THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING &

MANAGEMENT NEW DELHI

MANAGEMENT PROCESS: ASSIGNMENTS

ASSIGNMENT NO 1

Submitted to

Submitted by:

Name Section Roll No.

 INTORDUCTION

A theory is a conceptual framework for organizing knowledge that provides a blueprint for

various courses of actions. Hence, an awareness and understanding of important historical

developments and theories propounded by early thinkers is important for today’s managers.

The Industrial Revolution, which began in Europe in the mid - 100s, was the starting point for

the development of management concepts and theories. The rapid growth in the number of

factories during this period and the need to coordinate the efforts of large number of people in

the production process necessitated the development of management theories and principles.

According to one school of thought, history has no relevance to the problem faced by managers

today. Some are also of the opinion that the management theory is too abstract to be of any

practical use. However both theory and history are indispensable tools for managing

contemporary organizations.

Our present day management thinking has evolved from a whole range of influences over an

extraordinary long period of time. In his comprehensive book ‘The Evolution of Management

Thought’ Daniel A Wren writes:

“Within the practices of the past there are lessons of history for tomorrow in a continuous

stream. We occupy but one point in this stream. The purpose is to present…the past as a

prologue to the future.”

So with the aim of accelerating the development of our management practice for the future let

us examine that stream of evolving management thought of the past. While the practice of

management can be traced back to 3000 B.C., it was not given serious attention until the 1800s

when large organizations emerged.

The dynamic engagement approach recognizes that an organization’s environment is not

some set of fixed, impersonal forces. Rather, it is a complex, dynamic web of people
interacting with each other. As a result, managers must not only pay attention to their own concerns,

but also understand what is important to other managers both within their organizations and at

other organizations.

They interact with these other managers to create jointly the conditions under which their

organizations will prosper or struggle. The theory of competitive strategy, developed by

Michael Porter, focuses on how managers can influence conditions in an industry when they

interact as rivals, buyers, suppliers, and so on. Another variation on the dynamic engagement

approach, most notably argued by Edward and Jean Gerner Stead in Management for a Small

Planet, places ecological concerns at the center of management theory.

Like most modern disciplines, contemporary management thought has its foundations in the

history of management and the many significant contributions of theorists and practitioners.

Five principal contributors can be identified in this early period of development of management

thought: Robert Owen, Charles Babbage, Andrew Ure, Charles Dupin, and Henry Robinson

Towne.

Name Period Contribution

Robert Owen 1771-1858 Proposed legislative reforms to improve working

conditions of labor

Charles Babbage 1792-1871 Advocated the concept of division of labor’; devised a

profit sharing plan which led to the modern-day
Scanlonlan

Andrew Ure 1778-1857 Advocated the study of management

Charles Dupin 1784-1873

Henry R. Towne 1844-1924 Emphasized the need to consider management as a

separate field of study and the importance of business
skills for running a business
The behavioral approach emerged primarily as an outcome of the Hawthorne studies. Mary

Parker Follet, Eltom Mayo and his associates, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor and Chris

Argyris were the major contributors to this school. They emphasized the importance of the

human element which was ignored by classical theorists in the management of organizations.

These theories could easily be applied to the management of organizations.

The quantitative approach to management focuses on the use of mathematical tools to support

managerial decision making. The systems theory looks at organizations as a set of integrated

parts. According to contingency theory, managerial action depends upon the particular

parameters of a given situation. One important emerging approach to management thought is

Theory Z. This theory combines the positive aspects of American and Japanese management

styles. All these views on management have contributed significantly to the development of

management thought.

The origin of the movement is traceable to the work of F. W. Taylor, an American

engineer, for many years a manager in the works of the Bethlehem Steel Co., Midvale, Pa.

His investigations, leading later to the development of his methods and principles of

management, sprang from the attempt on his part to lay down a standard fair day's work

and to see that he got it from the men under his control. This led him into a deep analysis

of the elements affecting the amount of work that could be done in a given time, and in

turn by the kind of steps already indicated to the formulation of his system. One of the

largest single pieces of investigation carried through by him was concerned with

establishing the laws governing the rate of removal of metal by cutting-tools in a machine.

This was carried on at intervals during 26 years. One result of it was the discovery in 1899

of modifications in the composition of tool steel from which the modern high-speed steel

was developed. The whole results were published in 1906 in the Transactions of the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers under the title" The Art of Cutting Metals." In
this Taylor distinguished 12 different factors as influencing the possible speed, and he

established formula expressing the effect which each had on the rate at which metal could

be removed during a machining operation. He found that the maximum speed of working

could only be attained by a correct adjustment of each variable in relation to all the others.

To enable this calculation to be made quickly, one of Taylor's assistants, C. G. Barth,

devised a type of compound slide rule, by which the best adjustment of the 12 variables

referred to could quickly be found, so establishing the combination of conditions under

which the work could be done in the shortest time. An account of these slide rules was

published in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1904). A

special slide rule was needed for every variation of every type of machine, and in order to

reduce this complication it was necessary to group together all machines capable of doing

similar work and to modify them so as to make their movements identical. One calculation

and one slide rule would then serve for all the machines of a group. In other words,

machines were, where possible, standardized.

 CLASSICAL SCHOOL APPROACH OF MANAGEMENT

The classical school of management derives from the sociology of Weber, the scientific

management findings of Taylor, Gantt and Gilbreth, and the administration perspective

findings of Fayol, Urwick and Brech. The classical school looks for universal principles of

operation in the striving for economic efficiency. The organisation works within itself and

only within itself. It emphasises management separated from labour, and labour

specialised down to the smallest specialised tasks to which the most suitable (in each case)

personnel are trained. They need to be trained to nothing else.

The classical organisation theorists dealt almost exclusively with the anatomy of formal

organisation. Organisation is treated like a machine and so making each individual,

working in the organisation efficient, can increase efficiency. For instance, F.W. Taylor

emphasized on division of labour, fixing everybody’s work for the day and functional

foremanship. That is why; Taylor’s scientific management has been referred to as

‘machine theory’. It may be noted that scientific management group emphasized

efficiency of lower levels of organisation. It was Henri Fayol who showed concern for

efficiency at the higher levels for the first time.

The origin of the movement is traceable to the work of F. W. Taylor, an American

engineer, for many years a manager in the works of the Bethlehem Steel Co., Midvale, Pa.

His investigations, leading later to the development of his methods and principles of

management, sprang from the attempt on his part to lay down a standard fair day's work

and to see that he got it from the men under his control. This led him into a deep analysis

of the elements affecting the amount of work that could be done in a given time, and in

turn by the kind of steps already indicated to the formulation of his system. One of the

largest single pieces of investigation carried through by him was concerned with
establishing the laws governing the rate of removal of metal by cutting-tools in a machine.

The Evolution of Management Theories Trying to achieve goals through the judicious use

of people and resources, getting the others to work toward these goals, and keeping track

of whether or not we are accomplishing what we set out to do has been around for

centuries. Expressed in other terms we could say that management is a very old concept.

Generally, though, we think of “modern management” and the specific identification of

planning, organizing, leading, and controlling being the functions of management as

having begun at the end of the 1800s. Most of the contributors we recognize today have

been twentieth century people.

The Industrial Revolution provided the impetus for developing various management

theories and principles. Pre-classical theorists like Robert Owen, Charles Babbage,

Andrew Ure, Charles Dupin, and Henry R. Towne made some initial contributions that

eventually led to the identification of management as an important field of inquiry. This

led to the emergence of approaches to management: classical, behavioral, quantitative and

modern.

The classical management approach had three major branches: scientific management,

administrative theory and bureaucratic management. Scientific management emphasized

the scientific study of work methods to improve worker efficiency. Bureaucratic

management dealt with the characteristics of an ideal organization, which operates on a

rational basis. Administrative theory explored principles that could be used by managers to

coordinate the internal activities of organizations.

The behavioral approach emerged primarily as an outcome of the Hawthorne studies.

Mary Parker Follet, Elton Mayo and his associates, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor

and Chris Argyris were the major contributors to this school. They emphasized the
importance of the human element which was ignored by classical theorists in the

management of organizations. They formulated theories that centered on the behavior of

employees in organizations. These theories could easily be applied to the management of

organizations.

The quantitative approach to management focuses on the use of mathematical tools to

support managerial decision-making. The systems theory looks at organizations as a set of

interrelated parts. According to the contingency theory, managerial action depends on the

particular parameters of a given situation. One important emerging approach to

management thought is Theory Z. This approach combines the positive aspects of

American and Japanese management styles. All these views on management have

contributed significantly to the development of management thought.

This was carried on at intervals during 26 years. One result of it was the discovery in 1899

of modifications in the composition of tool steel from which the modern high-speed steel

was developed. The whole results were published in 1906 in the Transactions of the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers under the title" The Art of Cutting Metals." In

this Taylor distinguished 12 different factors as influencing the possible speed, and he

established formula expressing the effect which each had on the rate at which metal could

be removed during a machining operation. He found that the maximum speed of working

could only be attained by a correct adjustment of each variable in relation to all the others.

To enable this calculation to be made quickly, one of Taylor's assistants, C. G. Barth,

devised a type of compound slide rule, by which the best adjustment of the 12 variables

referred to could quickly be found, so establishing the combination of conditions under

which the work could be done in the shortest time. An account of these slide rules was

published in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1904). A

special slide rule was needed for every variation of every type of machine, and in order to
 reduce this complication it was necessary to group together all machines capable of doing

similar work and to modify them so as to make their movements identical. One calculation

and one slide rule would then serve for all the machines of a group. In other words,

machines were, where possible, standardized.

To enable maximum cutting speeds to be attained Taylor established, as a result of the

foregoing investigation, a set of standard cutting tools for the commonest kinds of machine

operations, such as lathe work. These standard tools were specified as to contour of cutting

edge, all angles of cutting edge, size of shank and hardening treatment, etc.

FEATURES OF THE CLASSICAL MODEL

The classical theory is more or less mechanical in nature as is revealed by its following

features:

1. Classical organisation theory is built around an accounting model.

2. The relationship between workers and management is established through formal

communications, defined tasks and accountability and formalized procedures and

practices to minimize conflict between them.

3. The worker is essentially an ‘economic man’ who can be motivated basically by

economic rewards. Money is considered the main motivator under this theory.

4. This approach to the organisation is the embodiment of the extra pair of hands

concept.

5. In designing the hob and in picking the extra pair of hands, classical theory assumes

man to be relatively homogenous and relatively unmodifiable.

6. Stability of the employees-stability in the sense of minimizing changes within the

employees-is a goal in the organisation.

7. Classical theory is in its essential character centralized, and the integration of the

system is achieved though the authority and control of the central mechanism.

CRITICISM OF CLASSICAL THEORY

The classical theory is criticized on the following grounds:

a. Closed system: Classical theorists have viewed organisation as a closed

system, that is, having no interaction with the environment. This assumption is

totally unrealistic. A modern organisation is an open dynamic system, which

has interaction with the environment.

b. Unrealistic assumption about human behaviour: The classical writers

lacked sensibility to the Behavioural dimensions of an organisation and made

over-simplified and mechanistic assumptions for the smooth running of

organisation ignoring all complexities of human who perform tasks assigned

to them and ignored their social, psychological and motivational aspects of

human behaviour. Human behaviour is most unpredictable and complex. This

assumption of classical writhers led the workers to frustration, conflict and

failure and thus made ‘man’ subordinate to the organisation.

c. Inadequate emphasis on human beings: the interplay of individual

personality, informal groups and inter-organisational conflicts in the formal

structure appears to be neglected by the classical writers. Bennis feels that the

focus of classical theory is on ‘organisation without people’.

d. Economic rewards as main motivators: the assumption that people at work

can be motivated solely through economic rewards is also wrong. Several

researches in human behaviour have contradicted this assumption. Non-

 monetary factors like better status and job enrichment can also motivate the

workers.

e. Hierarchical structure: the classical theory is based upon the hierarchical

structure that establishes the authority relationship between individuals in an

organisation. It attempted to prescribe the ‘right’ organisational structure. This

was a very narrow approach as it concentrated only on line and staff

structures. The classical writers did not explore why certain forms of

organisational structure are more effective than others.

f. Over emphasis on universality: classical theorists have claimed that these

principles have universal application. This suggests that the same principles

can be applied in: (i) different organisations, (ii) different management levels

in the same organisation, and (iii) different functions of the same organisation.

The empirical researches, however, suggest that none of the principles has

such characteristics. Moreover, there are many of the principles, which are

actually contradictory with other principles. For example, principle of

specialization is quite in conflict with the principles of unity of command.

Peter Drucker, Ernest Dale, etc. have also criticized universality concept.

Bureaucratic behaviour: Weber’s ‘ideal’ bureaucracy, a major constituent of

classical theory, suggested strict adherence to rules and regulations. The scope for

individual initiative and their contribution to the organisation goal is thus limited. The

result is red-tapism and observation of rules and regulations becomes the main

objective while the real objectives for which these rules and regulations are formed

are forgotten.
 SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND ITS FEATURES

The theory of scientific management is the “brainchild” of Frederick Winslow Taylor. In

its simplest form the theory is the belief that there is “one best way” to do a job and

scientific methods can be used to determine that “one best way”.

Taylor developed his theory through observations and experience as a mechanical

engineer. As a mechanical engineer Taylor noticed that the environment lacked work

standards, bred inefficient workers and jobs were allocated to people without matching the

job to the worker’s skill and ability. In addition to this the relationship of the workers with

the managers included many confrontations.

The theory of scientific management is the “brainchild” of Frederick Winslow Taylor. In

its simplest form the theory is the belief that there is “one best way” to do a job and

scientific methods can be used to determine that “one best way”.

Taylor developed his theory through observations and experience as a mechanical

engineer. As a mechanical engineer Taylor noticed that the environment lacked work

standards, bred inefficient workers and jobs were allocated to people without matching the

job to the worker’s skill and ability. In addition to this the relationship of the workers with

the managers included many confrontations.

Over a 20 year period Taylor devised the “one best way” to do each of the jobs on the

shop floor. He then concluded that prosperity and harmony for both workers and managers

could be achieved by following the 4 guidelines below:

1. Develop a science for each element of an individual’s work, which will replace the old

rule of thumb method. Scientifically select and then train, teach and develop the

worker.
2. Heartily cooperate with the workers so as to ensure that all work is done in accordance

with the principles of the science that has been developed.

3. Divide work and responsibility almost equally between management and workers.

4. Management takes over all the work for which it is better fitted than the workers

(rather than most of the work and responsibility being assigned to the workers).

A well known example of the scientific management theory is the pig iron experiment.

Iron was loaded onto rail cars by workers each lot weighing 92 pounds and known as a

“pig”. On average 12.5 tons were loaded onto the rail cars but Taylor believed that

scientific management could be used to increase this to 47/48 tons per day. Through

experimenting with various procedures and tools Taylor achieved this. This is how he did

it:

 Taylor ensured that he matched each of the jobs to each of the workers skills and

abilities.

 Taylor ensured that he provided the workers with the correct tools.

 Taylor ensured that he provided workers with clear instructions about how to do each

job. Taylor ensured that the workers understood the instructions and then Taylor

ensured that the workers followed the instructions exactly as he had explained.

 Taylor then created worker motivation by providing a significantly higher daily wage.

It is believed that through the use of scientific management Taylor increased productivity

on the shop floor by 200 percent. Taylor’s ideas and thoughts were adopted throughout the

world including in France, Russia and Japan. In today’s world scientific management has

been merged with other ideas and is used by managers in the form of time and motion
studies to eradicate wasted motions, incentive schemes based on performance and hiring

the best qualified workers for each job

FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

Scientific Management is one of the names adopted for a certain body of principles and

methods of management which have been propounded as applicable to industrial

undertakings, other names being Efficiency Engineering and Industrial Management.

Developed in the United States, mainly since about 1905, and particularly in connexion

with engineering work, the methods of Scientific Management have exercised a profound

influence on methods of factory management in England and on the continent of Europe,

as well as in America. Though applicable to most of the problems of industrial

administration, they have in fact been worked out mainly in connexion with the control of

workshop processes.

The theory underlying Scientific Management is briefly that there is one best way ” of

doing every act that has to be performed in a workshop, and that it is the duty of the

management to discover that ” one best way ” and to make such arrangements as will

ensure that it is always carried out. The method of procedure may be indicated by

propounding the following three questions: I. What are the factors which limit the speed of

a particular workshop process or machine? 2.Why is it that the volume of output from a

particular process is always less at the end of the week than the product of the speed of the

process or of the machine, multiplied by the working hours in the week, would lead one to

expect? 3. Why do some workers produce so much more than others working under the

same conditions?

This is one of the names adopted for a certain body of principles and methods of

management which have been propounded as applicable to industrial undertakings, other

names being Efficiency Engineering and Industrial Management. Developed in the United

States, mainly since about 1905, and particularly in connexion with engineering work, the

methods of Scientific Management have exercised a profound influence on methods of

factory management in England and on the continent of Europe, as well as in America.

Though applicable to most of the problems of industrial administration, they have in fact

been worked out mainly in connexion with the control of workshop processes.

The theory underlying Scientific Management is briefly that there is one best way “of

doing every act that has to be performed in a workshop, and that it is the duty of the

management to discover that “one best way " and to make such arrangements as will

ensure that it is always carried out. The method of procedure may be indicated by

propounding the following three questions:

1. What are the factors which limit the speed of a particular workshop process or

machine?

2. Why is it that the volume of output from a particular process is always less at the end

of the week than the product of the speed of the process or of the machine, multiplied

by the working hours in the week, would lead one to expect?

3. Why do some workers produce so much more than others working under the same

conditions?

An attempt to discover full answers to these questions leads to very far-reaching inquiries,

and radical changes in organization and administrative methods may become necessary if

the results of such inquiries are to be put to effective use.

Thus, the investigations prompted by the first question may be expected to lead to

modifications of the mechanism and construction of a machine to enable it to run faster; to

modifications of tools or appliances used; to changes of the material used for machine
parts, for tools or for accessory purposes. Changes in the design of the work to be done

might also follow, which, while leaving the product just as suitable for its purpose as

before, would enable the process to be carried out faster. A different method of handling

the work, the machine or the tools might be developed, involving a new series of motions

on the part of the workman which would result in a saving of time. Not only would

specific improvements be made of the kind suggested above, but the effect of each of the

many elements which influenced and limited the speed of a process would be reduced to a

law, the knowledge of which would save a great deal of experimentation in applying the

process to changed conditions.

Investigation of the second question might lead to equally valuable discoveries. For

instance, it might be found that the process was stopped altogether for portions of the

working week for such reasons as lack of continuous supply of material to be worked on;

changes of the " set-up " of a machine due to change in the nature of the work to be done;

breakdowns of the machine; adjusting or sharpening of tools; waiting for instructions and

many other possible causes. The attempt to remedy these would lead to the development

of methods of work-control and planning. These would aim at ensuring that material was

always ready to hand to be worked on; that all work of a like nature was carried through at

the one time, to avoid needless resetting of machines; that tools and appliances were ready

to hand; that instructions as to the next job were prepared and ready in advance; that the

nature of each new piece of work was clearly described and so on. Schemes of periodic

inspection or adjustment of machines or tools might be indicated in order to reduce time

lost through breakdowns.

The third question would lead to the discovery that different workmen had slightly

different ways of doing the same thing, and that the ways of the faster workers could be

explained to and adopted by the others; that some workers were temperamentally. more
suited to a particular kind of work than others; that some were not trying; that others were

trying too hard and were worrying themselves by their failure; that in some cases the

relations between the workmen and the foreman were happy and in other cases not.

The remedying of these troubles would lead to careful methods of choosing workmen for

particular jobs, to ensure that men of suitable temperament as well as capacity and skill

were employed; to schemes of instruction for showing the worker exactly what was

required of him, and for teaching him the methods which had been found to be the best for

carrying out the work in question. A scheme of payment by result might be developed, to

give the workman the necessary incentive to ensure that he would profit by the instruction

given him and would follow the methods laid down. The methods of control, the

relationship of the various grades of personnel and the demarcation of the spheres of

authority of the various officers of the workshop might also require rearranging, to allow

of the foregoing changes and to ensure satisfactory relations between the workmen and

those directing them. Built up on the result of such investigations as have been indicated, a

variety of systems of management have grown up, one emphasizing one factor and

another specializing in another direction, and all known by the general description of

Scientific Management.

Another piece of standardization work resulting from Taylor's investigations was in

connexion with the design and use of belt drives. Obviously, if a machine was to be called

on to give its maximum performance the means of driving it must be suitable to ensure

adequate power. This necessitated an investigation into the laws of power transmission by

belting and the drawing up of rules for the standardization both of the material of the belts

themselves and of the conditions under which they should be used. One of the most

important of these conditions is the tightness of the belt before starting up the drive.

Besides laying down suitable rules for this, apparatus was designed for measuring and
checking it. Accounts of this work were published by Taylor in 1894 and elaborated by

Barth in 1908, both in the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Concurrently with all this investigation another line of thought had been receiving

attention, both from Taylor and others, again mostly in connexion with the engineering

trade. This was the problem of obtaining from the workman a higher level of effort than he

gave under ordinary methods of workshop management. Although “piece work " -

payment by the piece as against payment by the hour or day - was in very general use in

many industries, the practice of " cutting the rate " had reduced its efficiency as a stimulus

to maximum effort. One of the earliest attempts was the development during the 'eighties

by. H. R. Towne of the Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., United States, of a scheme called by him

" gain sharing," according to which improvements in the efficiency of a works department

resulted in the payment to workers in it of a bonus on a prearranged scale. Other plans

were the Rowan scheme, which consisted in the fixing of a variable rate per piece, the rate

falling according to a fixed scale as the workmen's output rose. By this plan, although the

workman benefited by extra effort, the rate of increase of benefit constantly diminished.

The aim was to avoid the temptation to " cut the rate " while still making an attempt to fix

a standard of expected output from the workman.

 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUREAUCRATIC

MANAGEMENT

This group of writers focused on the entire organization. They’re important for developing

more general theories of what managers do and what constitutes good management

practice.

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT.

Administrative management focuses on the management process and principles of

management. In contrast to scientific management, which deals largely with jobs and

work at the individual level of analysis, administrative management provides a more

general theory of management. Henri Fayol is the major contributor to this school of

management thought.

Fayol was a management practitioner who brought his experience to bear on the

subject of management functions and principles. He argued that management was a

universal process consisting of functions, which he termed planning, organizing,

commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Fayol believed that all managers

performed these functions and that the functions distinguished management as a

separate discipline of study apart from accounting, finance, and production. Fayol also

presented fourteen principles of management, which included maxims related to the

division of work, authority and responsibility, unity of command and direction,

centralization, subordinate initiative, and team spirit.

Although administrative management has been criticized as being rigid and inflexible

and the validity of the functional approach to management has been questioned, this

school of thought still influences management theory and practice. The functional

approach to management is still the dominant way of organizing management

knowledge, and many of Fayol's principles of management, when applied with the

flexibility that he advocated, are still considered relevant.

The two most prominent theorists behind the general administrative approach were Henri

Fayol and Max Weber.

1. Henri Fayol wrote during the same time period as Frederick Taylor. Fayol was the

managing director of a large French coal-mining firm.

a. His attention was aimed at the activities of all managers.

b. He described the practice of management as distinct from other typical business

functions.

2. Max Weber (pronounced VAY-BAR) was a German sociologist who wrote in the early

part of the20th century.

a. He developed a theory of authority structures and described organizational activity

based on authority relations.

b. He described the ideal form of organization—the bureaucracy, defined as a form

of organization marked by division of labor, a clearly defined hierarchy,

detailed rules and regulations, and impersonal relationships

Max Weber stated 14 principles of management (fundamental or universal truths of

management that can be taught in schools).

It emphasized the need for organizational rationality rather than the owner’s whims as

a means for determining how work should be divided into individual work positions

and how the work should be rewarded. Max Weber, the most important early

advocate of this approach, argued that too often organizational decisions and

rewards were made because of who the worker was (possibly a relative of the
manager) or who the worker knew rather than on the performance of the worker.

Scientific management focused on the work or the job and how to do it better.

Bureaucratic management, on the other hand, focused on how to structure the

organization better so that better overall performance might be achieved.

BUREAUCRATIC MANAGEMENT

Bureaucratic management focuses on the ideal form of organization. Max Weber was

the major contributor to bureaucratic management. Based on observation, Weber

concluded that many early organizations were inefficiently managed, with decisions

based on personal relationships and loyalty. He proposed that a form of organization,

called a bureaucracy, characterized by division of labor, hierarchy, formalized rules,

impersonality, and the selection and promotion of employees based on ability, would

lead to more efficient management. Weber also contended that managers' authority in

an organization should be based not on tradition or charisma but on the position held

by managers in the organizational hierarchy.

Weber’s ‘ideal’ bureaucracy, a major constituent of classical theory, suggested strict

adherence to rules and regulations. The scope for individual initiative and their

contribution to the organisation goal is thus limited. The result is red-tapism and

observation of rules and regulations becomes the main objective while the real

objectives for which these rules and regulations are formed are forgotten.

Bureaucracy has come to stand for inflexibility and waste, but Weber did not advocate

or favor the excesses found in many bureaucratic organizations today. Weber's ideas

formed the basis for modern organization theory and are still descriptive of some

organizations.
As boundaries between cultures and nations are blurred and new communications

technology makes it possible to think of the world as a “global village,” the scope of

international and intercultural relationships is rapidly expanding. The pace of

organizational activity picks up dramatically. These trends indicate a heightened level of

intensity in organizations and management today.

To emphasize the intensity of modern organizational relationships and the intensity of

time pressures that govern these relationships, we call this flurry of new management

theory the dynamic engagement approach. “Dynamic engagement” is our term. In

times when theories are changing, it is often true that the last thing that happens is that

someone assigns a name to the new theory. We use dynamic engagement to convey the

mood of current thinking and debate about management and organizations. It is quite

likely that twenty years from now, well into your organizational lives, you will look

back and call this period of movement by some other name.

Limitations of bureaucratic management and administrative theory:

Scholars who emphasized the human approach to management criticized classical

theorists on several grounds. They felt that the management principles propounded

by the classical theorists were not universally applicable to today’s complex

organizations. Moreover, some of Fayol’s principles, like that of specialization, were

frequently in conflict with the Principle of unity of command.

Weber’s concept of bureaucracy is not as popular today as it was when it was first

proposed. The principal characteristics of bureaucracy - strict division of labor,

adherence to formal rules and regulations, and impersonal application of rules and

controls destroy individual creativity and the flexibility to respond to complex

changes in the global environment.

Classical theorists ignored important aspects of organizational behavior. They did

not deal with the problems of leadership, motivation, power or informal relations.

They stressed productivity above other aspects of management. They also failed to

consider the impact of the external and internal environment upon employee

behavior in organization.
 FAYOL’S & TAYLOR’S THEORY

Fayolism is one of the first comprehensive statements of a general theory of

management, developed by the French management theorist Henri Fayol (1841–

1925): one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management,

Fayol has proposed that there are five primary functions of management: (1) planning,

(2) organizing, (3) commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling (Fayol, 1949,

1987). Controlling is described in the sense that a manager must receive feedback on

a process in order to make necessary adjustments.

Fayol's work has stood the test of time and has been shown to be relevant and

appropriate to contemporary management. Many of today’s management texts

including Daft (2005) have reduced the five functions to four: (1) planning, (2)

organizing, (3) leading, and (4) controlling. Daft's text is organized around Fayol's

four functions.

The 6 types of Operations

For Fayol any Organisation can be subdivided into six types of Operations. Each

Operation being fulfilled by its corresponding Essential Function:

1. Technical Operations (production, manufacturing, transformation)

2. Commercial Operations (purchases, sales, exchanges)

3. Financial Operations (seek for capital and finance management)

4. Security Operations (protection of goods and people)

5. Accounting Operations (balance, P&L, cost control, statistics, etc)

6. Administrative' Operations (Management)(see below The 5 Elements of

Administration)
In 1925 six month before Henri Fayol’s death Verney helped Fayol redefine The

function of administration (Administration Industrielle et Generale). The old

definition went as follows: The activities involved in businesses can all be classified

under one of the following six headings: TECHNICAL, COMMERCIAL,

FINANCIAL, SECURITY, ACCOUNTING, ADMINISTRATIVE organization,

command, coordination and control. Compared with the new definition: The activities

involved in businesses can all be classified under one of the following five headings:

TECHNICAL, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, SECURITY, ACCOUNTING These

activities must be planned, organized, directed, coordinated and controlled, in a word:

administered. The removal of the distinction between management and administration

and the re-definition of administration, it appears that Fayol had finally synthesized

these two concepts. Therefore the previous difficulties with this distinction no longer

exist.

The 9 Levels

Fayol was representing an organisation like a living body (« corps social », i.e.

"social body") with main organs hierarchically structured as follow:

1. Shareholders,

2. Board of Administration,

3. General Direction and its General staff (advisors),

4. Regional/local Directions,

5. Main Engineers,

6. Services Managers,

7. Workshops Managers,
8. Foremen,

9. Workers.

The 5 Elements of Administration

Popularized by Fayol with the acronym of POCCC:

1. Planning' (to foresee/anticipate and make plans)

2. Organisation (to provide the Function with all is needed for its smooth running:

Supplies, Tools, Funding, Employees)

3. Commandment (to lead the people employed by the organisation)

4. Coordination (to harmonise all actions of an Organisation in order to facilitate its

smooth running and success)

5. Control (to verify if everything happens in accordance with defined plans, orders

given, and accepted principles)

The word Control clearly provoked some misunderstanding by English-readers

because its 1st meaning in French is "to check" and its 2nd meaning is "to have a grip

over". And it is the other way round in English. So for the French-reader Fayol clearly

meant "Check everything!".

For Fayol, "The Art of Commanding relies upon certain personal qualities and upon

the knowledge of management general principles. (...) It has, like all other arts, its

degrees. (...) The manager in charge of a commandment must:

1. have a deep knowledge of his staff;

2. cull the incapables;

3. well know the conventions binding the organisation and its members;
4. give the good example (by his attitude);

5. conduct regular inspections of the « corps social »;

6. get together his main partners in conferences (meetings) where are prepared the

Unity of Direction and the Focus of Efforts;

7. not be distracted by details;

8. aim to make prevalent among his staff, energy, initiative and dévouement."

The 14 Principles of Administration

1. Division of work: Reduces the span of attention or effort for any one person or

group. Develops practice or routine and familiarity.

2. Authority: "The right to give orders. Should not be considered without reference

to responsibility."

3. Discipline: "Outward marks of respect in accordance with formal or informal

agreements between a firm and it's employees."

4. Unity of command: "One man one superior!"

5. Unity of direction: "One head and One plan for a group of activities with the

same objective."

6. Subordination of Individual Interests to the Common Interest: "The interests

of one individual or group should not prevail over the general or common good."

7. Remuneration of personnel: "Pay should be fair to both the worker as well as

the organization."

8. Centralisation: "Is always present to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the

size of the company and the quality of its managers."

9. Scalar chain: "The line of authority from top to bottom of the organization."

10. Order: "A place for everything and everything in its right place; ie. the right man

in the right place."

11. Equity: "A combination of kindness and justice towards employees."

12. Stability of personnel tenure: "Employees need to be given time to settle in to

their jobs, even though this may be a lengthy period in the case of some

managers."

13. Initiative: "Within the limits of authority and discipline, all levels of staff should

be encouraged to show initiative."

14. Esprit de corps (Union is strength): "Harmony is a great strength to an

organization; teamwork should be encouraged."

Fayol suggested that it is important to have unity of command: a concept that suggests

there should be only one supervisor for each person in an organization. Like Socrates,

Fayol suggested that management is a universal human activity that applies equally

well to the family as it does to the corporation.

Fayol believed management theories could be developed, then taught (to students of

Grandes écoles). His theories were published in a monograph titled General and

Industrial Management (1916). In doing so, he stated," ...starting a general

discussion- that is what I am trying to do by publishing this survey, and I hope that a

theory will emanate from it."

His theories and ideas were ideally a result of his environment; that of a post

revolutionized France in which a republic bourgeois was emerging. A bourgeois

himself, He believed in the controlling of workers in order to achieve a greater

productivity over all other managerial considerations. However, through reading

General and Industrial Management, it is apparent that Fayol advocated a flexible

approach to management, one which he believed could be applied to any

circumstance whether in the home, the workplace, or within the state. He stressed the

importance and the practice of forecasting and planning in order to apply these ideas

and techniques which demonstrated his ability and his emphasis in being able to adapt

to any sort of situation. In General and Industrial Management he outlines an agenda

whereby, under an accepted theory of management, every citizen is exposed and

taught some form of management education and allowed to exercise management

abilities first at school and later on in the workplace.

 CONTRIBUTION OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES

Without question, the most important contribution to the developing Organization

Behavior field came out of the Hawthorne Studies, a series of studies conducted at

the Western Electric Company Works in Cicero, Illinois. These studies, started in

1924 and continued through the early 1930s, were initially designed by Western

Electric industrial engineers as a scientific management experiment. They wanted to

examine the effect of various illumination levels on worker productivity. Control and

experimental groups were set up with the experimental group being exposed to various

lighting intensities, and the control group working under a constant intensity. If

you were one of the industrial engineers in charge of this experiment, what would

you have expected to happen? That individual output in the experimental group

would be directly related to the intensity of the light? Seems perfectly logical,

Doesn’t it?

However, they found that as the level of light was increased in the experimental

group, output for both groups increased. Then, much to the surprise of the engineers,

as the light level was decreased the productivity decrease was observed in the

experimental group only when the level of light was reduced to that of a moonlit

night. What would explain these un-excluded that illumination intensity was not

directly related to group productivity, and that something else must have contributed

to the results. However, they weren’t able to pinpoint what that “something else” was.

In 1927, the Western electric engineers asked Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his

associates to join the study as consultants. Thus began a relationship that would last

through 1932 and encompass numerous experiments in the redesign of jobs, changes

in workday and workweek length, introduction of rest periods, and individual versus
group wage plans.9 For example, one experiment was designed to evaluate the effect

of a group piecework incentive pay system on group productivity.

Hawthorne studies reflected the scientific management tradition of seeking greater

efficiency by improving the tools and methods of work—in this case, lighting.

a. In the first set of studies, no correlation was found between changes in lighting

conditions and individual work performance. In fact, performance nearly

always went up with any change—brighter or darker—in illumination.

b. In the second set of studies, the concept of the Hawthorne effect

emerged. The Hawthorne effect refers to the possibility that individuals

singled out for a study may improve their performance simply because of

the added attention they receive from the researchers, rather than because of

any specific factors being tested in the study.

c. The 3rdet of studies centered on group production norms and individual

motivation.

d. Although simplistic and methodologically primitive, the Hawthorne studies

established the impact that social aspects of the job (and the informal group)

have on productivity.

e. Human Relations Movement: This movement was an attempt to equip

managers with the social skills they need.

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) developed a theory of motivation that was based on

three assumptions about human nature.

Human beings have needs that are never completely satisfied.

a. Human behavior is aimed at satisfying the needs that are yet unsatisfied at a
 given point in time.

b. Needs fit into a somewhat predictable hierarchy ranging from basic,

Lower-level needs to higher-level needs:

1. Physiological (lowest)

2. Safety

3. Belongingness or social

4. Esteem

5. Self-actualization (highest and NOT achieved by everyone)

Douglas McGregor (1906-1964) developed the Theory X and Theory Y

dichotomy about the assumptions managers make about workers and how these

assumptions affect behavior.

I. Theory X managers tend to assume that workers are lazy, need to be

coerced, have little ambition, and are focused on security needs. These

managers then treat their subordinates as if these assumptions were true.

II. Theory Y managers tend to assume that workers do not inherently

dislike work, are capable of self-control, have the capacity to be creative

and innovative, and generally have higher-level needs that are often not

met on the job. These managers then treat their subordinates as if these

assumptions were true.

III. Workers, like all of us, tend to work up or down to expectations.

The Behavioral School Of Management

The behavioral approach focuses on the psychological and sociological processes

(attitude, motivations, group dynamics) that influence employee performance. While

the classical approach focuses on the job of workers, the behavioral approach focuses

on the workers in these jobs. Workers desisted the formal and impersonal approach of

classical writers. Behavioural approach started in 1930.

The behavioral school of management thought developed, in part, because of

perceived weaknesses in the assumptions of the classical school. The classical school

emphasized efficiency, process, and principles. Some felt that this emphasis

disregarded important aspects of organizational life, particularly as it related to human

behavior. Thus, the behavioral school focused on trying to understand the factors that

affect human behavior at work.

HUMAN RELATIONS.

The Hawthorne Experiments began in 1924 and continued through the early 1930s. A

variety of researchers participated in the studies, including Clair Turner, Fritz J.

Roethlisberger, and Elton Mayo, whose respective books on the studies are perhaps

the best known. One of the major conclusions of the Hawthorne studies was that

workers' attitudes are associated with productivity. Another was that the workplace is

a social system and informal group influence could exert a powerful effect on

individual behavior. A third was that the style of supervision is an important factor in

increasing workers' job satisfaction. The studies also found that organizations should

take steps to assist employees in adjusting to organizational life by fostering

collaborative systems between labor and management. Such conclusions sparked

increasing interest in the human element at work; today, the Hawthorne studies are

generally credited as the impetus for the human relations school.

According to the human relations school, the manager should possess skills for

diagnosing the causes of human behavior at work, interpersonal communication, and

motivating and leading workers. The focus became satisfying worker needs. If worker

needs were satisfied, wisdom held, the workers would in turn be more productive.

Thus, the human relations school focuses on issues of communication, leadership,

motivation, and group behavior. The individuals who contributed to the school are too

numerous to mention, but some of the best-known contributors include Mary Parker

Follett, Chester Barnard, Abraham Maslow, Kurt Lewin, Renais Likert, and Keith

Davis. The human relations school of thought still influences management theory and

practice, as contemporary management focuses much attention on human resource

management, organizational behavior, and applied psychology in the workplace.

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE.

Behavioral science and the study of organizational behavior emerged in the 1950s and

1960s. The behavioral science school was a natural progression of the human

relations movement. It focused on applying conceptual and analytical tools to the

problem of understanding and predicting behavior in the workplace. However, the

study of behavioral science and organizational behavior was also a result of criticism

of the human relations approach as simplistic and manipulative in its assumptions

about the relationship between worker attitudes and productivity. The study of

behavioral science in business schools was given increased credence by the 1959

Gordon and Howell report on higher education, which emphasized the importance to

management practitioners of understanding human behavior.

The behavioral science school has contributed to the study of management through its

focus on personality, attitudes, values, motivation, group behavior, leadership,

communication, and conflict, among other issues. Some of the major contributors to

this school include Douglas McGregor, Chris Argyris, Frederick Herzberg, Renais

Likert, and Ralph Stogdill, although there are many others.

Classification of human needs by Maslow as under:

 Physiological needs: these needs are related to the survival and maintenance of
life. These include food, clothing, shelter etc.

 Safety needs: these consist of safety against murder, fire, accident, security
against unemployment etc.

 Social needs: these needs include need for love, affection, belonging or
association with family, friends and other social groups.

 Ego or esteem needs: these are the needs derived from recognition status,
achievement, power, prestige etc.

 Self-fulfillment: it is the need to fulfill what a person considers to be his real

mission of life.

Maslow is of the opinion that these needs have a hierarchy and are satisfied one by

one. When first needs are satisfied then person moves to second---------so on.

Contributions of Behavioural science approach:

The behavioural science approach is concerned with the social and psychological

aspects of human behaviour in organisation. Many of the conclusions of the

Howthorne studies were reaffirmed by the subsequent research studies, but certain
ideas were extended and others highlighted by the behavioural scientists. Some of the

important elements of the behavourial science approach are highlighted below.

a) Individuals differ in terms of their attitudes, perception and value systems.

Therefore, they react differently to the same situation.

b) People working in an organisation have their needs and goals, which may differ

from the organisation’s needs and goals. Management should achieve fusion

between organisational goals and human needs.

c) Individual behaviour is closely linked with the behaviour of the group to which he

belongs. A person may be inclined to resist pressures to change his behaviour as

an individual. But he will readily do so if the group decides to change its

behaviour. With work standards laid down by the group, individuals belonging to

that group will resist change more strongly.

d) Informal leadership, rather than the formal authority of supervisor, is more

important for setting and enforcing group standards of performance. As a leader

(manger) may be more effective and acceptable to the subordinates if he adopts

the democratic style of leadership. If the subordinates are encouraged to

participate in establishing the goals, there will be positive effect on their attitude

towards work. Changes in technology and methods of work, which are often

resisted by employees, can be brought about more easily by involving the

employees in planning and designing the jobs.

e) By nature most people enjoy work and are motivated by self-control and self-

development. It is for the managers to identify and provide necessary conditions

 for the human potential to be used in the service of the organisation. The

manager’s attitude towards human behaviour should be positive.

The behavioural scientists have shown how human beings bring to their task aspects

of behaviour, which the effective manager should profitably understand. After all, it is

individuals and groups with which a manager is concerned and while organisational

roles are designed to accomplish group purposes, people must fill these roles.

Thus, the behavioural sciences have provided managers with a ore systematic

understanding of one of the most critical factors in the process of management—the

human element. Insights evolving from that understanding have been used to design

work situations that encourage increased productivity. It has enabled organisations to

formulate programmes to more efficiently train workers and managers, and it has

effects in numerous other areas of practical significance.

Although the classical school of management did not provide a totally uniform

approach to management, there are many similarities among the views

expressed by Babbage, Taylor, the Gilbreths, Gantt, Fayol and Weber.

Outline dominant features of the classical model. How has Hawthorne

studies contributed to a transition in thought and practice? Explain the

behavioral school of management.

 CONCLUSION

The classical school of management derives from the sociology of Weber, the

scientific management findings of Taylor, Gantt and Gilbreth, and the administration

perspective findings of Fayol, Urwick and Brech.

The classical school looks for universal principles of operation in the striving for

economic efficiency. The organisation works within itself and only within itself. It

emphasises management separated from labour, and labour specialised down to the

smallest specialised tasks to which the most suitable (in each case) personnel are

trained. They need to be trained to nothing else.

Taylor developed his management theories in his book Shop Management published

in 1903, making it arguably the first scholarly work on management. Although there

were books and published pieces on what could be termed "management" these were

more of a "guide to" or trade publication on best practices. Shop Management

approached the role of manager as a general role with specific functions with respect

to collaborative work. The problem, as Taylor saw it, was that workers were

inefficient because: (1) Workers tended to ration their work load or work less than

they could, because working faster and harder would mean that there would be less or

no work to do in the future. (2) Management failed to structure work effectively and

to provide appropriate incentives. It should be pointed out that Taylor is writing

before the establishment of a "minimum wage" (the minimum wage became federal

law in 1938), so the notion of what is "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" was

arbitrary. A day-rate or hourly-rate was a common practice at the turn of the century.

Taylor viewed these wage practices as rewarding for attendance, not performance.

While another common practice was the "piece-rate" system that paid workers on the
basis of output, this generally failed because standards were poorly set, employers cut

rates when workers earned "too much", and workers would conceal their real capacity

for production to keep standards low.

The solution, to Taylor, lay in discovering the appropriate work standard and fitting

wages to the standard. Management should establish specific work targets, pay

workers for the tasks and goals met, and provide regular feedback. The main elements

of his theory were:

I. Management is a true science. The solution to the problem of determining fair

work standards and practices could be discovered by experimentation and

observation. From this, it follows, that there is "one right way" for work to be

performed.

II. The selection of workers is a science. Taylor's "first class worker" was someone

suitable for the job. It was management's role to determine the kind of work for

which an employee was most suited, and to hire and assign workers accordingly.

III. Workers are to be developed and trained. It is management's task to not only

engineer a job that can be performed efficiently, but management is responsible

for training the worker as to how the work is to be performed and for updating

practices as better ones are developed. This standardizes how the work is

performed in the best way.

IV. Scientific management is a collaboration of workers and managers. Managers

are not responsible for execution of work, but they are responsible for how the

work is done. Planning, scheduling, methods, and training are functions of the

manager.
The "scientific" approach towards work led Taylor to investigate work through "task

allocation" which meant that a job would be studied by sub-dividing it into discrete

tasks, each element of the job would be investigated to discern the optimal efficiency

by which it could be accomplished. The elements of the job, properly designed, then,

would be reconstructed as an efficient job. The criticism of this approach is that it

omits the worker's own contribution to the design of work and, thereby, alienates the

worker from the job. Still, what Taylor does is link national wealth and company

profits to how effectively work is performed, and he defines a cooperative role

between labor and management in wealth creation.

Taylor's system was widely adopted in the United States and the world until its

demise in the 1930's as organized labor pushed for a minimum wage based on hourly

pay, as opposed to Taylor's contention that pay ought to be based on performance. In

practice "Taylorism" too often fell short of collaboration between labor and

management and, frequently, was a mask for business exploitation of workers. The

enduring and unquestionable contribution of Frederick Taylor is that management is

firmly established as something done by trained, professional practitioners and is

elevated as the subject of legitimate scholarship.

All of the preceding theories have come down to us in the late twentieth-century world

of organizations and management. Here they are practiced against a backdrop of rapid

change and profound rethinking about how management and organizations will evolve

in the next century. At the heart of this rethinking, which is really occurring in

numerous ways at the same time, are new ways of thinking about relationships and time.

As boundaries between cultures and nations are blurred and new communications

technology makes it possible to think of the world as a “global village,” the scope of

international and intercultural relationships is rapidly expanding. The pace of

organizational activity picks up dramatically. These trends indicate a heightened level of

intensity in organizations and management today.

To emphasize the intensity of modern organizational relationships and the intensity of

time pressures that govern these relationships, we call this flurry of new management

theory the dynamic engagement approach. “Dynamic engagement” is our term. In

times when theories are changing, it is often true that the last thing that happens is that

someone assigns a name to the new theory. We use dynamic engagement to convey the

mood of current thinking and debate about management and organizations. It is quite

likely that twenty years from now, well into your organizational lives, you will look

back and call this period of movement by some other name.