Evolution of Management Thought

Introduction

Management can be traced back to when humans first began living in groups. One could claim that management took the form of leadership, which was required to coordinate the activities of group members to arrange life’s essentials. History demonstrates that strong men divided the multitude into groups based on their intelligence and physical and mental qualities. According to Egyptian literature from 1300 B.C., various persons practised the skill of management in various forms. The literature demonstrates the necessity of organisation and administration in the bureaucratic structure. There are similar documents from ancient China. According to L.S. Hsu, Confucius’ parables provide practical advice for proper public administration and admonitions to appoint honest, unselfish, and capable public servants.

The existence of the Athenian commonwealth, with its councils, courts, administrators, and board of generals, in Greece, demonstrates the nature of administration. Similarly, the existence of Roman magistrates in Rome, with their functional regions of authority and importance, suggests a scalar connection feature or organisation. The capacity of Romans to organise is thought to have been the key to the Roman Empire’s success. The city of Rome was developed into an efficient empire by utilising the scalar principle and delegation of authority.

The Classical Theory

The classical theory represents the start of the systematic study of management organisations. It is sometimes referred to as the traditional theory. Its origins can be traced back to 19th-century prototype industrial and military organisations. Several authors contributed to classical philosophy in the early twentieth century. Taylor, Fayol, Weber, Luther Gulick, Urwick, Mooney, and Reiley are among many others.

Three perspectives are included in the classical theory:

(1) Taylor’s Scientific Management,

(2) Fayol’s Administrative Management, and

(3) Weber’s Ideal Bureaucracy (an organisation based on rules and regulations, formal relations, specialization, etc.). For increased efficiency, all three focused on organisational structure. Several other trailblazers have also made significant contributions to classical theory. Mooney and Reiley, for example, published ‘Onward Industry’ in 1931 to discover organisational universals. Following it, major contributions were made by Gullick, Oliver Sheldon, Urwick, and many others. These thinkers were concerned with organisational structure, so their approach is frequently called the structural theory of organisation.’ The following are the key characteristics of the classical approach:

1. Division of labour and specialisation, structure, scalar and functional processes, and span of control were all emphasised in classical theory. As a result, they focused on the anatomy of formal organisation.
2. Classical theorists place a premium on organisational structure when coordinating numerous tasks. They overlooked the importance of the human factor.
3. The classical view neglected the impact of the external environment on organisational functioning. As a result, it regarded organisations as closed systems.
4. Organizational efficiency can be boosted by making each individual more efficient.
5. Organizational integration is achieved by the central mechanism’s authority and control. As a result, it is founded on the concentration of authority.
6. There is no disagreement between people and the organisation. In a dispute, the organization’s interests should take precedence.
7. Because they were supposed to be ‘rational economic persons,’ the people at work may be driven by economic benefits.

Scientific Management Approach

The first industrial revolution provided the push for the scientific management approach. Because it resulted in such tremendous industrial mechanisation, this revolution prompted the development of new management principles and techniques. Frederick W. Taylor, Henry L. Gantt, Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and Harrington Emerson were major contributors to scientific management.

F.W. Taylor (1865-1915) was the first to advocate for the use of scientific approaches in management. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, he started a new movement called ‘Scientific Management.’ As a result, Taylor is known as the “Father of Scientific Management.” Taylor was an American engineer who responded to management issues around the turn of the century. During that time, production was exceedingly poor, labour was extremely dissatisfied, and industries were subjected to regular strikes and lockouts. Taylor’s contribution was a scientifically based system for achieving lower labour costs while raising wages. He proposed that workers and management adjust their mental attitudes to bring peace to the industry.

Scientific management is the application of scientific methods to management problems. Taylor promoted scientific task assignments based on time and motion analysis, standardisation of materials, tools, and working conditions, scientific worker selection and training, etc. It should be highlighted that Taylor’s concept was limited to store management. However, he established the viability and importance of the scientific study of numerous administration elements. To summarise, he emphasised the following principles:

1. Science, not common sense.
2. Group action that is harmonious rather than discordant.
3. Maximum output instead of limited output.
4. Scientific worker selection, training, and placement
5. Workers and management have a nearly equal distribution of work and responsibility.

Taylor suggested that management try to find the best ways to do various jobs and introduce standardised materials, tools, and equipment to reduce waste. To increase the quantity and quality of production, management should hire the right people and provide them with adequate training. It must create pleasant working conditions to maximise worker efficiency. It should make decisions and always strive to get as much participation from workers as possible to guarantee that work is done according to scientific techniques.

Workers should also reconsider their attitude toward management. They should not be absent from work. They must be disciplined, loyal, and sincere in carrying out the tasks allocated to them. They must refrain from wasting resources. Both management and labour must trust one another and work together to achieve optimal output.

Thus, Taylor advocated for a mental revolution among management and employees. It should be highlighted that Taylor’s concept was limited to store management. However, he established the viability and importance of the scientific study of numerous administration elements. Taylor and his colleagues proposed the following strategies to put the theory of scientific management into practice:

1. Scientific task assignment to establish a fair number of days of work.
2. Conduct a work study to simplify and boost efficiency. This includes methods research, time research, and motion research.
3. Material standardisation, tool equipment standardisation, costing system standardisation, etc.
4. Scientific worker selection and training
5. A piece-wage differential proposal is needed to reward highly efficient workers.
6. Planning and operations specialisation through ‘functional foremanship,’ with foremen in the planning department, including route clerk, instruction card clear, time and cost clerk, and shop disciplinarian, and foremen in the operations department, including gang boss, speed boss, repair boss, and inspector.
7. Waste elimination and control system rationalisation

Criticism of Scientific Management

Taylor’s scientific administration was chastised not just by workers and managers but also by psychologists and members of the general public. The following are the key points of contention:

1. The inclusion of the word ‘Scientific’ before ‘Management’ was criticised because scientific management is nothing more than a scientific approach to management.
2. Taylor promoted the concept of functional foremanship to promote organisational specialisation. In practice, however, this is impossible because a worker cannot follow instructions from eight foremen.
3. Scientific management is production-centered, focusing too much on technical aspects of work and undermining the human factor in industry.
4. Scientific management disregards workers’ social and psychological needs by treating them as robots without feelings and emotions.
5. Trade unionists saw scientific management techniques as a tool to exploit workers because salaries were not increased in direct proportion to productivity advances.

Many of the above issues were later addressed by other scientific management authors such as Henri L. Gantt, Frank Gilbreth, Lillian Gilbreth, and Harrington Emerson. Many of Taylor’s recommendations are still used by modern corporate enterprises. In a nutshell, Taylor pioneered the introduction of scientific reasoning to the management profession.

Management Process or Administrative Management Approach

According to supporters of this school, management is a process that includes functions such as planning, organising, leading, and managing. That is why it is also called the ‘functional’ approach. Henri Fayol is considered as the school’s founder. Henri Fayol defined management in terms of certain functions and then established fourteen principles that he believes have universal applicability.

Principles of Management (Contribution of Henry Fayol)

Henry Fayol was born in the French city of Constantinople in 1941.

Management Concept: Henry Fayol is the father of current general and industrial management theory. He classified general and industrial management into six categories:

1. Technical activities: Production, manufacture, adaptation.
2. Commercial activities: Buying, selling and exchange.
3. Financial activities: Search for an optimum use of capital.
4. Security activities: Protection of property and persons.
5. Accounting activities: Stock-taking, balance sheet, cost, and statistics.
6. Managerial activities: Planning, organisation, command, coordination and control.

These six functions must be carried out to run any business successfully. However, he emphasised that the fourth function, the ability to manage, was the most vital for upper-level managers.

The management process, as a continuing managerial cycle encompassing planning, organizing, directing, coordination, and controlling, is based on Fayol’s analysis of general management. As a result, Fayol is believed to have formed the pattern of management philosophy and practice. Even today, the management process is widely accepted.

Fayol’s Principles of Management: The following are managerial:

1. Division of work: Work division or specialisation alone can provide optimal productivity and efficiency. Only via division of labour and specialisation can both technical and management operations be done optimally.
2. Authority and Responsibility: Authority is the right to give orders. Responsibility is the requirement to complete. The two sides of the management coin are authority and responsibility. They exist in tandem, mutually dependent, and complementary.
3. Discipline: Each member of an organisation must follow the objectives, rules and laws, policies and procedures. The rules, objectives, policies, and procedures must be agreed upon transparently and equitably. Non-obedience or indiscipline must have consequences (punishment). No organisation can function efficiently unless there is discipline – preferably volunteer discipline.
4. Unity of Command: To avoid confusion and conflict, each member of an organisation should only get commands and instructions from one superior (boss).
5. Unity of Direction: All members of an organisation must work together to achieve common goals.
6. Emphasis on Subordination of Personal Interest to General or Common Interest: This is also known as the cooperation principle. Each must work for all, and all must work for each. In any cooperative venture, the general or common interest must take precedence.
7. Remuneration: Fair pay plus non-monetary rewards are the best incentives or motivators for good performance. Employee exploitation in any form must be prohibited. A good reward strategy combines financial and non-financial incentives.
8. Centralization: There must be a proper balance between authority and power centralization and decentralisation. Extreme centralised and decentralised control must be avoided.
9. Scalar Chain: The unity of command creates a chain or hierarchy of command that connects all organisation members from top to bottom. Scalars represent steps.

• Order: Fayol suggested that everything has a place. Only order or a system can produce sound organization and efficient management.
• Equity: An organisation is made up of people who work together. As a result, equity (i.e., justice) must exist. We cannot have sustainable and adequate collaborative collaboration without equity.
• Stability of Tenure: It takes time for a worker to acclimate to new tasks and demonstrate efficiency. Therefore, employees and managers must have job security. Income and work security are required for good organization and management.
• Esprit of Co-operation: Creativity is the foundation of a strong organisation. Union equals strength. However, unity necessitates collaboration. Good performance is driven by pride, loyalty, and a sense of belonging.
• Initiative: Creative thinking and the ability to take initiative can provide sound managerial planning and implementation of predefined plans.

Criticism of the Process of the Functional Approach

Though proponents of the management process approach have made substantial contributions to the evolution of ideas, their work has the following limitations:

1. There is no unique taxonomy of managerial functions that all functional theorists agree on. There is disagreement about terminology such as management and administration, commanding and guiding, etc.
2. The functionalists believed that their principles were universal. However, several concepts have failed to provide the anticipated results in certain instances.
3. The functional theorists ignored the business’s external environment.
4. Fayol exaggerated the intellectual aspect of management. He believed that management education should be formalised, but he did not expound on its nature and substance.

Bureaucracy

Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist, contributed to management philosophy with his ideas on bureaucracy. His primary contribution is his theory of authority structure and his description of organisations based on the nature of their authority relations. Weber essentially contended that there are three sorts of legitimate authority, which are as follows:

1. Rational-legal authority: Obedience is owed to a legally constituted position or rank within a business, military unit, government, or other organization’s hierarchy.
2. Traditional authority: People obey someone because he belongs to a certain class or holds a position traditionally acknowledged as having authority, such as that of a real family.
3. Charismatic authority: Obedience is based on a person’s followers’ perception that he or she possesses some extraordinary power or attraction.

According to Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, rational-legal power is the most critical type in organisations. Leaders are not picked for their skill under traditional authority; charismatic authority is too emotive and irrational. A bureaucratic organisation based on rational legal authority has the following characteristics:

1. Division of Work: There is a significant degree of work division at both the operational and administrative levels. This results in job specialisation.
2. Hierarchy of Positions: The organisation has an authority hierarchy. Each lower position is controlled by a higher one, resulting in command unity. The administrative system is hierarchical, similar to a pyramid, with authority increasing as one travels up the organisational ladder.
3. Rules and Regulations: The top administration defines the rules, regulations, and procedures. Their advantages are as follows:
   • They standardise operations and choices.
   • They serve as repositories of previous knowledge.
   • They safeguard incumbents and provide equal treatment.
4. Impersonal Conduct: Relationships among organizational members are impersonal. Decisions are completely impersonal and directed exclusively by rules and regulations. In this system, emotions and sentiments have no place.
5. Staffing: Personnel are hired through a contractual connection between the employee and the company. The norms and regulations of the organisation control the length of service. Employees are paid every month based on the job they manage and their terms of employment.
6. Technical Competence: Bureaucrats are neither elected nor inherited but chosen through selection, with technical competence serving as the basis of selection. Technical qualifications and performance are also used to determine promotions in bureaucracy.
7. Official Records: An adequate record-keeping system aids the administration of a bureaucratic organisation. The organization’s decisions and operations are formally recorded and adequately stored for future reference. This is made possible via a sophisticated filing system. The file system allows the organisation to function independently of people. The official records serve as the organization’s memory.

Criticism of Bureaucracy

It is not without flaws. It may have a variety of adverse outcomes, including:

1. The regulations may be obeyed strictly but not in spirit. As a result, rather than giving guidelines, the regulations may become a source of inefficiency. The regulations may be misapplied or misconstrued by those enforcing them. As a result, red tape and technicalism may emerge.
2. Bureaucracy ignores informal organisation and interpersonal conflicts.
3. Bureaucracy hampers innovation since employees are expected to follow rules and regulations or work for secondary purposes.
4. Goal displacement can occur in a bureaucratic organisation. Bureaucrats may prioritise rules and regulations over secondary interests.
5. The bureaucratic hierarchy has various layers of executives. As a result, communication from the highest to the lowest level will be extremely slow.

Appraisal of Classical Theory

The following are the primary criticisms of classical theory:

1. Narrow View on Organization: Classical theory’s value is restricted by its focus on the anatomy of formal organization. The classical writers overlooked the human relations part to reach logic. Individual personality, informal groups, and inter-organizational disputes were all overlooked in the official organization. Classical theory is stated to be focused on ‘organisation without individuals.’
2. Assumption of Closed System: Classical theorists consider organisations closed systems without contact with the outside world. This assumption is entirely implausible. A contemporary organisation is an open system that continually interacts with its surroundings by exchanging inputs, outputs, and various information.
3. Assumptions about Human Behaviour: Humans were handled as if they were any other factor of production. They were required to follow orders from their superiors. Classical writers disregarded human behaviour’s social, psychological, and motivational components.
4. Economic Rewards as Main Motivators: It is incorrect to believe that people can be driven exclusively by economic incentives at work. Several human behaviour studies have contradicted this idea. Non-monetary considerations such as improved status and job enrichment can also inspire employees.
5. Lack of Empirical Verification: The classical principles are primarily based on the practitioners’ experiences and limited observations. They are not supported by empirical evidence. They lack precision and a comprehensive analysis approach. Furthermore, whether these principles are action suggestions or merely definitions is unclear.
6. Lack of Universality of Principles: Classical philosophers believed their principles were universally applicable. This implies that the same concepts can be implemented in
   • different organisations,

(ii) different levels of management within the same organisation, and

(iii) different roles within the same organisation. However, actual studies indicate that none of the principles have such features. Furthermore, several of the principles conflict with one another. For example, the specialisation principle contradicts the unity of command principle.

Excessive reliance on rules and regulations: A fundamental component of classical philosophy was Weber’s ‘ideal’ bureaucracy, which advocated strict obedience to rules and regulations. Individual initiative is so constrained that the organisation suffers from red tape. The primary goal becomes the observance of rules and regulations, while the true goals for which these rules and regulations are developed are lost.

Neo-classical Theory

Human Relations Approach

Traditional writers like Weber, Taylor, and Fayol overlooked the human connections aspect. The neo-classicists were concerned with the human side of business. They changed classical theory by highlighting that organisations are social systems, with the human dimension being the most significant component. They carried out some tests (dubbed the Hawthorne Experiments) to explore informal groupings, informal relationships, communication patterns, patterns of informal leadership, and so on. This resulted in the evolution of the human relations approach. Elton Mayo is widely regarded as the founding father of the Human Relations School. Roethlisberger, Dickson, Dewey, Lewin, and others have contributed significantly to this school.

The human relations approach is concerned with recognising the value of people in organisations. It demonstrated the significance of social and psychological aspects in determining employee productivity and satisfaction. It helped to shape a new vision of man and the workplace. The neoclassical or human relations approach emphasises interpersonal relationships and informal groups at work.

Human relationists claim that achieving organisational goals requires the willing participation of people and that such cooperation cannot be mechanically provided or ordered. It must be done consciously. The neoclassical approach aimed for a people-oriented organisational structure incorporating informal and formal organisations.

The following are the fundamental tenets of neoclassical theory or the human relations approach:

1. Business organisations are social systems.
2. An individual’s behaviour is dominated by the informal group to which he belongs.
3. Economic incentives alone cannot drive an individual employee. To increase motivation, his social and psychological requirements must be met.
4. The cooperative mentality, not the more commanding attitude, produces results in an organisation.
5. Management must strive to acquire social and leadership abilities and technical skills. It must be concerned about the well-being of its employees.
6. In an organisation, morale and production go hand in hand.

Hawthrone Studies

In 1927, a group of Harvard Business School academics led by George Elton Mayo and Fritz J. Roethlisberger were invited to participate in research at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. The trial ran until 1932. Previously, from 1924 to 1927, the National Research Council collaborated with the Western Electric Company on a study to investigate the influence of lighting and other circumstances on workers and their productivity.

1. Illumination Experiment: This experiment aimed to determine the link between output and illumination. As the intensity of the light increased, production tended to increase. Production began to rise again when the illumination was gradually reduced from the typical level. As a result, it was discovered that there is no continuous association between worker output and industrial illumination. When the light intensity was increased or decreased, certain additional parameters influenced worker productivity.
2. Relay Assembly Room Experiment: A small homogeneous work group of girls was formed for this experiment. Several new features were included in this group’s work environment. Shorter working hours, rest breaks, better physical conditions, friendly and informal supervision, free social interaction among group members, etc. Productivity and morale grew significantly during the experiment. Even when improvements in working conditions were eliminated, morale and productivity remained high. The studies showed that socio-psychological elements such as a sense of importance, acknowledgement, attention, engagement, a cohesive work group, and non-directive supervision were essential in increasing productivity.
3. Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment: This experiment was conducted to investigate a group of workers under conditions that were as similar to normal as feasible. This group consisted of 14 employees. This group’s production records were compared to their previous ones after the experiment. Because ‘normal conditions’ were maintained, the two had no significant differences. The researchers noticed the presence of informal cliques and informal production rules in the group. The Bank Wiring Experiment yielded the following results:
   1. Each person was limiting their productivity.
   2. The organisation has its own “unofficial” performance requirements.
   3. Over time, individual production stayed relatively consistent.
   4. Departmental records were skewed due to discrepancies between actual and reported output or standard and reported working time.
4. Mass Interview Programme: The researchers interviewed many employees about their attitudes toward work, working conditions, and supervision. Initially, a direct approach was adopted, with interviewers asking crucial questions deemed significant by management and researchers. This method was then superseded by an indirect strategy in which the interviewer merely listened to what the employees had to say. The findings verified the significance of social aspects in the workplace and the work environment.

Human Relations Approach or Hawthorne Studies Contributions

As a result of their findings from the Hawthorne experiments, the human relationists presented the following points:

1. Social System: The organisation is a social system comprising many interconnected pieces. The social system defines individual roles and establishes norms that may differ from those of the formal organisation.
2. Social Environment: The workplace social environment both influences and affects workers. Management is not the only variable to consider. Workers’ behaviour is heavily influenced by social and psychological variables. As a result, every manager should take a human-centred approach to all organizational problems.
3. Informal Organization: The informal organisation exists inside the framework of the formal organisation and affects and is impacted by it.
4. Group Dynamics: At work, employees frequently act and react as members of groups rather than as individuals. The group establishes behavioural norms for its members and so strongly influences the attitudes and performance of individual workers. Management should treat workers as members of a workgroup rather than as individuals.
5. Informal leader: The informal leader establishes and enforces group norms. He assists the workers in functioning as a social group, rendering the official leader ineffectual unless he agrees with group standards.
6. Communication: Two-way communication is required because it conveys the feelings and sentiments of individuals who work in the organisation and brings important information downward for the efficient operation of the organisation. It will aid in gaining workers’ collaboration and participation in decision-making. Workers are more productive when they can voice their views, opinions, and grievances, providing them with psychological fulfilment.
7. Non-economic Rewards: Money is one of, but not the only, motivators of human behaviour. Workers have significant social and psychological requirements. Non-monetary rewards, such as praise, status, interpersonal relationships, and so on, play an essential part in motivating employees. Such incentives must be integrated into employees’ salaries and fringe perks.
8. Conflicts: Conflicts may emerge between organizational aims and group goals. If not addressed effectively, they will affect workers’ interests. Conflicts can be resolved by improving human relations inside the organisation.

Criticism of the Human Relations Approach

The human relations method has been slammed for the following reasons:

1. Lack of Scientific Validity: Human relationists based their conclusions on Hawthorne investigations. These findings are based on clinical intuition rather than scientific data.
2. Overemphasis on Group: The human relations method emphasises the group and group decision-making.
3. Overstretching of Human Relations: It is considered that all organisational problems can be solved through human relations.
4. Limited Focus on Work: The human relations approach lacks proper work focus.
5. Over-Stress on Socio-psychological Factors: The human relations approach minimises the importance of economic incentives in motivation and excessively emphasises social and psychological factors.
6. Conflict between Organizational and Individual Goals: It regards conflict between organisational and individual goals as detrimental.

Behavioural Science Approach

The behavioural science approach applies knowledge from behavioural science, including psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to explain and predict human behaviour. It focuses on organisational human behaviour and tries to provide verifiable propositions for a scientific understanding. It focuses on motivation, leadership, communication, group dynamics, participatory management, and other topics.

The following are the essential aspects of the behavioural science approach:

1. Data must be obtained and examined objectively.
2. Findings must be presented so that the distinction between cause and effect, as opposed to chance, is evident.
3. Facts must be systematically related to one another within a systematic framework. Data collection does not constitute science in and of itself.
4. A study’s findings must always be open to further scrutiny and questioning.

The methodology used in developing research in the management field distinguishes the behavioural sciences approach. The essence of methodology is in the collection and analysis of pertinent data. This approach differs from the human relations approach in this regard. Furthermore, the behavioural scientists proposed the following:

1. A company is a socio-technical structure.
2. People differ in their attitudes, perspectives, and value systems. As a result, they respond to different stimuli differently under different settings.
3. Individuals within the organisation may have wants and goals that differ from those of the organisation. Efforts should be made to synthesize organisational aims and human needs.
4. A variety of elements influence people’s interpersonal and collective behaviour in organisations.

The behaviour school has greatly influenced Maslow’s work. His contribution to developing a need hierarchy to describe human behaviour and the dynamics of the motivation process is significant. In explaining his ‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y,’ Douglas McGregor expanded on Maslow’s ideas. Frederick Herzberg created a two-factor motivation hypothesis. He distinguished between elements that induce or prevent job unhappiness (hygienic factors) and those that lead to motivation (motivational factors).

Robert Blak and Jane Mouton created and popularised the ‘Managerial Grid’ in leadership. Rensis Likert identified and thoroughly examined four Management Systems, ranging from System 1: Exploitive-Authoritarian to System 4: Group Participative. Each system defines an organisational environment by incorporating numerous elements of effectiveness, such as communication, motivation, leadership, and others.

To summarise, the behavioural sciences approach emphasises productivity enhancement through motivation and leadership. The following components of human behaviour are at the heart of this approach: motivation, leadership, communication, participatory management, and group dynamics. The behavioural sciences have given managers a systematic grasp of one of the most critical aspects of the management process—the human element. Insights gained from that understanding have been used to create work environments that promote higher productivity. It has enabled organisations to develop programmes to teach workers and managers more efficiently and has had effects in various other practical areas.

Appraisal of Behavioural Science Approach

1. The study of human behaviour is extremely important in management. Because an individual is a product of a social system, his behaviour is influenced by various factors, including perception, attitudes, habits, and the socio-cultural environment. As a result, all of these aspects must be considered while attempting to comprehend human behaviour in the workplace.
2. The behavioural approach proposes ways to apply an understanding of human behaviour to make employees more effective in the workplace.
3. Behaviourists have contributed to management theory by studying group dynamics, motivation, communication, and leadership. However, they have failed to build an integrated management theory. Although studying human behaviour in organisations is critical, management cannot be limited to one field.
4. Other variables, such as technology and environment, significantly impact an organization’s effectiveness.
5. No matter how polished behavioural sciences are, they lack the precision of physical sciences.
6. Exact projections are frequently unachievable due to the intricacies of the human component and the organisational structure. Unexpected outcomes are not unusual for programmes based on solid behavioural principles.
7. It should also be emphasised that behavioural science research findings are preliminary and must be confirmed. They should not be applied in all circumstances.
8. While behavioural standards might be beneficial and profitable, they are not exhaustive, valid, or relevant in all situations.

Human Relations Approach vs. Behavioural Sciences Approach

Human Relations Approach	Behavioural Sciences Approach
1. The Human Relations approach emphasises the individual, needs, and behaviour.	1. The Behavioural Science approach focuses on groups and group behaviour.
2. The Human Relations approach focuses on interpersonal relationships	2. The Behavioural Science approach focuses on group relationships.
3. The Human Relations approach was based on the Hawthorne Experiments, so its scope is limited.	3. The Behavioral Science approach refined the Human Relations approach and has a wider scope. It represents a more systematic study of human behaviour in organizations.
4. The Human Relations approach emphasized informal group motivation, job satisfaction, and morale.	4. Behavioural Science approach studied group dynamics, informal organization, leadership motivation, and participative management.

Quantitative Approach

This method is also known as the ‘Mathematical,’ ‘Operations Research,’ or ‘Management Science’ approach. A fundamental component of quantitative management theory is using mixed teams of scientists from other disciplines. This school relied on scientific techniques to provide a quantitative foundation for administrative decisions. Linear Programming, Critical Path Method (CPM), Programme Evaluation Review Technique (PERT), Games Theory, queueing theory, and Break-Even Analysis are some of the methodologies often used for managerial decision-making.

The quantitative method uses mathematical formulations to solve previously intractable problems. The quantitative approach’s guiding principle is that if management is a logical process, it can be described in terms of mathematical symbols and connections. The fundamental technique is developing a quantitative model since it is via this device that the problem is stated in terms of primary relationships and specified objectives. The model’s design expresses the system’s efficacy under consideration as a function of a set of variables, at least one of which is subject control. The general structure of an operations research model is E = f (x1, y1), where E represents the system’s effectiveness (profit, cost, and so on), x1 the system variables that are under control, and y1 those that are not.

The quantitative management method has its roots in the scientific management movement. Taylor’s scientific approach could be categorised as an early type of quantitative approach to management because he recommended a logical sequence of problem formulation, fact discovery, modelling, a tentative solution, testing, and so on. Operations research is a natural extension of scientific management.

The approach was revised to include creating mathematical models to describe a system under investigation. It should be highlighted that developing models requires knowledge of money fields such as engineering, mathematics, economics, statistics, physical science, behavioural sciences, and cost accounting. The mathematical model enabled the management to identify crucial links over which they had control.

Along with the increase in the variety of quantitative techniques, another significant development was the arrival of high-speed digital computers. Beginning around 1970, the quantitative approach to management shifted from emphasising restricted operations research approaches to focusing on decision processes and model building. It also included computerised information systems and operations administration. The recent emphasis on quantitative approaches signalled a shift toward more broad-based management.

Systems Approach

In the 1960s, a new management approach emerged to unite older schools of thought. This method is widely known as the ‘Systems Approach.’ It continued where the functional process management school left off in an attempt to harmonise management theory. “A system viewpoint could provide the push needed to integrate management philosophy.” It could, by definition, handle the many approaches, such as process, quantitative, and behavioural, as subsystems within an overall management theory. Thus, if the process approach has failed to take management out of the conceptual jungle, the systems approach may succeed.”

The systems approach is based on the assumption that an organisation is a system with interconnected and interdependent components. “A system comprises related and dependent pieces that, when combined, form a unitary whole.” It is merely a collection or combination of objects or components that make a complicated whole. Its distinguishing trait is that it comprises a hierarchy of sub-systems. The globe as a whole can be viewed as a system, with individual country economies serving as sub-systems. In turn, each national economy comprises various industries. Each industry comprises businesses, and a firm may be considered a system comprising sub-systems such as production, marketing, finance, accounting, and so on.” Thus, each system may be composed of numerous sub-systems, and each sub-system may be composed of sub-systems.

Scientific Management vs. Quantitative Approach

Scientific Management Approach	Quantitative Approach
1. Scientific management advocates the use of scientific methods in management	1. The quantitative approach encourages using mathematical and statistical techniques to solve management problems.
2. It focuses on improving the efficiency of workers and machines by finding the best way of doing things	2. addressing managerial problems effectively.
3. The main techniques of scientific management are time and motion studies	3. The principal technique of the quantitative approach is operations research.
4. Scientific management emphasizes the importance of experiments and research to improve efficiency	4. The quantitative approach develops econometric models for making managerial decisions.
5. F.W. Taylor and his associates provided the conceptual base of scientific management	5. W.C. Churchman and his associates popularized the quantitative approach.

As a system, an organisation has the following characteristics:

1. A system has a purpose.
2. A system is made up of interdependent and interconnected subsystems.
3. A system is in the process of converting inputs into outputs.
4. An organisation is a living, breathing system. It constantly interacts with the external world because it receives information from it and also outputs to it. It is sensitive to its surroundings, such as government policies, market competition, technological innovation, people’s tastes, etc.
5. A system has a boundary that distinguishes it from other systems.

Open System Concept

A system can be either closed or open. A closed system is self-contained and has no interaction with the outside world. Closed systems include physical and mechanical systems. They focus solely on internal relationships, that is, interaction between subsystems. Due to their lack of interaction with the external environment, they cannot monitor changes in it.

On the other hand, an open system has an active interaction with the environment via the input-output process, as illustrated in Figure. The feedback system allows it to respond to changes in the environment. As a result, modern authors regard the organisation as an open system.

The environment provides an open system with raw materials, layout, capital, technology, and information. Operations on inputs are integrated with the managerial process to produce desirable outputs delivered to the environment (i.e., customers). The environment’s judgement of the outcome becomes part of the inputs for future organisational activity through feedback. Business operations continue if the environment is satisfied with the output. If not, improvements are made inside the business systems to address customer needs adequately. This is how an open system responds to environmental changing factors.

Characteristics of System Approach

The systems approach is considerably superior to the classical and neoclassical approaches due to the following characteristics:

1. Interdependent Subsystems: An organisation is a system made up of several subsystems. For example, a firm has production, sales, and other divisions and subsystems. All of these subsystems interact and are functionally interconnected. They are combined to form an organic whole via goals, authority flows, resource flows, etc.                        Open System View of Organisation
2. Whole Organization: The system approach unites organizational activities. It gives managers a perspective of the organization as a whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts. Integrating diverse organizational subsystems is emphasised to ensure the system’s overall efficacy.
3. Synergy: The law of synergy states that a system’s output is always more significant than the sum of its parts. When system components interact, they become more productive than when they function in isolation.
4. Multidisciplinary: Contributions from numerous disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, mathematics, operations research, and so on, have expanded modern management theory.

Appraisal of System Approach

The system approach attempts to create an overall management theory. It sufficiently underlines the interdependence and interrelationships of the organization’s various subsystems. Change pressure in one subsystem usually directly or indirectly affects the other subsystems. As a result, the systems approach recognises environmental variables that classical theory missed.

The systems approach represents balanced organisational and management thinking. It emphasises the need for managers to develop the ability to think holistically rather than evaluate problems in isolation. It recognises the connection and interdependence of the various environmental elements. It reveals information about an organization’s complex behaviour. Emphasising interdependence, it warns against a restricted, fragmented, and fragmentary approach to problems.

The systems approach is criticised for being overly abstract and ambiguous. It is difficult to apply to genuine concerns, and it does not provide any tools or approaches for the practising manager.

Furthermore, this strategy ignores system differences. It fails to specify the nature of an organization’s relationships and interdependencies with its external environment.

Contingency Approach

A review of prior management schools allows us to put the current management strategy into context. The management process school’s universalist principles produced largely dismal performance results. The behavioural management technique was insufficient. Specific quantitative strategies were effective in some cases but not others. Quantitative persons could not tackle behavioural problems, and behavioural people could not overcome operational challenges that could be solved quantitatively. Many scholars believe that systems-based theory has the potential to resolve this quandary. However, this strategy is still in its early stages. The ‘contingency’ or’ situational’ approach is the most recent management method that blends the many management approaches.

The approach of contingency planning is not new. Pigors and Myers popularised this concept in human management as early as 1950. However, Joan Woodward’s work in the 1950s signalled the beginning of the contingency approach to organisation and management. Tom Burns, G.W. Stalker, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch, and James Thompson are among the other contributors. They investigated the relationship between the organisational structure and the environment. As a result, the contingency method considers the external environment and strives to bridge the theory-practice divide. It does it within the framework. In other words, the contingency approach views the organisation as an open and dynamic system in constant contact with its surroundings.

The contingency hypothesis emphasises that there is no one perfect leadership style that will suit every situation. The effectiveness of a specific leadership style will vary depending on the situation. Participatory leadership, for example, may be more effective in an organisation employing professional individuals in a high-technology operation in an environment of non-materialistic focus and free speech. On the other hand, authoritarian leadership would be more effective in an organisation that employs unskilled workers on repetitive activities and has social values geared toward materialism and loyalty to authority.

Conceptual Framework of Contingency Model

Evaluation of the Contingency Approach

• The contingency strategy guides managers to be adaptable to external factors. In other words, managers must have situational awareness and practical selectivity.
• The contingency approach advises managers to consider environmental contingencies when selecting their style and approaches.
• The contingency technique outperforms the systems approach. It investigates the links between the organization’s subsystems and the relationship between it and its surroundings.

Systems Approach vs. Contingency Approach

Systems Approach	Contingency Approach
1. The contingency approach emphasizes the interdependencies and interactions among systems and sub-systems.	1. Contingency Approach It identifies the nature of inter-dependencies and the impact of the environment on organizational design and managerial style.
2. It treats all organisations alike. The size of the organisation and its socio-cultural setting are not considered.	2. Each organisation is to be studied as a unique entity.
3. It studies organisation at the philosophical level.	3. It follows an action-oriented approach and so is pragmatic. It is based on empirical studies.
4. It does not comment on the validity of the classical management principles.	4. It rejects the blind application of the classical principles of management.
5. It simply lays down that the organisation interacts with the environment.	5. The impact of the environment on the organisation structure and managerial style is the primary concern of the contingency approach.

Operational Approach

Koontz, O’Donnell, and Weihrich have championed the operational approach to management. This method recognises that a common core of management knowledge exists in management, such as line and staff, departmental patterns, management span, managerial appraisal, and numerous managerial control approaches.

The operational approach to management considers management a universally applicable body of knowledge that can be applied at all management levels and in all types of businesses. At the same time, the approach understands that managers encounter different problems and work in different contexts. It also acknowledges that the application of science by perceptive practitioners must account for this when constructing practical problem solutions.

The operational management strategy is mainly founded on the following essential beliefs:

1. Management is an operational process that is best understood by examining the management roles.
2. Clear concepts are required for effective management knowledge presentation.
3. Management experience in various scenarios can provide a foundation for distilling basic theories and principles that have a clarifying and predictive value in understanding and improving practice.
4. Management principles can serve as the focus of valuable studies to determine their validity and increase their applicability.
5. Management is an art (like medicine and engineering). It should be based on fundamental science—concepts, theories, principles, and methodologies.
6. While the overall culture and the physical and biological cosmos affect the manager’s surroundings in many ways, as in every other field of science and art, management science and theory do not need to cover all knowledge to serve as a reasonable basis for good management practice.

George R. Terry has proposed using a “modified management process.” This strategy is quite similar to the operational strategy proposed by Koontz, O’Donnell, and Weihrich. Terry believes that such an approach, known as the electric process school of management, should be followed, with the basic framework of the process approach modified by specific theories from other appropriate schools of management thought. Electric means “composed of what is chosen.” This term has been used to suggest taking the best of what is available in management philosophy and combining it into a single theory centred on the process framework.

10 Review Questions

1. How can the origins of management be traced back to early human history, and what role did leadership play in early forms of management?
2. What were the key contributions of F.W. Taylor to the field of Scientific Management, and why is he considered the ‘Father of Scientific Management’?
3. Describe the three perspectives included in the Classical Theory of management. How did each perspective contribute to the overall understanding of organizational structure?
4. What are Henri Fayol’s six categories of management activities, and why did he emphasize the importance of managerial activities over others?
5. Explain Max Weber’s concept of bureaucracy. What are the key characteristics of a bureaucratic organization according to Weber?
6. What criticisms were directed at Taylor’s Scientific Management approach, and how did later theorists address these issues?
7. What were the primary findings from the Hawthorne Studies, and how did they influence the development of the Human Relations Approach?
8. Identify and explain the principles of management proposed by Henri Fayol. How did these principles aim to improve organizational efficiency?
9. How does the Neo-classical Theory or Human Relations Approach differ from Classical Theory in terms of organizational focus?
10. Discuss the limitations of the Classical Theory of management as highlighted by its critics. What aspects of organizational life did it fail to consider?