history of management: a global perspective. Journal of Management History. Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 59-77. Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Nienaber, H. 2007. Assessing the management status of South Africa, EBR, Vol. 19. Taylor, F.W. 1911 Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY. Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons, Free Press, New York, N.Y. Witzel, M. 2002. Builders and Dreamers: The Making of Management, Pearson Education, Harlow. Read More