You are on page 1of 13

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT

The schools of management thought are theoretical frameworks for the study
of management. Each of the schools of management thought are based on
somewhat different assumptions about human beings and the organizations
for which they work. Since the formal study of management began late in
the 19th century, the study of management has progressed through several
stages as scholars and practitioners working in different eras focused on
what they believed to be important aspects of good management practice.
Over time, management thinkers have sought ways to organize and classify
the voluminous information about management that has been collected and
disseminated. These attempts at classification have resulted in the
identification of management schools.

Disagreement exists as to the exact number of management schools.


Different writers have identified as few as three and as many as twelve.
Those discussed below include (1) the classical school, (2) the behavioral
school, (3) and the contingency school. The formal study of management is
largely a twentieth-century phenomenon, and to some degree the relatively
large number of management schools of thought reflects a lack of consensus
among management scholars about basic questions of theory and practice.

Table 1 provides a brief summary of five major schools of management


thought, their approximate dates of origin, and their relative areas of
emphasis. The following sections discuss each of the management
MANAGEMENT Beginning
Emphasis
SCHOOLS Dates

CLASSICAL Managing workers and organizations


SCHOOL more efficiently.

Scientific
1880s
Management

Administrative
1940s
Management

Bureaucratic
1920s
Management

BEHAVIORAL Understanding human behavior in


SCHOOL the organization.

Human Relations 1930s

Behavioral Science 1950s

CONTINGENCY 1960s Applying management principles and


SCHOOL processes as dictated by the unique
characteristics of each situation.

schools in more detail. In addition, three contemporary management


perspectives are discussed.

THE CLASSICAL SCHOOL


The classical school is the oldest formal school of management thought. Its
roots pre-date the twentieth century. The classical school of thought
generally concerns ways to manage work and organizations more
efficiently. Three areas of study that can be grouped under the classical
school are scientific management, administrative management, and
bureaucratic management.

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

In the late 19th century, management decisions were often arbitrary and
workers often worked at an intentionally slow pace.. Scientific
management was introduced in an attempt to create a mental revolution
in the workplace. It can be defined as the systematic study of work
methods in order to improve efficiency.

Frederick W. Taylor was its main proponent. Other major contributors


were Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry Gantt.

Taylor attempted to do to complex organizations what engineers had done to


machines and this involved making individuals into the equivalent of
machine parts. Just as machine parts were easily interchangeable, cheap, and
passive, so too should the human parts be the same in the Machine model of
organizations. Scientific management has several major principles.

1. First, it calls for the application of the scientific method to work in


order to determine one best method for accomplishing each task.
2. Second, scientific management suggests that workers should be
scientifically selected based on their qualifications and trained to
perform their jobs in the optimal manner.
3. Third, scientific management advocates genuine cooperation between
workers and management based on mutual self-interest.
4. Finally, scientific management suggests that management should take
complete responsibility for planning the work and that workers'
primary responsibility should be implementing management's plans.
5. Other important characteristics of scientific management include the
scientific development of difficult but fair performance standards
based on work standards.

Scientific management had a tremendous influence on management practice


in the early twentieth century. Although it does not represent a complete
theory of management, it has contributed to the study of management and
organizations in many areas, including human resource management and
industrial engineering. Many of the tenets of scientific management are still
valid today.

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, (1841-1925) French mining engineer, 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
• 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: father of modern
management theory )

Henri Fayol developed 14 principles of management based on his


management experiences. These principles provide modern-day managers
with general guidelines on how a supervisor should organize her department
and manage her staff. Although later research has created controversy over
many of the following principles, they are still widely used in management
theories.

· Division of work: Division of work and specialization produces more and


better work with the same effort.

· Authority and responsibility: Authority is the right to give orders and the
power to exact obedience. A manager has official authority because of his
position, as well as personal authority based on individual personality,
intelligence, and experience. Authority creates responsibility.

· Discipline: Obedience and respect within an organization are absolutely


essential. Good discipline requires managers to apply sanctions whenever
violations become apparent.

· Unity of command: An employee should receive orders from only one


superior.

· Unity of direction: Organizational activities must have one central


authority and one plan of action.

· Subordination of individual interest to general interest: The interests of


one employee or group of employees are subordinate to the interests and
goals of the organization.

· Remuneration of personnel: Salaries - the price of services rendered by


employees - should be fair and provide satisfaction both to the employee and
employer.

· Centralization: The objective of centralization is the best utilization of


personnel.

· Scalar chain: A chain of authority exists from the highest organizational


authority to the lowest ranks.

· Order: Organizational order for materials and personnel is essential. The


right materials and the right employees are necessary for each organizational
function and activity.

· Equity: In organizations, equity is a combination of kindliness and justice.


Both equity and equality of treatment should be considered when dealing
with employees.

· Stability of tenure: To attain the maximum productivity of personnel, a


stable work force is needed.

· Initiative: Thinking out a plan and ensuring its success is an extremely


strong motivator. Zeal, energy, and initiative are desired at all levels of the
organizational ladder.
· Esprit de corps: (group spirit; sense of pride, honor, etc. shared by those
in the same group or undertaking) Teamwork is fundamentally important to
an organization. Work teams and extensive face-to-face verbal
communication encourages teamwork.

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.

BUREAUCRATIC MANAGEMENT

Bureaucratic management focuses on the ideal form of organization. Max


Weber (1864-1920) 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 (functional specialization)


• Well-defined hierarchy of authority (centralization of authority)
• Systems of rules for employees and work procedures
• Impersonal organizational relationships
• Selection and promotion solely on competence
• Career employment and well-defined promotion path to top of
organization
• Organizational transactions extensively documented

would lead to more efficient management.

Weber termed this organizational form a "rational-legal system" - its


structure and processes expressly designed to achieve certain goals. The
bureaucracy is rationally designed for optimum functional performance and
every part (departments, levels, posts) contributes to the whole (unity of
purpose). The bureaucracy is legal. Authority is exercised via rule and
procedural systems & the offices people occupy.
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.

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.

THE BEHAVIORAL SCHOOL

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. Hawthorne Works (a Western
Electric manufacturing facility outside Chicago) had commissioned a study
to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels
of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were
made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the
productivity gain was due to the motivational effect of the interest being
shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting
formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining
clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating
workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods of time.

• 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.

• Robert Owen (1771–1858)


• Hugo Munsterberg (1863–1916)
• Walter Dill Scott (1869–1955)
• Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933)
• Chester Barnard (1886–1961)
• Abraham Maslow (1908–1970)
• Douglas McGregor (1906–1964)
• Chris Argysis
• Rensis Likert

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.

CONTINGENCY SCHOOL

The contingency school focuses on applying management principles and


processes as dictated by the unique characteristics of each situation. It
emphasizes that there is no one best way to manage and that it depends
on various situational factors, such as the external environment,
technology, organizational characteristics, characteristics of the
manager, and characteristics of the subordinates.

Managers have always asked questions such as "What is the right thing to
do? Should we have a mechanistic or an organic structure? A functional or
divisional structure? Wide or narrow spans of management? Tall or flat
organizational structures? Simple or complex control and coordination
mechanisms? Should we be centralized or decentralized? Should we use task
or people oriented leadership styles? What motivational approaches and
incentive programs should we use?" The contingency approach to
management (also called the situational approach) assumes that there is no
universal answer to such questions because organizations, people, and
situations vary and change over time. Thus, the right thing to do depends on
a complex variety of critical environmental and internal contingencies.

Contingency theorists often implicitly or explicitly criticize the classical


school for its emphasis on the universality of management principles;
however, most classical writers recognized the need to consider aspects of
the situation when applying management principles.

The contingency school originated in the 1960s. It has been applied


primarily to management issues such as organizational design, job design,
motivation, and leadership style. For example, optimal organizational
structure has been theorized to depend upon organizational size, technology,
and environmental uncertainty; optimal leadership style, meanwhile, has
been theorized to depend upon a variety of factors, including task structure,
position power, characteristics of the work group, characteristics of
individual subordinates, quality requirements, and problem structure, to
name a few. A few of the major contributors to this school of management
thought include Joan Woodward, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch, and Fred
Fiedler, among many others.

CONTENGENCY PERSPECTIVES

1.System Schools

System is considerd as a goal oriented organism, in which there are a lot of


parts n the contri of parts as a whole is always > den individual contri.

The systems school focuses on understanding the organization as an open


system that transforms inputs into outputs. This school is based on the work
of a biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who believed that a general systems
model could be used to unite science. Early contributors to this school
included Kenneth Boulding, Richard Johnson, Fremont Kast, and James
Rosenzweig.

The systems school began to have a strong impact on management thought


in the 1960s as a way of thinking about managing techniques that would
allow managers to relate different specialties and parts of the company to
one another, as well as to external environmental factors. The systems
school focuses on the organization as a whole, its interaction with the
environment, and its need to achieve equilibrium. General systems theory
received a great deal of attention in the 1960s, but its influence on
management thought has diminished somewhat. It has been criticized as too
abstract and too complex. However, many of the ideas inherent in the
systems school formed the basis for the contingency school of management
2. McKinsey 7S model

Developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two
consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting firm, the basic
premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an
organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful.

The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment


perspective is useful, for example to help you:

• Improve the performance of a company.


• Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company.
• Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition.
• Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy.

The McKinsey 7S model can be applied to elements of a


team or a project as well. The alignment issues apply,
regardless of how you decide to define the scope of the
areas you study.

The Seven Elements

The McKinsey 7S model involves seven interdependent factors which are


categorized as either "hard" or "soft" elements:

Hard Elements Soft Elements


Strategy Shared Values

Structure Skills

Systems Style

Staff

"Hard" elements are easier to define or identify and management can


directly influence them: These are strategy statements; organization charts
and reporting lines; and formal processes and IT systems.
"Soft" elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe, and are
less tangible and more influenced by culture. However, these soft elements
are as important as the hard elements if the organization is going to be
successful.

The way the model is presented in Figure 1 below depicts the


interdependency of the elements and indicates how a change in one affects
all the others.

Let's look at each of the elements specifically:

• Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive


advantage over the competition.
• Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to
whom.
• Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members
engage in to get the job done.
• Shared Values: called "super ordinate goals" when the model was
first developed, these are the core values of the company that are
evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic.
• Style: the style of leadership adopted.
• Staff: the employees and their general capabilities.
• Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working
for the company.
.

You might also like