Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol and Elton Mayos Theories of Management - Coursework Example

Compare and contrast that Frederick W Taylor Management theory with Henri Fayol Management Theory and Elton Mayo Management Theory Student’s Name: Course Code: Tutor’s Name: Date of Submission Similarities and differences of Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol and Elton Mayo’s theories of management Similarities For proper management to be achieved, different theorists have tried to put into place theories as well as framework to follow in order to increase the productivity of workers as well achieve the organization’s objectives (Macionis & Plummer 2009). Examples are the scientific theory by Frederick Taylor, administrative theory by Henry Fayol and human relation theory by Elton Mayo. These theories are similar in that some aspects repeat themselves. Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet (2004) says that the three theories try at looking how to manage workers for increased productivity. The scientific theory by Taylor came up with techniques for improving the efficiency of the work process. Taylor did a systematic study of individual in the workplace, their tasks and work behavior. From his study, he concluded that if work is broken into small units and different individuals are assigned to specific tasks, work will be completed efficiently (Ritzer 2009). Henry Fayol in his theory advocated for the management interaction with workers for efficiency and more productivity of the workers. He said for more productivity there must be proper organization, planning, commanding, coordinating as well as controlling of employees by the management (Ritzer 2009). Elton Mayo in his theory, after numerous experiments in Hawthorne concluded that for productivity of workers to increase there must be a supportive team (Ritzer 2009). The three theories are similar in that they aim at making productivity of workers more no matter the process followed. The theories by Henry, Elton and Frederick stress on good cooperation between workers and managers though at different levels. Frederick and Henry believe that there must be vertical communication between workers and managers as well as lateral communication between workers themselves. This communication according to them is aimed at giving instructions on what should be done and how (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & St Clair 2007). Elton in his theory believes that the workers needs should be communicated informally so as they are satisfied as they work to enhance efficiency. The theories, although at different levels, are pointing on cooperation between workers and managers through communication (Ritzer 2009). Although at some point Taylor believed for a worker productivity to increase there must be the money aspect, he stressed on cooperation between workers and their managers for easier giving of instructions. Fayol on the other hand believed in authority and discipline of workers but by the end of it all there must be communication from managers to workers who will obey and hence there is cooperation as work continues (Samson and Daft 2009). Mayo in his theory looked at human beings as social men meaning they had more non-economic needs which, according to him must be communicated to the managers for cooperation to be achieved in the workplace (Samson and Daft 2009). Whichever the method, the three theories are stressing on cooperation and effective communication for the realization of an organization goals and objectives. The three theories have acknowledged the importance of workers motivation as they work to achieve their objections. Though in different dimensions, they tend to show that workers must be motivated to realize their goals (Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet 2004). Taylor in his scientific theory believes workers must be paid according to their work for them to be satisfied as they work and their productivity to increase. He adds by saying provision of the necessary tools and equipment to the workers gives them a sense of being motivated towards work. Fayol in his theory acknowledges that workers should be given initiative in whatever that they do for them to be motivated. He also says that management should take measures to foster the morale of their workers and encourage them to keep working. In his theory remuneration has been considered as an important motivator although by putting into consideration a number of possibilities because according to him there is no perfect system, but motivation is necessary to any productive worker (Macionis & Plummer 2009). In his theory Mayo looks at motivation differently, he shows that respectful treatment of workers makes them feel motivated. According to him workers should have a sense of participation, recognition, belonging, social interaction, morale and human pride for them to feel motivated towards work. Mayo views informal relationships in the workplace give the workers a sense of being attracted to their work and productivity increases due to motivation (Macionis & Plummer 2009). All the theories have had an intention of improving management practices for the betterment of employees as well as employers. They have tried to analyze personnel and how it can be managed at all levels, with the output in mind. It is evident that these theories have developed their ideas through practical experience and experimentation. They have written evidence to prove their argument as well concrete examples to support their views. From the theories, it is clear that management is universal and an important component in the process of production (Samson and Daft 2009). The three theories recognize there are roles for managers as well as junior staff in an organization. For efficiency and productivity in an organization, there must a unit of command. Mayo in his theory says after thorough experiments Hawthorne, an organization is a social system, with informal status systems, cliques, grapevines, rituals and a minute of logical, non-logical and illogical behavior (Samson and Daft 2009). He said that managers should be in a position to balance between logic of efficiency of a formal organization and the fact that people have feeling and sentiments. In this we can conclude that, however informal firms can be, there must be a formal setup where managers give instructions to other workers. Taylor acknowledges that work must be monitored in terms of performance, instructions should be provided and supervision carried out to ensure maximum efficiency (Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet 2004). He said that managers should plan as well train their subjects on the different responsibilities they are meant to undertake. Therefore, according to Taylor, managers are there to instruct and supervise. Fayol acknowledges the authority of managers. He stresses that managers have the responsibility of giving commands along with which there must be the balanced responsibility for its function. According to him, workers should obey instructions given to them by their seniors who are the managers when they provide good leadership (Samson and Daft 2009). This shows that the three theories consider the chain of command from managers to others although in different perspectives. Differences The three management theories differ in some aspects ranging from the most scientific to the most social. They view workers and managers in different perspectives in an organization. Taylor, for example, puts more emphasis on efficiency of management through time study and experience. This means that there must be standards set through analysis of the work being done. He says that proper training by those who are experienced is very vital for the efficiency of the work being done (Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet 2004). Fayol on the other hand considers management training. He doesn’t view technical training as important in management, but the skills on how to handle workers. He views success of an organization depending on good management rather than the efficiency of the workers. To him more management skills are needed than the technical know-how of the job for objectives of an organization to be met motivation (Macionis & Plummer 2009). Mayo, in his theory advocates for good social relationships among workers and workers with managers other than economic incentives for a successful organization. He advocates for openness, concern and willingness to listen for managers to be able to get the best out of their employees (Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet 2004). Taylor approached management from a technical level, meaning he was more concerned with what is being done by the workers themselves other than their supervisors or managers. The center of interest here is to equip the workers with what they want in terms of tools as well as equipment. According to him workers needed to have the necessary skills pertaining to what they do in organization (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & St Clair 2007). Fayol on the other hand approached management from the upper level which is management. He advocated that managers should have physical, mental, moral, the required education as well as experience to manage and control workers for the desired objectives to be met (Ritzer 2009). Mayo and Hawthorne researchers were contented with viewing management from the worker needs perspective. They were against that people can be motivated by facts and logic. They believed that workers are motivated by sentiments and social consequence. They found formal organization having rules, orders and plans which can bring problems and make workers to fail in accomplishment of their roles. According to them, managers have to strive to balance both formal and informal aspects of an organization (Samson and Daft 2009). Taylor defined management as a complex, uneven and interacting outcome of technological advances, changing power sources, evolving labour-management relations, and a desperate need to bring all these factors into some concordance by improving managerial practices. He argued that Scientific Management laid down the fundamental principles of large-scale manufacturing and it had its emphasises on rationalisation and standardisation of work (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & St Clair 2007). Fayol said management is the activity of integrating functions of the firm in order to intelligently use resources to attain the objectives of the firm (Ritzer 2009). Mayo on the other side concentrates on Integration of interests in the management process. The principle of integrative unity which finds a solution that satisfies both sides without compromise, surrender or domination. Integration involves finding a solution so that both parties achieve their goal with sound human cooperation (Samson and Daft 2009). As Taylor worked from the bottom to the top, Fayol did the opposite by focusing from the top to the bottom of the management hierarchy and Mayo looked at the overall; managers and workers together (Mastrangelo, Eddy & Lorenzet 2004). Taylor was aiming at enhancing more productivity of workers in eliminating wastage of time and resources while Fayol and Mayo developed universal theories to be applied by organizations. Taylor referred to his theory as scientific, Fayol as administrative and Mayo as human relations (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & St Clair 2007). The difference here is from the perspective in that Taylor aimed at analysing how work can be enhanced from the grass root level by the workers. Fayol looked at the role of the managers or the ones responsible in giving instructions while Mayo looked at all of them as human beings with social aspects and feelings therefore advocating for a two way traffic communication (Ritzer 2009). The scientific theory has further been developed by Frank and Lillian Gilberth, William H Leffingwell, Henry L Gantt and Harrington Emerson. Some of their suggestions include reduced working hours to enable workers recover and also provide entertainment. Their main aim is the employee and how to increase his efficiency. They also advocated for bonuses after good performance as well as reward to supervisors when their workers do well in order to increase morale (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath & St Clair 2007). Fayol was followed by Max Weber, Chester Barnad and Mary Parker Follet. They focused on how organizations can be structured most effectively to meet their goals. They identified further that the management process, functions and skills are paramount for good results to be realized (Ritzer 2009). Mayo’s theory was further linked to Maslow’s theory of human needs in organization starting from the most basic psychological needs such as food and water. Safety needs were also found to be important for workers as well as social needs. After attainment of these wants, workers will now strive to acquire esteem needs and finally self-actualization (Samson and Daft 2009). References Macionis, J. & Plummer, K 2009, Sociology: A Global Introduction, 4th edition, Pearson Education Limited, New York. Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E.R., & Lorenzet, S.J. 2004, The Importance of Personal and Professional Leadership, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol 25, No. 5, pp. 437- 451. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., McGrath, M. R. & St Clair, L. S. 2007, Becoming a Master Manager: A Competing Values Approach, John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Ritzer, G 2009, The McDonaldization of Society, Pine Forge Press, Los Angeles. Samson, D. and Daft, R. 2009, Fundamentals of Management, 3rd Asia Pacific ed.  South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning, Australia. Read More