About Business Theorists

The Birth of Classical and Scientific Management Theories

The 19th century saw the birth of the classical and scientific management school of thought, which dominated management thought in the 1920s and 1930s. Inventor of the scientific management approach is Fredrick Taylor. Henry Fayol and Max Weber are two more renowned classical and scientific theorists. The effectiveness of work in progress was emphasized by the scholars in particular. The traditional management theorists primarily divide this strategy into three categories. First, traditional methods determine the optimum manner to carry out particular lines of work. Second, bureaucracy places a strong emphasis on rules and processes. In other words, the method focuses on hierarchical framework and distinct division of work. Thirdly, organisational management centres on information flow within an organization. On one hand, the ideas of classical theorists are considered relevant in some of the modern businesses operations. However, other modern scholars argue that classical theorists’ ideas, particularly those of scientific management and bureaucracy are old fashioned and not relevant in the modern world. Therefore, the essay will elaborate the classical and scientific management theories and determine whether they are outdated and if they are of no significance to work and administration in the contemporary business environment.

Argument for Classical and Scientific Management Theories

To begin with, Watson argues that scientific management is still relevant in today’s set up because managers still face the same challenges as the ones in 19th and 20th century (2006, p.5). Although not popular as it was in the past, classical management approach is still applicable. First, to justify this argument, it is imperative that we understand how the philosophy was explained by these theorists. Classical management theory is based on the belief that employees have only economic and social needs. Essentially, Fredrick Taylor argues that job satisfaction and similar social needs are considered unimportant by employees. Taylor reasoned that for organisational effectiveness to be enhanced there was need to raise efficiency levels during production process (Taylor 2016, p.48). For instance in the UK where there was labour shortage during the World Wars, centralized decision making and division of labour was the only way to increase productivity, and as a result, efficiency of workers would be enhanced.

Application of Scientific Management Approach in Modern World

Therefore to make the argument whether the approach is relevant in the modern world, it is important to understand how the theory works in a contemporary set up. Taylor supports the argument that work should be planned in ways that staff members have a well-controlled and stipulated duty and therefore, they would be required to follow a strict procedure for increase productivity (Hales 2010, p.200). The central belief is that supervisors are intelligently experienced and better-than-average employees. Thus, they have a duty to oversee the activities carried by staff. Fundamentally, the approach was used for low-level and repetitive type of work. In the modern world, some work activities can conform to such standards. For instance, works in industrial production follows more or less the same procedure and therefore efficiency can be enhanced through specialization and division of labour (Nelson 2012, p.15).

For the purpose of production kind of businesses, Fredrick Taylor based his management approach on the best and quickest ways of breaking downs jobs into components in order to enhance more productivity. Scientific management approach comprised of four principles. First, the approach emphasized on the need to systematically come up with the best technique to perform a particular task (Boddy 2015, p.75). Secondly, managers have the responsibility of ensuring that the best person needs to be chosen for a particular task. Therefore, the manager has the responsibility of ensuring the employee dis well trained and knows and knows all the ins and outs of the particular task. Thirdly, the theory elaborates that manager need to ensure that the selected employees are using the most efficient methods when performing certain work activities (McGrath 2017, p.56). Lastly, total responsibility of work technique lies with the senior management and not the employee in question

Like Taylor, most managers are concerned with increased productivity. Therefore, his job design approach is still used in industries today. An example being McDonalization of businesses. Since most industrial processes are repetitive and tedious to learn, it would be recommended that certain employees need to be trained for specific functions. For instance, Franchises such as McDonald divide their operations into distinct chores such as controlling deep fryers, supervision work and assigning people different tasks (Chakrabortty 2010, p.1). McDonald creates hamburgers through deskilling and simplification of tasks. First, they rill the burger by putting other ingredients and adding sauce. Thereafter, the burgers are placed onto bread roll and then they are wrapped (Boddy 2015, p.75). For this method to be efficient, a breakdown of job task is important. Each individual is required to master their steps in order to save time and improve efficiency. Other aspects of such as drink dispensers and French fries equipment limit time needed to complete the process. That procedure in itself is classified under the concept of scientific management.

Henry Fayol’s Administrative/Scientific Management Approach

Another renowned classical management thinker was Henry Fayol. He is well known for inventing the “Administrative/scientific Management” approach. Essentially, his style was slightly different from other scientific management theorists. Instead of focusing on productiveness on the shop floor, he emphasized on business operations. (Fayol 2013, p.7).

In the military, forces still employ the use of scientific management approach. For instance, the commandants are required to select the best workers with a particular skill for every job (Cole 2014, p.4). A standard method is used for selection of militants and then they are trained for particular tasks. This serves to eliminate interruptions and enable planning. The resultant effect is obviously increased output. Simirlaly, modern industrial engineers apply Henry Fayol’s approach in carrying out job-task analysis. Time and motion studies are usually done by carrying out thorough production forecasting especially in the management and operation tasks (Fayol 2013, p.90).

Max Weber and Bureaucracy as Organizational Structures

On the other hand, Max Weber, formulated ”bureaucracy” to mean organizational structures whose seniority and hierarchical framework were used fully. In his writings Grey (2006, p.483), advocated for performance evaluation as the best form of assessing technical competence of employees. Also, Grey explains that modern societies are increasingly constructed in a way that embraces rational legal authority. The approach is not just based on the legal state system (Grey 2006, p.485). Rather, it is implemented across the state, civil service and industry. According to Christian Grey, rational-legal authority breeds bureaucracy. In its pure form, bureaucracy in the modern society is more dominant because it involves technology. The features of bureaucracy include functional specialization, system of rule, hierarchy of authority and impersonality (Grey 2006, p.482).

Bureaucratic management approach explained by Max Weber is still used in service-based organizations (Anter & Tribe 2014, p.45). For instance, libraries and postal services use the hierarchical theory in order to promote competence in the work place. Simirlaly, piece rate and mass-production structures are employed in the costumes and garment industry (McGrath 2017, P.67). The classical management theory by Weber has other wide range of applications in today’s administration field. For instance, for managers facing internal challenges, especially in business operations, they could employ the use of Weber’s approach. More so, his style is relevant to today’s large corporations which focus on manufacturing and processing. According to Weber, the key to a successful organization was a clear chain of command, effective specialisation of skills and every employee should have full authority and knowledge over the particular tasks that they were doing. Moreover, there should be distant relationship between employees and manager and duties for each member of staff needs to be clearly stipulated in the contracts (Boddy 2015, p.3).

Argument against Classical and Scientific Management Theories

Despite the aforementioned application of scientific management approach, it is clear that the modern world business does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, some companies have done away with such managerial approaches and they have embraced open systems with dynamic interaction between managers, employees and the external environment. Companies such as Facebook, Apple and Microsoft are swiftly embracing open office approaches that have minimal bureaucratic approaches. Additionally, the competitive nature of the modern businesses environment have forced managers to device better ways of management in order to maintain competitiveness (Willnott et al. 2006, p.145). Uncertainty in innovation and industrial dynamics requires businesses to be more vibrant. Essentially, application of traditional scientific and classical management theories may not be the most proficient way to run modern businesses.

The Changing Business Environment

The revolutionizing financial sector and the 2008-2009 final recession made service companies to change their traditional ways of running businesses. Smart companies have differentiated themselves from their competitors by innovating better ways of dealing with their business operations. Corporations are forced to adapt to modern approaches or die due to rigidity. Corporations should not only be concerned with scientific facts but also environmental conditions and public perception. The extremely competitive business environment has been further complicated by technological changes.

Although classical approaches cause poor work-life balance, modern automobile companies such as Ford and Mercedes employ Taylor’s approach in order to enhance swift and efficient production. The criticism of this approach is that it is boring and therefore, employees are not motivated. Moreover, it ignores psychological and social needs of employees. Post-Fordism is criticized by popularize critique. Scholars argue that the approach leads to employee procrastination, increased bureaucracy and totalitarianism (Watson 2016, p.6). Similarly, philosophical critique argues that bureaucratic ways pre-occupy employees with efficiency and this should be considered inhumane. The concern is that Weber’s theory is harmful, unethical and morally damaging to personnel (Watson 2016, p.7). Also, the managerial technique is disapproved because it lacks ”public choice.” The reason provided by the critics is that the theory results in poor worker motivation and results in laziness and eventually goal displacement.

McSweeney argues that epochal claims are an advanced description of the contemporary world (2006, p.23). Epochal strategists dismiss bureaucracy by arguing that it micromanages the system and therefore, it has more negative impacts. Hence, post-bureaucracy theorists recommend a shift from industrial ways to computer-driven work environments. Emergence of knowledge intensive firms have enabled this revolution. Basically, rules are swiftly replaced by consensus and dialogue. Also, responsibilities are delegated based on competence of a task and not through hierarchy. Organizations are swiftly embracing open boundaries rather than full-time and permanent employees. In the UK civil service, ”epochal changes” has created unique ways that rely on contestable practices that result in total transformation from bureaucratic to post-modern techniques (McSweeney 2006, p.240). .

George Ritzer states that although processes such as McDonalization is considered efficient, their implication are vast (Ritze 1998, p.2). Approaches by McDonald is considered as new Fordism (Post-Fordism). They cause dysfunctionality and irrationality in the work place. ”Digital Taylorism” leads to lower skill set and lower rewards (Lauder, Brown & Brown 2008, p.2). Moreover, the rise of Robots have caused the change in nature of work. For instance the Bank of England reported that 15 million jobs will be lost in Britain due to increasingly sophisticated machines (Watson 2006, p.6).

Stress, long working hours and bullying are the commonest implications of scientific approach. Britons work for the longest in Europe. Over 4 million people work full-time and they toil for more than 48 hours a week. More so, increasing globalization have made firms to shift to developing countries because the labour is cheaper (Chakrabortty 2010, p.15). As a result, people are massively losing jobs. The factory system results in less pilfering and more control of the workforce. Despite the benefits efficiency and increased productivity, Fordism results dissatisfaction of workers due to inhumane working conditions and unsatisfactory pay. Additionally, it has resulted in loss of jobs due to automation and change in production practices.

Modern Approaches to Business Management

To add on, the approaches used by classical advocates may not cope with the modern dynamic environment. Japanization has introduced total quality managing (TQM) and the process of re-inventing new ideas, also popularly referred to as business process reengineering (BPR) (Knights & Willmott, 2007, p.12). TQM ensures that all staff are committed to maintaining high standards of work in every aspect of the business operations. Similarly, BPR involves re-design and rethinking of business processes in order to minimize cost, improve quality and increase speed through the use of information systems. Every process, procedure and rule of thumb is vastly changing due to dynamism in the business environment. Modern organizations have introduced styles such as downsizing, outsourcing and offshoring (Malizia, Cannavale, & Maimone 2017, p.6). Command and control style advocated by classical theorists can only work in an environment that provides a lot of room for trial and error. However, in the current era of computing, it is intolerable to run an organization in such a manner. Moreover, employees have become enlightened and therefore, they prefer a democratic system. This forces managers to vastly delegate decision-making roles. Every standard ratio that was once reliable may not be enough to guide managers in decision making.

Karreman et al. introduces the idea of knowledge-intensive firms (KIF). This approach has done away with industrial-bureaucratic ways of managerial control (2003, p.70). KIF firms have introduced the exchangeability of individuals and units, and it also increases management by numbers. As a result, KIFs produce qualified products and they generate extensive and unique knowledge. It is majorly employed in diverse organizations such as law firms, engineering, accounting and computer consultancy companies (Karreman et al. 2003, p.71). To compete on an international level, executives need to behave like entrepreneurs. By doing so, they would be required to create distinct business models that fit certain regions. This requires re-planning, strategizing, rethinking, innovation, and continuous learning (Malizia, Cannavale, & Maimone 2017, p.6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper provides two perspectives on how classical and scientific management theorists impact on the modern way of doing business. On one hand, some business models find classical approaches very effective in enhancing organizational productivity. Industries such as manufacturing, franchises, and military follow the rules of scientific management in their operations because they are more inclined to bureaucratic and hierarchical frameworks. On the other hand, the rapid changes due to technology and innovation do not provide space for traditional approaches to management. Traditional methods are criticized by post-modernists who are against McDonalization and Fordism. Classical methods portray businesses that are not influenced by external factors. As a result, more companies are embracing post-classical methods such as incorporation of matrix structures and open office environments.

References

Anter, A., & Tribe, K. (2014). Max Weber’s theory of the modern state: origins, structure and significance. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1645523.

Boddy, D. (2015), Management an Introduction. 3rd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Cole, G.A. (2014). Management: Theory and Practice. 6th ed. London: Thomson Learning.

Chakrabortty, A. (2010).The Guardian, Tuesday 31 August 2010. Retrieved from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/31/why-our-jobs-getting-worse

Fayol, H. (2013). General and industrial management. Mansfield Centre, CT., Martino Publishing.

Grey, Christopher. (2006). Bureaucracy and Post-Bureaucracy.

Hales, C. (2010). Managing through organisation: the management process, forms of organisation and the work of managers. London [u.a.], Business Press Thomas Learning.

Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2007). Introducing organizational behaviour and management. London, Thomson Learning.

Malizia, P., Cannavale, C., & Maimone, F. (2017). Evolution of the post-bureaucratic organization.

McGrath, J. (2017). The little book of big management theories: ... and how to use them. FT Press.

McSweeney, B. (2006). Are we Living in a Post-Bureaucratic Epoch? School of Management. Royal Holloway, Univerity of London, Egham, UK.

Nelson D. (2012). A mental revolution: scientific management since Taylor. Columbus, Ohio State Univ. Pr.

Ritzer G (1998). The McDonaldization of Society, Pine Forge Press.

Taylor, F. W. (2016). The Principles of Scientific Management. Cosimo Classics. http://www.totalboox.com/book/id-2753798942020546054.

Watson, T. (2006) Organising and Managing Work: Organisational, managerial and strategic behaviour in theory and practice, 2nd Edition. (Financial Times / Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education).

Willnott. D, Svemminsson, F. Stefan, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003). The Return of the Machine Bureaucracy. Management Control in the Work Settings of Professionals. Lund University, Sweden.