The Classical School of Organisation and Management - Assignment Example

 The Classical School of Organisation and Management Abstract This paper will critically examine the school of Classical Management Thought, including the theorists of the scientific and administrative perspectives. Relevance to current management decisions will be compared to what was previously theorized. The classical school of organization and management consists of two perspectives – the scientific perspective and the administrative perspective. Both are well known in their own right. The scientific perspective may be better known, as it starts with Taylor and the foundation of the scientific methods. This paper will give an overview of the classical (management) era by discussing the scientific and administrative perspectives, the theorists behind each perspective, and the relevance of the classical management methods. Management practices may go back as far as the planning, controlling, directing, and building of the ancient pyramids (Wren and Bedeian, 2009). Starting with the late 19th and early 20th century management theorists who began their work during the Industrial Revolution, the major theorists of scientific (management) perspective believed there is one best way to do everything – and that is the most efficient way. Those theorists believed they could determine that method via whatever means they were using or purported was the best method to study the task. Those theorists of the scientific perspective discussed first are F. W. Taylor, H. L. Gantt, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and Hugo Munsterberg. The Scientific Perspective Frederick W. Taylor’s philosophy led the way for many others in using scientific and mathematical methods applied to workers, attempting to match a person’s abilities to a job in the best way possible, instituting a mutual self-interest mind-set that had never existed and improving employee productivity through incentives (Locke 1982; Wren and Bedeian 2009). Crain (2003) says that Taylor was noted for his scientific approach, his ability to solve problems, and his ability to invent things. His thought was that by being observed and measured the worker increased productivity. In one example, the test subject significantly increased production while receiving more in pay. Taylor’s management philosophy is built on the manager finding the facts, conducting research, and following tradition rather than relying on guesswork and personal opinion or hearsay (Locke, 1982). Chadha (2008) believes that Scientific Management is a form of systems thinking integrated with a worker and the work. Taylor was best known for using a stopwatch to time the workers pace to complete a task, but he believed that money is what the workers craved and they were determined to get it. He believed that ultimately improving efficiency improved society. Hodgetts (1995) analyzed ten organizations against Taylor’s principles and found that each organization utilized the principles in some way to stay focused on their quality management strategy. (Williams 2000) Taylor’s four principles summarized are: 1. Develop a science for each part of a person’s work, replacing a rule of thumb method. 2. Scientifically pick and train employees rather than allow employees to arrive and work as they wish. 3. Cooperate with employees to ensure work is done according to scientific guidelines. 4. Divide work as equally as possible. Allow management time to oversee the work of the employees and shoulder the responsibility of holding others accountable. Henry Laurence Gantt worked closely with F. W. Taylor. Gantt brought a human quality into the scientific side of Taylor’s work. Gantt developed a bonus pay structure for the employee who completed their piece rate work for the day and was able to complete more than the assigned tasks. With Gantt’s methods of the use of incentives for employees production was significantly increased (Wren and Bedeian 2009). Frank Gilbreth used time motion studies where Taylor used a stop watch and was using only time rather than time motion. Gilbreth was best known for establishing the hope of finding the one best (most efficient) way to do any and every task (Wren and Bedeian 2009). Lillian Gilbreth, PhD, continued the work the two of them conducted even after Frank’s death and she later became published. Hugo Munsterberg was the father of industrial psychology as we know it today. He believed psychological themes could be applied in the workplace. The Administrative Perspective As the scientific principles focus on the employee as an individual and their personal productivity, the administrative perspective focuses on the bigger perspective and the organization as a whole. The administrative perspective builds on the scientific management perspective by focusing on the structure of the entire organization rather than the individual job or task of the single employee and then looking for efficiency. The major theorists of an administrative perspective are Fayol, Weber, Gulick, and Urwick. Henri Fayol started out in a French coal-mining company (Crainer 2003; Wren and Bedeian 2009). Fayol took the perspective of the organizational view, focused on management and organization as a whole, but was also concerned with the need to gain efficiency. He is famous for identifying the major functions of management: leading, organizing, and controlling. He also identified management as discipline in and of itself. Max Weber is known as the father of bureaucracy. He developed five parts of the bureaucracy. Those characteristics are a division of labor, rules (policies), regulations (procedures), hierarchy (chain of command), and impersonal relationships (the company says they care about the employee, but what they really care about are financial results) (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick worked together to develop POSDCORB or planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Gulick and Urwick focused their theories on the administrative function of the managerial role and how the better efficiencies could be gained by the manager doing their best job. The Classical Management School of Thought and the Challenges of Today The difference between the era of the classical theorists (1890’s and the early 1900’s) and today is that many workers output is not readily visible to the manager. In Taylor’s day, it was clear as to what the task was. If pieces of metal needed to be moved from point A to point B, that is what needed to be completed and Taylor (scientifically) set about to calculate the most efficient means for the worker to do this. The administrative mindset was to structure the department and the organization that the flow of the work would get accomplished in the most efficient means possible. Today, the process of work is not visible in that many workers are working virtually or are knowledge workers (Drucker 1999). Knowledge workers use their judgment to get the job done. How does the manager make that more efficient? And how does the manager fit the workers’ use of professional judgment into the organizational structure? In the service industries, inputs and outputs are not as clear as they once were. What is challenging as well is the bureaucratic and hierarchical systems continue to exist and require those managers and workers to exist within them regardless whether they fit the existing tasks. Taylor’s scientific management and Weber’s theory of bureaucracy may no longer be flexible enough for what the global economic environment demands, but the manager/worker is forced to live within those structures many times. Ultimately, classical management, both scientific and administrative perspectives have been the most powerful and lasting contribution management theorists have made, but as the legacy lingers on, could it be to the detriment of many of the modern workers’ productivity? References Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence. E. 2008. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.). CA: Jossey-Bass. Chadha, Ankur. 2008. “Scientific Management Progression in HR.” Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://managehrnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/03/scientific-management-progression-in-hr.html Crainer, Stuart. 2003. “One Hundred Years of Management.” Business Strategy Review, volume 14, number 2: 41 – 49. Drucker, Peter. 1999. “Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge.” California Management Review, volume 41, number, 2: 79-94. Hodgetts, R. M. (1995). “Frederick Taylor: Alive and Well and Ready for the 21st Century.” Academy of Management Proceedings: 218-222. Locke, Edwin. A. 1982. “The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An evaluation.” Academy of Management Review, volume 7, number, 1: 14-24. Rowe, C. (1996). “Evaluating Management Training and Development: Revisiting the Basic Issues.” Industrial and Commercial Training, volume 28, number 4: 17 – 23. Sheldrake, John. 1997. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization. Management Research News 20, number 6, (January 1): 50, 51. http://www.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/ (accessed March 24, 2011). Williams, Chuck. 2000. Management. US: Thomson Learning. Wren, Daniel. A. & Bedeian, Arthur. G. 2009. The Evolution of Management Thought (6th ed.). NJ, John Wiley & Sons. Read More