classical management essays

Pursue the Next You in 2024 with 20% Tuition Reduction on September Courses!

An Overview of Management Theories: Classical, Behavioral, and Modern Approaches

Last Updated June 30, 2022

In both theory and practice, business management is at a crisis point . The world is changing — and changing quickly. There is no single management philosophy that answers every need. The best managers are flexible and blend methods. They adapt several management theories as needed to handle new situations.

Some people may believe in the Great Man Theory of Leadership . Others know that management is like anything else: Practice and education improve performance. Understanding different management theories help managers prioritize the processes, relationships and information that impact an organization’s success.

How should a leader set goals and guide their teams to realize them? Many heads are better than one, and this article covers three types of management approaches and many of the individual theories categorized within them.

Three Types of Management Theories

While ideas overlap between the categories, these three classifications differentiate management according to their focus and the era they came from:

Classical management theory:  emerged from the Industrial Revolution and revolves around maximizing efficiency and production.
Behavioral management theory:  started in the early 20 th century and addresses the organization’s human and social elements. 
Modern management theory:  followed on the heels of World War II and combines mathematical principles with sociology to develop holistic approaches to management.

The origin of one movement doesn’t indicate the conclusion of the previous one. All three of these approaches still exist in contemporary practice. 

Newer is not always better either. Each philosophy was born out of changing ideals and emerging possibilities, but today’s business world is complex. Different theories better suit different needs.

Classical Management Theory

Classical management theory  prioritizes profit and assumes that personal gain motivates employees. It aims to streamline operations and increase productivity.

Major concepts include specialization, incentivization, and hierarchical structure. The first two contribute to employee efficiency and drive. Centralized leadership simplifies decision-making, and a meritocratic chain of commands provides order and oversight. At every level, standardization reduces waste and error.

There are many strengths to classical management theory. It provides clarity for both the organization and its personnel, and specialization and sound hiring practices place employees in positions they can handle and even master.

Shortcomings of classical management theory can include:

The treatment of workers as machines without accounting for the role job satisfaction and workplace culture play in an organization’s success
The difficulty of applying some of its principles outside a limited manufacturing context
A top-down approach to communication that neglects employee input and prevents collaboration
Failure to provide for creativity and innovation, which rigid structures and hyper specialization can stifle

The following management approaches belong to the overarching category of classical management theory:

Scientific Management Theory

Scientific management theory is sometimes called Taylorism after its founder Frederick Winslow Taylor, a mechanical engineer. Taylor employed scientific methods to develop organizational principles that suited mass production needs. After creating and proving his theory as a manager and consultant, he wrote ” The Principles of Scientific Management ” in 1911.

Taylor wanted to replace outdated, “rule-of-thumb” methods with more efficient processes. To this end, he identified four core principles of good management. The manager:

Develops a science consisting of best practices for all elements of their employees’ work
Selects and trains employees accordingly
Works with employees to ensure that the science is followed
Assumes half the responsibility for all work through process development, guidance, and maintenance

Today, many companies have adopted a version of the scientific management theory . By standardizing tools and procedures, they hope to increase productivity and reduce the reliance on individual talent and workers.

Bureaucratic Management Theory

Max Weber was one of the foremost scholars of the late 19 th and early 20 th century. He strongly influenced — and continues to influence — economic, religious, and political sociology. He explains bureaucratic management theory in “ Economy and Society ,” published posthumously in 1922.

Weber believed that standard rules and well-defined roles maximize the efficiency of an organization. Everyone should understand the responsibilities and expectations of their position, their place within a clear hierarchy and general corporate policies. Hiring decisions and the application of rules should be impersonal, guided only by reason and established codes.

Weber’s theory provides for orderly and scalable institutions. At least some element of bureaucracy informs most large organizations, whether they’re public, private, or profit driven.

Administrative Management Theory

Just as scientific management theory is sometimes called Taylorism, administrative management theory is sometimes called Fayolism. 

Henri Fayol was a mining engineer who sought to codify the responsibilities of management and the principles of effective administration. He outlined these in “ General and Industrial Management ” in 1916.

His guide identifies 14 principles of management:

Division of work:  Divide work into tasks and between employees.
Authority:  Balance responsibility with commensurate authority. 
Unity of command:  Give each employee one direct manager.
Unity of direction:  Align goals between employees.
Equity:  Treat all employees equally.
Order:  Maintain order through an organized workforce.
Discipline:  Establish and follow rules and regulations.
Initiative:  Encourage employees to show initiative.
Remuneration:  Pay employees fairly for the work they do.
Stability:  Ensure that employees feel secure in their positions.
Scalar chain:  Establish a clear hierarchy of command.
Subordination of individual interest:  Prioritize group needs.
Esprit de corps:  Inspire group unity and pride.
A balance between centralization and delegation:  Concentrate ultimate authority but delegate individual decisions.

According to Fayol, managers need to develop practices that foster each of the 14 principles.

Behavioral Management Theory

Behavioral management theory places the person rather than the process at the heart of business operations. It examines the business as a social system as well as a formal organization. Therefore, productivity depends on proper motivation, group dynamics, personal psychology, and efficient processes.

Behavioral management theory humanizes business. Feelings have a practical impact on operations. Team spirit, public recognition, and personal pride encourage employees to perform better. Individual relationships also play a role. Employees are more likely to go the extra mile for a boss they respect and who respects them.

Shortcomings of behavioral management theory include:

The difficulty of balancing personal relationships with professional conduct
An inclination toward socially motivated hiring practices that can be unjust 
The danger of assuming that all individuals respond the same way to the same situations and for the same reasons

Common behavioral management theories include the following:

Human Relations Theory

The fundamental texts on human relations theory evolved from an experiment following classical theory. Elton Mayo worked as part of a team evaluating the impact on the productivity of various workplace conditions at the Hawthorne Works, a large factory complex. Early results were self-contradicting; changes in opposite directions both improved productivity.

Mayo realized that the researchers’ attention to the workers was the common factor. It instilled pride and fulfilled particular social needs of the workers. This led to the development of the “Hawthorne effect,” a principle of research that suggests researcher attention affects the subjects in a study and impacts the results.

In business management, the Hawthorne studies led to articulating the role that human relations play in business operations. Mayo and later theorists developed several related conclusions, including:

Group dynamics affect job performance.
Communication between employees and employers must go in both directions.
Production standards depend more on workplace culture than on official objectives.
In addition to compensation, perceived value affects performance.
Workers prefer to participate in the decision-making process.
Integration between departments or groups positively impacts an organization.

In the modern workplace, sanctioned social activities and open, defined communication channels owe a debt to human relations theory.

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor primarily investigated the way managers motivate their employees. The same tactics don’t work across the board, and individuals require different types of oversight or encouragement. In 1960, McGregor developed Theory X and Theory Y in response, laid out in “ The Human Side of Enterprise .”

This management theory divides workers into two camps that require two leadership styles. Theory X workers lack drive. Managers need to provide large amounts of structure and direction to get them to accomplish the necessary work. These workers demand an authoritarian style of management. 

Theory Y workers are self-motivated individuals who enjoy their work and find it fulfilling. They benefit from a more participative environment that fosters growth and development.

McGregor’s theory of differentiated management practices remains relevant, but neither workers nor managers tend to exist at the extreme ends of what should be a more nuanced spectrum. The approach also neglects the reciprocal effect managers and workers can have on one another. A natural self-starter can have their ambition micromanaged out of them.

Modern Management Theory

Modern management theory adopts an approach to management that balances scientific methodology with humanistic psychology. It uses emerging technologies and statistical analysis to make decisions, streamline operations and quantify performance. At the same time, it values individual job satisfaction and a healthy corporate culture.

This category of theories is more holistic and flexible than its predecessors. Data-driven decisions can remove human bias while still accommodating employee health and happiness indicators. Modern management theory also allows organizations to adapt to complex, fluid situations with local solutions instead of positing a single, overriding principle to drive management.

Shortcomings of the modern management approach include:

The prioritization of information that can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to collect
The gap between theoretical flexibility and practical agility
The tendency of some strains to be descriptive rather than prescriptive

Two popular strains of modern management theory  are systems theory and contingency theory:

Systems Management Theory

It’s no surprise that Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, who developed systems management theory, was a biologist. This theory borrows heavily from that discourse. Systems theory proposes that each business is like a single living organism. Distinct elements play different roles but ultimately work together to support the business’s health. The role of management is to facilitate cooperation and holistic process flows.

Systems management theory sometimes leans more toward metaphorical description than prescriptive application. However, you can see evidence of the approach in technological architectures and tools that standardize services and open access to information. For example, innovations such as data fabric  help break down departmental silos.

Contingency Management Theory

Contingency management theory  addresses the complexity and variability of the modern work environment. Fred Fiedler realized that no one set of characteristics – no single approach – provided the best leadership in all situations. Success instead depended on the leader’s suitability to the situation in which they found themselves.

Fiedler focused on three factors that determine that situation:

Task structure:  How well defined is the job?
Leader-member relations:  How well does the leader work with team members?
Leader position power:  How much authority does the leader have? To what extent can they distribute punishments and rewards?

Managers can be classified as having a task-oriented or a people-oriented style. Task-oriented managers organize teams to accomplish projects quickly and effectively. People-oriented managers are good at handling team conflict, building relationships, and facilitating synergy. Task-oriented leaders thrive in both highly favorable and unfavorable conditions, but people-oriented leaders do better in more moderate configurations.

The least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale  is a common management tool developed by Fiedler to help leaders pinpoint their style. The scale asks you to identify the coworker you have the hardest time working with and rate them. Relationship-oriented managers tend to score higher on the LPC scale than task-oriented managers.

What’s Next for Management Theory?

It’s time for a new category of management theory. The business world requires more than a single new idea, and it’s ripe for a constellation of new theories. 

Ecology and technology continue to reshape our concerns, resources, and possibilities. Remote work physically distances coworkers, and worldwide health and climate concerns create fragile relationships with globalization. Equity is no longer “a nice idea” but an urgent imperative. Volatile conditions lead people to search for meaning at work and everywhere else.

No one truly knows what’s next. But it will likely build on and cherry-pick from the above management approaches, reorienting them around a new philosophical core. Familiarize yourself with predominant principles today and prepare yourself for a new movement tomorrow.

Take the next step in your career with a program guide!

By completing this form and clicking the button below, I consent to receiving calls, text messages and/or emails from BISK, its client institutions, and their representatives regarding educational services and programs. I understand calls and texts may be directed to the number I provide using automatic dialing technology. I understand that this consent is not required to purchase goods or services. If you would like more information relating to how we may use your data, please review our privacy policy .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Relevance of Classical Management Theories to Modern Public Administration: A Review

This study focuses on the analysis of management theories of the 19 th and early 20 th centuries that are commonly referred to as classical organization theories. These ideas are contrasted with the human relations school of thought that achieved great popularity in the 1930s and 1940s. The study asserts that there are valuable lessons that modern public bureaucracies and other public institutions can draw from these early theoretical frameworks. Public organizations molded on the classical organizational management theoretical perspectives have proven remarkably stable in different circumstances around the world. However, they are now increasingly expected to adapt to new and unforeseen circumstances by integrating the foundations inherited from the past and the lessons learnt over the past three decades. Such an approach will enable public institutions to adapt to rapid changing circumstances and in the process be well equipped to meet the demands of their citizens at the levels of theory and practice.

Related Papers

Marlon Nyasulu

Ana Cienfuegos

Medina Hasanova

Olga Sovova

Since the 1970s, especially in the 1990s, an increased interest in management and implementation of its knowledge in the environment of its performance has been seen within progressive public administration reforms. The cause of penetration of managerial approaches to public administration management lies in limited possibilities of public finances, especially taking into account the tasks of the social state, structural economic changes and internationalisation of public affairs. The reform processes are, in particular, aimed at reducing the bureaucratic burden on public administration and the transformation of social politics in line with the economic possibilities of a particular country. Pressure on these processes in public administration is increasing, of course, even with regard to socio-demographic changes resulting in ageing population and an increase in social spending. Within the reform and modernisation processes in public administration, it is therefore primarily import...

In recent years, the failure of models based on rules and procedures fostered the development of new paradigms of Public Management, which are still the object of a heated interdisciplinary discussion. A growing number of scholars have debated the role of performance measurement, transparency, and accountability in strengthening the link between public administration and citizens. Moreover, the belief that more trust and satisfaction could lead to better governance has persuaded a growing number of Nations to shift from a pure efficiency orientation to a more extensive customer-centered one. Anyway, the transition to a new management model is not problemless at any level of Public Administration and the cultural systems of public organizations seem to have an important role. The paper aims to define the conceptual frame of new paradigms of Public Administration, and to underline the difficulties and the peculiarities in accomplishing those models both at political, and operational level.

Michelle Radebe

delia popescu

joel carique

CIU jounral

Moslehuddin Chowdhury Khaled

Debates about public-private – similarity, dissimilarity – go on due to ‘isomorphic mimicry’ and unexpectedly lower results with management in government or public sector reforms. The fundamental concern about the government globally, is how to make government work better for citizens more effectively, efficiently, and economically, while creating more value for the public. The core objective of this article is to develop a theoretical proposition of the Management in Government (MIG) discourse in a contemporary context by discussing its roots, evolution, and convergence with modern management. To achieve this objective, we comprehensively followed and reviewed the literature focused on the emergence and evolution of 'managerial effectiveness' and 'operational efficiency' through historical analysis. This is important because the quality of reforms in government both in terms of design, implementation, and success, depends largely on this proposition and alignment. If reforms are to work, the theoretical foundation of management in government has to be based on the belief that 'management in government' can be improved, despite debates around the concepts and constructs. So theoretically, it has become imperative that ‘management in government’ is discussed as a functional discipline within management having customized the systems, processes, and mechanism, including people management.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

The Classical Approach to Management: Theory, Features, Limitations and Principles

The Classical Approach is one of the oldest approaches in management and is also known by various names, i.e., Empirical, Functional and Management Process Approach.

The classical theory represents the traditional thoughts about organisations. It is based on the prototype industrial and military organisation. The theory concentrates on organisation structure and their management.

The classical writers include Taylor, Fayol, Weber, Gullick, Urwick, Mooney and Reiley and others. They placed emphasis on work planning, the technical requirements, principles of management, formal structure, and the assumption of rational and logical behaviour.

This theory incorporates three view points:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) Taylor’s view point,

(ii) Fayol’s Administrative theory,

(iii) Weber’s Bureaucracy.

All these writers concentrated on structure and that why their approach sometimes characterized as ‘structural framework of organisation.’ F.W. Taylor insisted on application of scientific methods to the problems of management. Henry Fayol suggested fourteen principles of management and their universal application.

Max Weber introduced rationality in organisation. It is characterized by division of labour, specialization, structure, personnel competency, etc.

Classical approach signifies from the following features:

(i) Classical theory concentrate on anatomy of formal organisation through division of labour, specialization, structure, scalar, functional processes and span of control.

(ii) Management is the study of managerial experiences. If the experiences are studied and certain generalizations are deducted there from, these will help the practicing managers.

(iii) Classical Approach treats organisation as a closed system.

(iv) Formal organisation structure coordinates the activities of the organisation. They ignored the element of human beings.

(v) Principles and functions of management have universal application.

(vi) Scientific management emphasized efficiency of lower levels of organisations.

(vii) Work force were supposed to be rational economic force, they could be motivated through economic incentives.

(viii) Classical approach emphasized on ‘centralization of authority’.

This school is based on the close study of past managerial experience and cases, so formal education and training is needed for developing managerial skills.

Limitations of Classical Theory:

The classical approach suffers from several limitations:

(i) The classical ignored the human relations aspects and undermines the role of human factor.

(ii) Classical viewed organisation as a closed system, i.e., having no interaction with external environment.

(iii) Economic rewards assumed as the main motivator of work force. They have ignored nonmonetary factors.

(iv) The classical principles are based on managerial experiences and their limited observations. These are not empirical.

(v) Classical approach is based on over-simplified assumptions. Its principles are ambiguous and contradictory.

(vi) This school emphasized on strict adherence to rules and regulations. The scope for individual initiative is thus limited.

Classical approach is based on three main points i.e.,

i. Scientific management,

ii. Administrative and

iii. Bureaucratic theory.

i . Scientific Management Theory :

Frederick Winslow Taylor is acknowledged as the “father of scientific management”. Probably no other person has had a greater impact on the early development of management.

His experience as an apprentice, a common labour, a foreman, mechanic and then the chief Engineer gave opportunity to know first-hand problems and attitudes of workers and to see the great possibilities for improving the quality of management. Other contributors like Frank and Lilian Gilbreth, Henry Gantt Emerson also suggested the effective use of human beings in industrial organisation.

They studied the use of human beings as adjuncts to machines in performance of routine tasks. It was only Taylor who gave concrete shape to the theory of scientific management.

He started his career as a labour in Midvale steel company in 1874 after discontinuing his study. After that he was promoted as a mechanic, and then he was appointed as the chief Engineer of the company within six years. After obtaining the graduation in physics and mathematics and later on Master of Engineering, he was employed by the Bethlehem steel company to increase output; which had been a serious problem.

He invented high speed steel cutting tools and spent most of his life as a consulting Engineer. However, his major concern was to increase efficiency in production, not only to lower costs but also to make possible increased pay for workers through their higher productivity.

Scientific management employs scientific methods to the problems of management. He defined scientific management as the art of “Knowing exactly what you want men to do and then seeing that how they do it in the best and the cheapest way.” He advocated scientific task setting based on time and motion study, standardization of materials, tools and working conditions, scientific selection and training of workers and so on.

But he was confined to management at the top level. Most of his experiments were carried out in Midvale steel company and Bethlehem steel company. The process of initiation of experiment carried on Midvale steel company was based on ‘time and motion study’, and further at Bethlehem also.

However, he conducted experiments mainly on three functions to find out the best way of working:

(a) The pig iron handling,

(b) The shoveling experiments, and

He explained the basic philosophy of management in the following terms:

(a) Replacing rule of thumb methods with science,

(b) Scientific selection and training of workers,

(d) Working for maximum output, rather than restricted output, and

(e) A more equal division of responsibility between managers and workers.

Taylor adopted ‘differential piece rate plan’ to motivate the workers for higher efficiency. According to this plan, high wages in the form of incentive was provided to those workers who perform more than standard work.

Mental Revolution :

Scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the working men engaged in any particular establishment or industry, a complete mental change on the part of these men as to their duties towards their work, towards their fellowmen, and towards their employers.

It involves equally complete mental change on the part of those on the managements’ front — the foreman, the superiors, the superintendent, the owners, the Board of Directors — a complete mental revolution on their part as to their duties towards their fellow workers in management.

Taylor advocated that without complete mental change on both the sides, scientific management does not exist. The basic theme behind scientific management is to change the mental attitude of the workers and the management towards each other.

He advocated that:

(i) There is a change in the mental attitude of the workers, and

(ii) There is also a positive mental change in the attitude of management.

He called the positive change in the attitude of workers and management as a revolution in management.

He called it ‘Mental Revolution’ which has three implications:

(i) Effort to increase in production,

(ii) Creation of mutual trust and confidence, and

(iii) Developing scientific attitude towards problems.

He suggested management to find out the best methods of doing various jobs and introduced standardized materials, tools and equipment to reduced wastages. Management must create congenial environment for optimum efficiency. Congenial environment should be created through the cooperation of workers and management; and it is only the congenial atmosphere that brings out the maximum productivity.

Principles of Scientific Management:

To put the philosophy of scientific management into practice, Taylor and his associates suggested the following techniques:

(1) Scientific Task Planning – Scientific planning suggests series of separate operations and function which are already determined by the management. How the task is performed? What way? Who performs it? What’s the procedure of performing the task? It provides the answers to these questions.

(2) Functional Foremanship – Taylor evolved functional foremanship to supervise and giving various directions. In this system, eight persons direct the activities of workers, out of them four persons are related with planning functions and the remaining four are concerned with operating level-Functional foremanship involves the duties of – (i) Route clerk, (ii) Instruction and clerk, (iii) Time and cost clerk, (iv) disciplinarian, (v) Speed boss, (vi) Inspector, (vii) Maintenance foreman, and (viii) Gang boss.

(3) Job Analysis – Work management has been suggested by Taylor. There is one best way of doing a job which requires least movements, consequently less time and cost.

He advocated the analysis of work job with reference to:

(a) Time Study – Every work/job requires standard time to carry out under specific conditions. Time study involves the determination of time a movement has to complete.

(b) Motion Study – Motion study involves the study of movement of both the workers and machines so as to identify wasteful movements and performing only necessary movements.

(c) Fatigue Study – The fatigue study shows the time and frequency of rest. On the basis of this, management should provide appropriate rest at appropriate intervals to increase the efficiency of workers.

(4) Differential Piece Rate System – He advocated that there is direct link between, remuneration and productivity for motivating employees. Taylor applied differential piece-rate system which is of highly motivating technique.

Different piece rate system adopted on workers:

(a) Low rate for those who fail to achieve the standard output; and

(b) Higher rate for those achieving or exceeding the standard output.

The rate should be based on individual performance and on the position which he occupies. He stressed for scientific determination of remuneration for workers.

(5) Standardization – Standardization helps to simplify work, to ensure uniformity of operations and to facilitate companions of efficiency. Standards are laid down regarding work, materials, tools and techniques, time, working conditions, etc. These things should be fixed in advance on the basis of observations.

(6) Scientific Selection and Training – Workers should be selected on scientific basis, and on the basis of their education, experience, aptitude, strengths, etc. Each element of selection should be considered properly. A worker should be selected according to the requirement of work. Training should be provided to workers to make them work efficiently.

(7) Co-Operation between Management and Workers – Scientific management succeeds through the cooperation between management and workers. There should be a mental change to cooperate with each other and to find out the way out of problem through scientific methods. Scientific management depends upon the cooperation of these two. Taylor termed this cooperation as a Mental Revolution.

Critical Evaluation of Scientific Management:

Scientific Management is more concerned about the activities at operation level in the organization, rather than total functions. Similarly, they emphasized physiological variables affecting human behaviour at work-place, both in terms at work efficiency and methods of motivation.

As such, the scientific management is more relevant to mechanization and automation-technical aspect of efficiency. Even the mental change of both management and workers could be sought to achieve maximum production.

So, scientific management has been criticized broadly on the following fronts:

(1) Scientific management is a mechanic aspect as it ignores the human element in the organization. Workers are treated as mere extensions of machines devoid of any feeling and emotion. Taylor and his associates treated workers as factors of production, as there is no value of their social and psychological needs.

(2) Scientific management focused mainly on efficiency at the operation/shop level, as a consequence organisation or industry has the importance on the areas of operational level. In this sense, it also denotes as a field of industrial engineering.

(3) Scientific management emphasized that planning function should be separated from actual performance and should be given to specialists. This is impracticable. Planning cannot be fully separated from doing, because you are doing on planned basis; and if there is any change takes place, you also try to absorb these changes in work. Planning and doing are two sides of the same job.

(4) Scientific management advocated functional foremanship to bring specialization in the organisation. But this is not applicable in practice as the worker cannot carry out instructions from eight foremen. This violates the principles of unity of command.

(5) The approach of scientific management is criticized that it advocates close supervision and control as to get maximum contribution. But this practice has limited use and only applicable in a limited way at shop floor.

(6) This approach also advocates that standards are laid down regarding everything in the organisation. However, standardization helps to simplify work, but to some extent. It is not confident that the standardization of every task/activity brings out uniformity in operations and helps to increase productivity.

(7) Workers are forced to do the standard work, and they are motivated to pay more if they achieve the standard. So in the name of increasing efficiency, workers are forced to speed up their functions, i.e., exploitation. And this also is not a type of motivation. They perform the least standard, they have degraded and vice-versa. They force the workers to work hard, and this is clearly exploitation.

Finally, Taylor made a long-lasting contribution in management. Taylor was the first pioneer in introducing scientific management reasoning to the discipline of management. Many of the contributions provide the basis of modern management.

Really, scientific management provides a basic input to enliven the theories and approaches which give reasoning to management. Simply, Taylor laid the foundation of modern management as a science.

ii. Administrative Management Approach :

It was Henry Fayol who, for the first time, studied the functions and principles of management in a systematic manner. The notable contributions have also been made by Oliver Sheldon, Haldane, Luther Gullick, Mooney and Reiley, Urwick and many others. These defined management in terms of certain functions and then laid down fourteen principles of management which are universally applicable.

Henry Fayol was a French mining engineer turned chief administrator in a large French mining and metallurgical company. In 1916, he published his famous book in French language Administration Industrialle at Generale. It is in four parts of which the first part deals with classification of business activities

Second part contain basic functions of management performed by manager; third part consists of fourteen principles of general managements and fourth part deals with managerial qualities and skills. Henry Fayol was the first person who emphasized managerial organisation and process. Fayol tried to develop a complete theory of management. He discussed the principles of management and recommended teaching in management.

Organizational Activities:

Henri Fayol found that industrial activities could be divided into six groups, or classified all operations into six ways:

(i) Technical (Production),

(ii) Commercial (Buying, Selling and Exchanging),

(iii) Financial (Search and Optimum use of capital).

(iv) Security (Protection),

(v) Accounting (Balance sheet, Costing, Records), and

(vi) Managerial – (a) Planning; (b) Organising; (c) Commanding; (d) Coordinating; (e) Controlling.

He points out that these activities exist in every organisation. He pointed out that first five activities are well known to a manager and the last managerial activity must have been approached by managers at every stage. Fayol concentrated on, the analysis of managerial activities.

Fayol has divided his approach of studying management into three parts:

(i) Managerial qualities and training,

(ii) Principles of management; and

(iii) Elements of management.

Managerial Qualities and Training:

Henry Fayol identified the various qualities for a manager.

According to him these qualities are:

(i) Physical – Health, vigour and address.

(ii) Mental – Ability to understand and learn, judgement, mental vigour, and adaptability.

(iii) Moral – Energy, fitness, initiative, loyalty, tact and dignity.

(iv) Educational – Acquaintance with matters related to general functioning.

(v) Technical – Acquaintance with functions being performed.

(vi) Experience – Arising from work.

Principles of Management :

Fayol listed fourteen principles based on his experience. However, the list is not exhaustive. They are summarized in the perspective. He noted that these principles are flexible and not absolute, and must be usable regardless of changing and special conditions.

These principles are as follows:

(1) Division of Work – Fayol advocated division of work to take the advantage of specialization. This is the specialization that managers consider necessary for efficiency in the use of labour. Fayol applies this principle to all kinds of work.

(2) Authority and Responsibility – The authority and responsibility are related, with the later arising from the former. He finds authority is being official and personal factor. Authority is generally derived from manager’s position and because of manager’s personal competency to solve problems in the organisation. Responsibility arises out of assigning the work.

(3) Discipline – Discipline is the obedience, application, energy, behaviour, and outward mark of respect shown by employees. It also implies compliance with organisational directives and rules, orders and instructions of superior and to co-operation with fellow workers. Fayol observed that discipline is what leaders make it. He declared that discipline requires good superiors at all levels.

(4) Unity of Command – Unity of command means that employees should receive orders from one superior only. The principle is useful in the clarification of authority-responsibility relationships. It helps in maintaining discipline, controlling their activities, fixing responsibility and not allows overriding their track.

(5) Unity of Direction – Unity of Direction means one unit and one plan. Each group of activities with same objective must have one head and one plan. It relates to the organisation of the “body corporate” rather than to individual. All activities of the organisation should be directed towards a definite way.

(6) Subordination of Individual to General Interest – Organisation’s interest is above the individual interest. And when there is conflict between the two, the common interest must prevail or management must reconcile them.

(7) Remuneration – Employees should be paid fairly and reasonably in accordance with their contribution. Remuneration and method of payment should be fair and afford the maximum possible satisfaction to employees and employer.

(8) Centralization – Fayol refers to the extent to which authority is centralized or decentralized. This pattern is determined by individual circumstances and should be based on optimum utilization of all faculties of the personnel. Centralization refers to the reservation of authority at the top level. But he referred that how much authority is dispersed or concentrated to achieve the objective effectively.

(9) Scalar Chain – These should be clear line of authority from the top level to the lowest level, while not to be departed from needlessly. This should be short-circuited only in special circumstances when its rigid following would be detrimental to the organisation. It is known as scalar chain because all employees are attached to it in the relationship of superior and subordinate.

(10) Order – This is essentially a principle of organisation in the arrangement of things and people. Human as well as material resources should be in their prescribed proper place and order.

(11) Equity – Employees should be assured to be treated on the basis of principle of equality, fairness and impartiality. Loyalty and devotion should be elicited from personnel by a combination of kindness and justice on the part of managers when dealing with subordinates.

(12) Stability of Tenure – Stability should be provided to employees accustomed to new work and succeeding in doing it. Fayol finds that unnecessary tenure is both the cause and effect of bad management.

(13) Initiative – Employees should be provided an opportunity as to develop and use initiative for solving work-related problems. Initiative increases zeal and energy on the part of human beings. Fayol exhorts managers to “sacrifice personal vanity” in order to allow to do it.

(14) Team Sprit – It emphasizes the need for team work and the importance of communication in obtaining it. It implies to build team spirit among the employees so that they work with proper mutual understanding as to make their respective contribution for achieving goals.

Elements of Management:

Fayol regarded the elements of management as its functions — planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling.

Fayol perceived that management should be viewed as a process consisting of five elements:

(i) Planning;

(ii) Organising;

(iii) Commanding;

(iv) Coordinating;

(v) Controlling.

He observes that planning is the most important function and a failure to plan properly leads to inefficiency in the organization. Creation of organizational structure and commanding is necessary to execute the plan.

Coordination integrates the activities, controlling asks whether everything is proceeding according to plan. Fayol had emphasized that these principle is applicable everywhere. Since all the organisations require managing, it follows that formulation of a theory of management is necessary for effective teaching of the subject.

Critical Evaluation :

Fayol contributions to management thoughts are valuable. Fayol provided a conceptual framework for analyzing the managerial job. Fayol isolated and analyzed management as a separate discipline Fayol provided the management function and gave a universal shape. Fayol developed function principles to be used as guides to managerial action, and made a clean distinction between operative and managerial activities of business.

Still, Fayol’s theories retain much of its force. Many of the concept and practices are taken for granted by managers now. The principles have the potential to comprehend and cope with the growing complexity of organizations to the extent them to bring order, structure and certain through rules, regulations, policies and practices.

Through the proponents of management process approach have made significant contribution, their work suffers from the following limitations:

(i) Not Properly Defined – In the words of Herbert Simon “administrative theory suffers from superficially over simplification and back of relation,” Some of the concepts have not been properly defined. There is also back of unanimity about the various items such as management and administration, commanding and directing etc.

(ii) Lack of Empirical Evidence – The principles are based on personal experience and limited observations. They are generalizations and lack of empirical evidence. They have not been verified under controlled scientific conditions. Some of them are contradictory. The theory does not provide guidance as to which principle should be given precedence over the other.

(iii) Loss Appropriate in Today’s Environment – Fayol theory was relevant when organizations generated in a stable and predictable environment. It seems less appropriate in the turbulent environment of today. For example, present day managers cannot depend entirely on formal authority and must use persuasion to get work done. Similarly, the theory of organization as power center, do not recognize the role of a democratic form of organization.

(iv) Objections on Universality – The Administrative theory profounders consider their principles to be universal in nature. But many of the principle have failed to deliver the desired results in the changing situation.

In spite of these limitations, Fayol made a unique and outstanding contribution to the management theory.

iii. Bureaucratic Approach of Organisation :

The next important form of classical approach is bureaucratic approach of organization. This contribution has been given by a German sociologist Max Weber. This particular form of organisation is well known in government and military organizations. Every type of organization possesses some features of bureaucracy in some form; that is ranging between, ‘Line organizations’ to ‘free form organisation’.

It aims at high degree of precision, efficiency, objectivity and rationality in the organization to make it more efficient. Weber’s theory recognizes rational-legal authority as the most important in the organisation. However, Weber’s contention that there are three types of legitimate authority in the organization – (i) Rational legal authority; (ii) Traditional authority; (iii) Charismatic authority.

Weber’s contention is based on the display of rational legal authority.

The model of bureaucracy suggested by Weber is based on the following features:

(i) Division of Work – It implies to divide and assign activities to various employees on the basis of their abilities, skills and aptitudes to get the benefit of specialization. Work should be divided and assigned to each employees in the organization to achieve high degree of precision,

(ii) Hierarchy of Authority – The bureaucratic structure is hierarchical in nature. All employees in bureaucratic organization are attached to hierarchy of authority which is rational and legal in nature.

(iii) Rigidity in Rules and Regulations – Management standardizes operations and decisions. Management prescribes procedure and set rules and regulations in bureaucratic organization to regulate and control working behaviour of employees. They must be in compliance with procedures and framework of rules.

(iv) Impersonality – The decisions are entirely governed by rules and regulations and are totally impersonal. The employees have very formal and functional relationship among them. They have the official relationship.

(v) Technical Competence – Human resources in the organisation are employed or selected on the basis of technical competence, that is, what they know about the job. It is on the basis of job requirements; they are selected and placed in the organisation.

Weber’s ideal bureaucracy has been designed to bring rationality and predictability of behaviour in the organisation. It reduces subjectivity, because people have impersonal and formal relationship and they have to comply with rules and regulations. Hierarchy of authority also helps to maintain discipline. Division of labour leads to specialization and rationality brings effectiveness in decision making.

This form of organisation helps to gain the following advantages:

(i) Rationally efficient form of organisation,

(ii) Reduces subjective judgement,

(iii) Specialization,

(iv) Effective decision-making,

(v) Consistency of actions,

(vi) Allocation of tasks according to competency, and

(vii) Maintaining discipline in the organisation.

However, this approach is not free from negative connotations.

These are as follows:

(a) Bureaucratic model does not consider informal organisation and does not prescribe personal relationship. So, this is insensitive to the needs of the individual.

(b) This Theory is based on rationality perhaps finds very limited applicability in practice and often it becomes the epitome of inefficiency.

(c) Bureaucratic organisation encourages red-tapism, inordinate delay in decision-making, goal displacement and finally lack of initiative and positive motivation may result in inefficiency in such organisations.

Comparison: Taylor’s and Fayol’s Principles of Management
Components of Classical Theory of Management
System Approach Theory of Management: Features and Evaluation
Notes on Principles of Scientific Management Theory

We use cookies

Privacy overview.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Classical Management Function and Managerial Work Critical Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Classical Management Functions

Contemporary management models, fayol’s model today, fayol versus the contemporary models.

This part provides an introduction into Fayol’s classical management functions and sets the stage for the rest of the paper.

Several decades ago, English speaking managers and academics were introduced directly to Henry Fayol’s ideas about managerial work. His article, General and Industrial Management, in which he outlined the key functions of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling, had a significant impact on managers and the practice of management around the world (Lamond, 2004).

Fayol’s classical management functions were later extended by other researchers who argued that the management functions, as presented by Fayol, represented the most useful way of conceptualizing a manager’s job (Carroll & Gillen, 1987).

Planning is concerned with the identification of the future and determination of the actions and organizing focuses on establishing lines of authority and responsibility, coordinating deals with setting the timing and sequence of activities, commanding sees to it that what is agreed upon is accomplished and controlling ensures that everything is done based on set rules (Lamond, 2004).

Another argument presented by Wren (1994) also indicated that Fayol’s elements of management provided the modern conceptualization of any management process. In addition, Wren stated that Fayol’s principles formed a great foundation for understanding the contemporary managerial function (Wren, 1994).

Although quite appealing, the use of classical management functions to describe managerial work has been criticized by many. Years later, after the English translation of Fayol’s work, Mintzberg (1973) dismissed as a fairytale, Fayol’s conception of managerial work. According to Mintzberg, management is not just about functions. Rather, it is what managers do.

He argued that his findings were completely different from those presented by Fayol (Mintzberg, 1973). Since then, different authors have devoted themselves to understanding the usefulness of Fayol’s ideas in describing managerial work.

This part looks at the models that presented by other writers and compares them with Fayol’s model. The paper then makes an attempt to show that, despite being rejected by some authors, Fayol’s model is nevertheless useful.

As noted earlier, one of the ardent critics of Fayol’s work is Mintzberg. In his studies, Mintzberg argued that a manager should not simply be looked at as a decision maker or a motivator. To him, such a view is narrow and not helpful and cannot be used to understand the complex nature of the work done by managers (Mintzberg, 1973). Mintzberg proposed a structure that categorized a manager’s job into ten distinct roles.

A model presented by Hales (1986), however, argued that if the classical theories were to be viewed as theories of management functions rather suggestions for individual management behavior, then they could not be denied or confirmed by most authors. Hales demonstrated his commitment to Fayol’s view by expressly including elements of management in his model.

His research further stated that Fayol’s five elements of management were quite general and as such, relevant for modern organizations. According to a study by Brodie (1967), Fayol believed that his principles were flexible and capable of being adapted to any situation. Hales (1986) also observed that there were striking parallels with the supposedly outdated classical principles of management with respect to more contemporary views.

Indeed, much of the success experienced in Japanese industries was attributed to the fact that they operated based on Fayol’s principles. Although such author as Mintzberg (1989) is convinced that Fayol’s theoretical thinking were not a result of actual observation, Brodie (1967) came to his defense and argued that model provided by Fayol was actually based on observation.

An observation by Kotter (1982) led him to agree with Mintzberg that the activities undertaken by executives do not exactly fit into Fayol’s framework of management. In view of the results of contemporary researchers such as Mintzberg, many other authors were led to reject Fayol’s model (Kotter, 1982).

Fells (2000), however, refuted such claims arguing that Hales work was conducted in part, based on Mintzberg and Kotter’s studies and, in his study, Hales identified common themes of what he termed elements of managerial work.

They included acting as a figurehead and leader of the organizational unit, formation and maintenance of contacts, monitoring, filtering and dissemination of information, resource allocation, handling disturbances and maintaining work flows, negotiating, innovating, planning, controlling and directing subordinates.

Carroll and Gillen (1987) were in agreement with Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) and stated that the usefulness of the classical functions of management was questionable. There were others, however, who believed that Fayol’s elements and principles are still as valid today as they were in the yester years.

In a research where 52 managers at varying levels were studied, it became apparent that traditional management roles were frequently observed by many and especially successful managers who were at more senior management levels (Fells, 2000). Although the support that Mintzberg’s work received is obvious, a number of weaknesses were also seen in Mintzberg’s findings.

To some, the real value of Mintzberg’s study was not the ten roles but rather the use of direct observations which provided insights into the behavior exhibited by management. Studies also found that successful managers at top levels devoted more attention to the traditional roles such as planning and coordinating (Fells, 2000).

Although a bit indifferent, Caroll and Gillen (1987) were of the opinion that Fayol’s model still represented the most useful way of conceptualizing a manager’s job. According to them, the more contemporary studies such as that by Mintzberg primarily help to clarify the nature of managerial work. In addition, they suggested that the models by Mintzberg, Kotter, and Fayol should be integrated.

According to Fells (2000), some authors were convinced that the allegations made by Mintzberg and Kotter regarding Fayol’s model were not justified. Rather than deny the classical view of management functions, Kotter and Mintzberg views tend to confirm them.

Despite being rejected by several authors, the ideas suggested by Fayol are still valid and useful for understanding managerial work. As it has been noted before, most of the classical management functions can be adapted to fit any specific situation as required.

In addition, all the models, including that by Fayol, can be interrelated at different levels. Regardless of the fact that there are noticeable differences in the models in terms of the words used and the perspectives taken, each model can be considered essentially equivalent to, or a subset of other models (Fells, 2000).

From the different comparisons that have been presented on Fayol’s as well as other models, it is apparent that Fayol’s model can be of great help to the discipline of management not only in the present age but also for the future.

Brodie, M. B. (1967). Fayol on Administration. London: Lyon, Grant and Green.

Carroll, S. J., & Gillen, D. J. (1987). Are the Classical Management Functions Useful in Describing Managerial Work? The Academy of Management Review, 12 (1): 38 – 51.

Fells, M. J. (2000). Fayol stands the test of time. Journal of Management History, 6 (8): 345 – 360.

Hales, C. P. (1986). What do Managers Do? A Critical Review of the Evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 23 (1): 88 – 115.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers. New York: The Free Press.

Lamond, D. (2004). A Matter of Style: Reconciling Henri and Henry. Management Decision, 42 (2): 330 – 356.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.

Wren, D. A. (1994). The Evolution of Management Thought, 4 th Ed. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Organization Control System Assessment
Management Issues: Effective Team Formation
Is Bruce a Competent Manager?
Literature Review - Henri Fayol
Fayol's Management Principles in Contemporary Companies
Contract Creation and Management Assignment
Service Corporation International
The Fourth Knowledge Management Dimension
Coca Cola Company Financial Decisions
Evidence-Based Management in an Organization
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 27). Classical Management Function and Managerial Work. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-management-function-and-managerial-work/

"Classical Management Function and Managerial Work." IvyPanda , 27 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/classical-management-function-and-managerial-work/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Classical Management Function and Managerial Work'. 27 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Classical Management Function and Managerial Work." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-management-function-and-managerial-work/.

1. IvyPanda . "Classical Management Function and Managerial Work." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-management-function-and-managerial-work/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Classical Management Function and Managerial Work." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-management-function-and-managerial-work/.

Training tools for developing great people skills.

Online Assessments
Student Access
Online Courses for LMS
About the RTL
All Courses
RTL Complete Collection
Career Development
Change Management
Communication
Conflict & Stress
Customer Service
Diversity & Inclusion
Emotional Intelligence
Listening Skills
Negotiation
Performance Management
Problem Solving
Project Management
Selling Skills
Supervisory Skills
Team Building
Time Management
Team Member
Basic Style
Accountability
Conflict Resolution
Creativity & Innovation
Critical Thinking
Decision Making
Engagement & Retention
Performance
Personality Styles
ROI of Learning
Stress Management
Trust Building
Virtual Work
Work-Life Balance
Workplace Conduct
Paper Assessments
Online Courses
Simulations
Reproducible

Classical Management Theory: What is It and How Does It Work?

Management theories are often separated into three broad categories: classical management theory, behavioral management theory, and modern management theory.

Classical management theory was the first to emerge as a response to the Industrial Revolution, and the behavioral and modern theories both arose to address additional work experience elements that weren't addressed or prioritized under the classical theory.

What is classical management theory, and how does it work? Is it still applicable in modern work environments or simply outdated?

What is classical management theory, hierarchical structure, specialization, the branches of classical management theory, administrative management, scientific management, bureaucratic management, advantages of classical management theory, decision-making by a single leader, increased productivity via incentives, clear division of labor, easy-to-understand organization hierarchy, disadvantages of classical management theory, more employee pressure, less focus on human relations and employee job satisfaction, stifles creativity and innovation, do any organizations still use the classical management theory, how to implement the classical theory of management, provide incentives regularly, create a standard operating procedure, be considerate during the task assignment process, knowledge is power when it comes to management styles.

Classical management theory first emerged during the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century. At this time, work shifted to factory production from family-led home production. Hundreds or even thousands of workers could be employed by these factories to mass produce standardized goods in a much more cost-effective, efficient, and standardized way possible with home production.

Problems quickly began to appear as a result of the factory system, and classical management theory arose from attempts to find the "one best way" for tasks to be performed and managed.

This management style is less common than it once was, but some organizations still might benefit from its structure.

To maximize productivity and efficiency in the workplace, the classical management theory emphasizes hierarchy, single leadership, and specialized roles.

Here are the principles upon which the theory of classical management is based:

The skills and specializations of employees are used to determine who performs which tasks.
The most efficient way to do each job should be determined using scientific management theory.
As much as possible, operations should be streamlined.
Priority is given to increasing profit.
The primary goal is productivity.
A single person or a select few figures make decisions.

Let's look at three primary concepts implemented by an ideal workplace under the classical management theory.

Three levels of leadership ideally oversee a workplace in the classical management theory.

The top of the hierarchy is the executives or business owners. They have the ability and authority to set long-term goals for the organization.

Below them is middle management. This group of managers sets department-level goals and oversees the third level of the hierarchy.

The final level is the managers or supervisors responsible for overseeing the company's day-to-day operations.

Organizations that are structured based on classical management theory focus on an "assembly line" style of setup. That means that large projects or tasks are broken down into smaller tasks that are then assigned to individual employees or groups of employees.

Rather than having a wide range of duties and tasks to take care of, workers will usually only be responsible for one specific task. This can increase efficiency and productivity by preventing time loss from multitasking.

Finally, this idea doesn't focus much on employees' social needs or job satisfaction. Instead, it emphasizes the physical needs of workers.

For this reason, classical management theory involves offering monetary and income incentives to employees for increased production and efficiency. The belief is that by incentivizing people through the opportunity to increase their wages, they will be motivated to be more productive and work as efficiently as possible.

There were three main proponents of the classical management theory– Henri Fayol, Frederick W. Taylor, and Max Weber.

Out of the work of these individuals, three primary branches of the theory can be identified: administrative management, scientific management, and bureaucratic management.

The French industrialist Henri Fayol was the primary proponent of this branch of classical management theory. The aim here is to improve organizational productivity via methods managers can utilize to make internal processes work synchronically.

Fayol believed that managerial practices were one of the main keys of driving organization efficiency. The focus of this branch, therefore, is to elevate the performance of managers as opposed to focusing on the efficiency of individual workers.

Known as the father of scientific management, Frederick W. Taylor believed that business inefficiency stemmed from worker autonomy. He held that when employees decide on their own working methods and management isn't involved in the strategies they use, the company will ultimately be less productive.

He promoted the idea that a specific power structure should be imposed and the modes of operation should be changed in this type of circumstance. Rather than leaving the methods of production up to the individual worker, work should be scientifically organized.

Using empirical research and the scientific method, Taylor proposed that the most efficient methods to accomplish specific tasks should be examined. The goal here is to assign jobs based on employee competency and skill set to extract the absolute best out of every worker.

In this branch of classical management theory, employees perform their assigned roles, and managers strategize, train, and supervise workers.

Max Weber , recognized as one of the fathers of modern sociology, was a German sociologist, political economist, historian, and jurist. Social theory and research are still profoundly influenced by the ideas of Max Weber. Thanks to him, the bureaucratic management branch of classical management theory exists.

Weber proposed that the most efficient way to compose and manage an organization was through bureaucracy. For larger companies, he believed bureaucracy was necessary to achieve maximum productivity.

Work responsibilities are clearly defined in this model, and all employees are treated equally. There is a clear hierarchy to the management system under this theory, with a clear division of labor and defined lines of communication.

An individual's achievements and qualifications are the only things that help to determine their potential for advancement within the company. This is opposed to a person being promoted due to factors other than their qualifications or because they are personally connected with someone influential.

Uniformity, efficiency, and a well-defined distribution of power are essential parts of the ideal bureaucracy, as imagined by Max Weber. In this model, work relationships are strongly discouraged, and the environment is ideally impersonal and professional.

Similarly, employees should only be chosen based on their competencies and technical skills, and no additional factors should be utilized to make a hiring decision. Another significant aspect of bureaucratic management theory is that there should be meticulous record-keeping to reduce misunderstandings, notice patterns, and have a reference to look at later.

The modern workplace is much less likely to utilize classical management theory, but it can still be appropriate in some organizations.

There are several advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed out before choosing to follow this structure and theory. First, let's look at some of the benefits of classical management theory.

The classical management theory proposes an autocratic leadership approach. That means a single leader (or a small group of authority figures) is responsible for making decisions. On top of that, they are the ones that choose how employees will be organized and directed.

With this single figure making decisions and passing their instructions down the hierarchy, time isn't lost by warring opinions on a topic. When business decisions need to be made swiftly, an autocratic leadership style can help to get the job done.

Some might consider this leadership style to be the opposite of the participative management style , which uses group feedback to make decisions.

Classical management theory proposes that employees will work harder and be more productive when motivated by monetary rewards. In a modern organization, this might look like offering bonuses or salary increases based on an employee's productivity.

This is a very direct way to attempt to motivate workers and is an easy system for managers to implement.

This management theory can help reduce confusion and time loss regarding who is responsible for what duties. The division of labor here is abundantly clear, and the responsibilities and expectations of employees are clearly communicated.

When employees are well chosen for the tasks they are asked to perform, workers don't have to multitask to get their work done, and productivity can increase.

While it might sound like a very rigid system, there are some benefits to having a clearly defined hierarchy in an organization.

This is another way that each individual's expectations, responsibilities, and objectives are made clear in a way that reduces confusion and boosts productivity.

Classical Management Theory Disadvantages

There are certainly some downsides to classical management theory, and it isn't necessarily the best choice for all organizations.

Companies using the classical management theory can put a lot of pressure on individual workers. Usually, they are expected to complete specific tasks in a certain amount of time, which can be pretty stressful.

If managers aren't careful to set reachable goals, this can be incredibly discouraging to an employee.

Since classical management theory emphasizes the physical needs of employees rather than their job satisfaction and social needs, it doesn't necessarily provide a complete solution to motivating employees.

In a company that relies on open communication, creative contributions, and teamwork, this can put them at a significant disadvantage. Forming social connections at work is vital to many individuals, and an organization that doesn't see this as a priority can suffer from low morale, decreased productivity, and high turnover.

There isn't a lot of wiggle room in the classical management theory. The central idea that led to the creation of this theory was that there is one specific right way for any given task to be completed when maximum production is the goal.

While this can work well when you're focused on high output, it can be a disadvantage if your goals are to grow and keep up with a changing industry. Employees under this management style can feel there is no opportunity to share creative or innovative ideas. For certain employees, the inability to display their unique value can be detrimental to morale.

Though it's less prevalent in today's workforce, many companies still successfully utilize this theory of management.

For example, Nucor Steel is the largest steel producer in the United States and the nation's largest recycler. They pay incentive bonuses to all their employees, claim to have never laid off a worker, and have an egalitarian benefits policy. The base pay for managers is also lower than for competitive companies, so managers are incentivized and motivated to help the organization perform well.

Organization Using the Classical Management Theory

Another company that uses this theory is Costco. There, employees are paid nearly 50% more than competitive companies. On top of that, the company contributes twice as much as its competitors for health benefits.

MillerCoors Brewing Co. is the largest single-site brewery in the world and also benefits from classical management theory. Some workers there have been with the company for decades, and incentive bonuses are given out to the workforce.

These are just a few notable examples of companies that still benefit from this management theory.

Are you thinking about implementing the classical theory of management in your workplace?

Implementing the Classical Management Theory

If so, these tips can help ensure it is a success for your organization.

If you are going to expect a lot from your employees in terms of production, you'll need to offer them something that they believe is valuable enough to work as hard as they can.

That could be monetary rewards, but you also don't want to overlook the importance of providing recognition and verbal praise for employees that are going above and beyond.

For the classical management theory to be successful, there needs to be a clearly outlined standard operating procedure for each task. You will want written documents detailing each task's goals, how long it will take, and what steps are involved.

When you provide this information to employees where they can easily access it, it ensures that they are aware of the goals they are working toward and their responsibilities right from the get-go.

The abilities and skills of employees must be matched with tasks that are appropriate for them. If workers are mismatched with tasks, it can reduce both productivity and morale.

Are you curious about which management styles are most commonly found among team leaders? Check out this recent post on the topic.

Even if you don't intend to implement the structure proposed by classical management theory, learning as much as possible about the best way to run organizations and manage people can be beneficial to learn.

In the modern workplace, it is generally agreed that leaders should be proficient and comfortable in several different leadership styles to suit different situations and personalities in the workplace.

If you want to help your management team become the best leaders they can be, check out What's My Leadership Style and What's My Communication Style .

Do you have any questions about the classical management theory, how to implement it, or anything similar? If so, be sure to drop us a comment down below, and we'll get back to you within a day or two! We make it a point to reply to each and every one of your comments, and we'd be more than happy to answer any of your potential questions.

Related Products

Comments must be approved before appearing

* Required fields

About our author

Bradford r. glaser.

Brad is President and CEO of HRDQ, a publisher of soft-skills learning solutions, and HRDQ-U, an online community for learning professionals hosting webinars, workshops, and podcasts. His 35+ years of experience in adult learning and development have fostered his passion for improving the performance of organizations, teams, and individuals.

What Are Some Popular Examples of Grievances at Work?

What gets things stirred up at work? You'll find that unresolved complaints are often the culprits. These problems ca...

View this post

What Is the Johari Window Model and How Does It Work?

There's a powerful tool from psychology that helps us learn about ourselves and how others see us; they call it the J...

Mastering Leadership Shadow: Easy Steps to Success

Have you ever paused to consider the impact of your leadership shadow? Like a towering skyscraper, it casts an immens...

“The Current Africentric Movement in the U.S.” (1990)
“Egypt As A Black Civilization” (1992)
“The Vanishing Evidence of Classical African Civilizations” Series (1995-96, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 Update)
Towards Black Community Development (1993, 1996)
Death of the Willie Lynch Speech: Exposing The Myth (2013) New!
Modern Fraud: The Forged Ancient Egyptian Statues of Ra-Hotep and Nofret (forthcoming)
Martin Luther King, Jr. The Evolution of a Revolutionary (forthcoming)

Find Us on Social Media:

Vote Now for the Classical California Ultimate Playlist!
The Most Famous Olympic Theme John Williams DIDN’T Write
Check Out This Week's “Trio”
Introducing Glissando!
This week's Classical Californian

What Our Listeners Are Saying

KUSC wakes us up in the morning and brings us to work and school, carries us home at night, soothes our nerves and makes life lighter, defines our emotions individually and connects us universally. It is an integral part of our family.

Valerie Imhof

Leadership Circle, President's Circle Member

Every day, KUSC and its streaming services triumphantly fill the universe with the greatest music ever written and performed. For decades, KUSC has stood as the guardian of classical music that clears our minds, inspires our hearts, and invigorates us.

Douglass M. Stewart, Jr.

Leadership Circle Member

Classical music has been a source of great joy for the better part of my life, and I have been listening to KUSC for close to fifty years.

Karen Abramowitz

I play the saxophone. One day I was assigned a piece from Orpheus in the Underworld. I really liked how fun and how fast it was. I am a 7th grader, and when you play music on your instrument and then you hear it on KUSC, it's pretty cool.

Aiden Van Dyk

I was introduced to Classical music and KUSC in 1990 when I went back to school. I began listening each day and fell in love with many pieces of music. I now listen to Jennifer Miller Hammel in the morning and enjoy all the information that she shares.

Nelson Matthews

Thank you from 3 generations of KUSC die-hard fans; 2 of them Trojans from undergrad through doctorate (I was the rebel). Love you and all your voices.

Shareen Ghabrial

Thank you for airing works by contemporary composers, including Rebecca Oswald. Her music is magical. I light up every time it comes up in the rotation.

Morris Jones

Radio Coverage and Frequencies

Los Angeles

Santa Barbara

San Luis Obispo

Palm Springs

Thousand Oaks

Supported by

How California Became America’s Contemporary Music Capital

On the eve of a sprawling new festival, John Adams, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Gustavo Dudamel and others recount how the state reinvigorated classical music.

Share full article

A picture of the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles designed by Frank Gehry. People are walking by. A tree sticks out behind the building.

By Joshua Barone

Reporting from Los Angeles and San Francisco

Nobody will be able to take in the entire California Festival , a statewide series of classical music events spanning 650 miles with such density that some nights will have 10 or more performances happening at once.

The festival, Nov. 3 -19, was conceived by the music directors of the state’s three largest orchestras: Esa-Pekka Salonen of the San Francisco Symphony, Gustavo Dudamel of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and Rafael Payare of the San Diego Symphony. But it grew to contain nearly 100 partnering organizations, who are presenting a host of world premieres and programs of contemporary music under the festival’s banner.

It’s an overdue pat on the back for a state that has long encouraged new music, providing freedom and a sense of possibility that has made it the center of gravity for composers who work with a spirit of innovation, a long list that includes Harry Partch, Lou Harrison and Pauline Oliveros in the past, and Terry Riley and John Adams today .

Much has centered around distinct communities in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. “Those of us who make music in San Francisco,” wrote Michael Tilson Thomas, who led the city’s orchestra’s for 25 years, “are blessed with an audience that comes to the concert hall more to discover the world than to escape it.” That was one reason he championed what he called American mavericks.

Further south, Los Angeles became a microcosm of the California spirit, with sky-high ambition and musical curiosity that was cultivated by power players like the commission-happy philanthropist Betty Freeman and the strong-willed Philharmonic leader Ernest Fleischmann. And Dudamel brought pop-star power to the orchestra before, in a jolt to the city , he announced this year that he would leave for the New York Philharmonic in 2026.

Ara Guzelimian, who grew up in Los Angeles and now leads the Ojai Music Festival nearby, described California’s classical music culture as “the lingering positive presence of the pioneers heading West and looking to escape a kind of conformity” before adding: “That’s sort of romanticized, but I think the reality is that a lot of good work has been done by individuals and institutions to develop that.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

REPORT.docx
Classical Management Theory
Management essay
A Useful Guide On How To Write A Classical Argument Essay In Several Steps
The Concepts of Classical Management Theories Essay Example
Analysis the Impact of Classical Management Approaches on the Management Practices.docx

COMMENTS

PDF MANAGEMENT THEORY
Dr Malcolm Warner Cambridge Judge Business School University of Cambridge. Email: [email protected]. Please address enquiries about the series to: Research Manager Cambridge Judge Business School University of Cambridge Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1AG UK. Tel: 01223 760546 Fax: 01223 339701.
PDF An Overview of Classical Management Theories: A Review Article
Common features of classical management theory are chain of commands, authoritarian management style and behavior prediction. Although these theories are obsolete, different forms of these theories are implemented in most parts of the world. 1. Introduction. Management is the most important element of any organization.
Classical Management Theory Explained
The classical management theory involves an assembly line view of the workplace in which large tasks are broken down into smaller ones that are easy to accomplish. Workers understand their roles and typically specialize in a single area. This helps increase productivity and efficiency while eliminating the need for employees to multi-task.
An Overview of Classical Management Theories: A Review Article
This paper seeks to compare and contrast the classical and behavioural models of Management. In comparing and contrasting the two models this essay will define, the term management the two models, the origins, advantages and disadvantages of classical management and behavioural management a comparison and contrast of the two models simply, classical management treat productivity and efficiency ...
Overview of Management Theories
An Overview of Management Theories: Classical, Behavioral, and Modern Approaches. In both theory and practice, business management is at a crisis point. The world is changing — and changing quickly. There is no single management philosophy that answers every need. The best managers are flexible and blend methods.
Review of Classical Management Theories
This paper seeks to compare and contrast the classical and behavioural models of Management. In comparing and contrasting the two models this essay will define, the term management the two models, the origins, advantages and disadvantages of classical management and behavioural management a comparison and contrast of the two models simply, classical management treat productivity and efficiency ...
PDF Classical and neoclassical approaches of management: An overview
theorists. Secondly, the article evaluates the impact of these theories on management thought. Finally, the essay compares its role on managerial thought. Keywords: classical approach, neoclassical approach, management. I. Introduction Classical approach to management is a set of homogeneous ideas on the management of organizations
Classical and Neoclassical Approaches of Management: An overview
Finally, the essay . compares its role on man agerial thought. Keywords: classical approa ch, neoclassical approa ch, management. ... The study of classical management thoughts, which involve a ...
A Historical Perspective on the Evolution of Management Theory
This paper provides an overview of the three major schools governing management theory: classical management theory, neo-classical management theory and modern management theory. In addition, it ...
Relevance of Classical Management Theories to Modern Public
Classical and Neo-Classical Theories of Public Administration This section will now review the various theories that fall under the classical and neo-classical perspectives. 2.1 Scientific Management In the early 1900s, an organization theory that emphasised rationalism, efficiency and productivity through established rules and scientific ...
The Classical Approach to Management: Theory, Features, Limitations and
The Classical Approach is one of the oldest approaches in management and is also known by various names, i.e., Empirical, Functional and Management Process Approach. The classical theory represents the traditional thoughts about organisations. It is based on the prototype industrial and military organisation. The theory concentrates on organisation structure and their management. The classical ...
Management and Organizational Theories: Pros and Cons
Skills and communication skills examine the positive or negative implication of management style below in relation to management practice in organizations. (E1-PC 2.3) 1.)Autocratic style: Boss takes the decision without consulting with the other employees and managers whether the decision is right or wrong.
Classical management theory and scientific management
The Classical Management Theory is thought to have originated around the year 1900 and dominated management thinking into the 1920s, focusing on the efficiency of the work process. ... Find out more about our Essay Writing Service. Taylor's management theory rests on a fundamental belief that managers are not only superior intellectually to ...
The use of classical management theory
Classical Management Theory is a "Body of management thought based on the belief that employees have only economical and physical needs, and that social needs and need for job-satisfaction either don't exist or are unimportant. Accordingly, this school advocates high specialization of labor, centralized decision making, and profit ...
Classical Management Function and Managerial Work Critical Essay
Classical Management Functions. Several decades ago, English speaking managers and academics were introduced directly to Henry Fayol's ideas about managerial work. His article, General and Industrial Management, in which he outlined the key functions of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling, had a ...
Classical Management Theory: What is It and How Does It Work?
Management theories are often separated into three broad categories: classical management theory, behavioral management theory, and modern management theory. Classical management theory was the first to emerge as a response to the Industrial Revolution, and the behavioral and modern theories both arose to address additional work experience elements that weren't addressed or prioritized under ...
Essay about Classical Management Theories
Essay about Classical Management Theories. Better Essays. 1523 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. Successful management requires an understanding of the fundamental concepts of effective management techniques and principles. In order to gain such insight, and manage effectively and efficiently, managers must develop an awareness of past management ...
Classical Management Theory Essay
Classical Management Versus Human Relations Essay In the early 1900's, some of the first ideas were thrown together to allow an organization to flourish in the upcoming modern era. The first theories were known as scientific and classical management, which focused on three separate theories from Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber.
Prof. Manu Ampim
P.O. Box 18623, Oakland, CA 94619. (510) 568-3880 / [email protected]. Professor Manu Ampim is an historian and primary (first-hand) researcher specializing in African and African American history and culture. He has a B.S. in Business Management and M.A. in History/African American Studies. His master thesis, "The Revolutionary Martin ...
Classical KUSC
Leadership Circle, President's Circle Member. Every day, KUSC and its streaming services triumphantly fill the universe with the greatest music ever written and performed. For decades, KUSC has stood as the guardian of classical music that clears our minds, inspires our hearts, and invigorates us. Douglass M. Stewart, Jr. Leadership Circle Member.
Classical Management Theory Behavioral Management Theory ...
The different two theories of management are classical management theory, behavioral management theory. The classical management theory focuses on discovering the best way to manage and perform tasks. The behavioral management theory recognizes employees as individuals with real human needs, in the part of work groups, and parts of a society.
SFCV Writers
Jennifer Gersten is a violinist pursuing her DMA at Stony Brook University. She is a senior editor for Guernica: A Magazine of Global Arts and Politics, and has held internships at NPR Music and The Blade, a paper based in Toledo, Ohio.Her reporting, essays, and music reviews have been published or are forthcoming in The Kenyon Review Online, The Awl, NPR Music, Guernica, Harvard Magazine ...
How California Became America's Contemporary Music Capital
Oct. 29, 2023. Nobody will be able to take in the entire California Festival, a statewide series of classical music events spanning 650 miles with such density that some nights will have 10 or ...