Clasiscal_and_Huministic_Approach_to_Management

Questn 1 :CLASSICAL APPROACH The earliest management philosophy, the classical perspective, emerged in the 19th and early 20th century in response to a problem businesses grapple with today: with coordination and control, how to make businesses efficient operating machines rational, scientific approach to management, In the factory system, managers had the challenge of coordinating a huge, unskilled labor force, complex production systems, and an expansive manufacturing operation. The overall classical perspective as an approach to management was very powerful and gave companies fundamental new skills for establishing high productivity and effective treatment of employees. This perspective contains three subfields: Scientific Management it emphasized scientifically determined changes in management practices as the solution to improving labour productivity. Frederick W. Taylor Bureaucratic Organizations : it emphasized management on an impersonal, rational basis through such elements as clearly defined authority and responsibility, formal record-keeping and separation of management and ownership. Administrative Principles it focuses on the total organization rather than the individual worker, delineating the management functions of planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. http://www.swlearning.com/management/now/daft_m8e/chapter_videos/ch02.doc The Evolution of Management Thinking http://www.swlearning.com/management/now/daft_m8e/chapter_videos/ch02.doc HUMANISTIC APPROACH Humanistic Approach is based on the idea that human are motivate by more than economic rewards. They also required satisfying social relation and personal fulfillment. The study of humanistic approach started in 1924 by Elton Mayo. He undertook research at the Hawthorn Works Plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago. This research determined how economic incentives and the physical conditions of the workplace affected the output of worker. This research found human interactions in the workplace and influences to productivity. It was possible said that Meyo focus on the environment effective to productivity or which called the basic need that relative to environment for example the heat, the light etc. This research did not consider the higher level need of people, for instance reputation or social acceptance. However, Abraham Maslow focused on people requirement both physical requirement and psychological requirement. He categorized need into 5 levels. The Maslow theory represented the concept of human relation. This new way of thinking led the way for the human resource perspective, which saw workers as a resource to be fully utilized, as opposed to tools from which to extract utility. It suggested that beyond the need for worker inclusion and supportive leadership, organizations should design jobs to meet the higher needs of their employees and utilize their full potential. It has four subfields: the human relations movement, the human resources perspective, the behavioural sciences approach and the management science perspective. http://www.swlearning.com/management/now/daft_m8e/chapter_videos/ch02.doc http://e-learning.mfu.ac.th/mflu/1203141/chapter2.html COMPARING AND CONTRASTING 1 The Classical approach, mainly, focusing on the jobs and the structure within the organisation. They believed the organisation needs to be built according to specific goals and plan within an inflexible specification (structure). These characteristics are very contrast to Humanistic Approach which argued that the organisation needs to be looked as the social function where the relationship, people needs, and emotional needs are the driver of workers performance which can lead to enhancement of organisation performance (Lemak, 2004 and Hersey, 2001). 2 The role of the manager under the Classical approach is to create the job specification, rules, procedure etc. and enforce the workers to do all of it appropriately (Lemak, 2004 and Mullins, 2005). On the contrary, Humanistic Approach argued the function of the manager is to embed cooperation and coordination inside the organisation. The managers need to be aware with what motivates the workers and why workers need that. (Hersey, 2001). 3 The Classical Approach argued that workers can do a good job if their economical needs have been attained beforehand. Thus, the only motivator for employee to work in better performance is monetary incentive (Wagner et.al, 2008). Conversely, the Humanistic Approach said that the social and personal needs are the major influence for employee performance. The satisfaction of socialising, good job atmosphere and sense of belonging throughout the organisation are the main driving force of performance enhancement (Donnelly, 2000). 4 The Classical approach views organisation as a closed system and possessing rigid hierarchical organisation structure and operating in rational, systematic, and logic path. The Humanistic approach perceives organisation as a open system where the needs and the values of the people have to be managed in order to reach organisation’s goals http://theencantador.blogspot.com/2009/11/comparison-of-classical-approach-and.html question 2: Scientific management Is a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. The core ideas of the theory were developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s. After years of various experiments to determine optimal work methods, Taylor proposed the following four principles of scientific management 1. Replace rule of thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. 2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving them to train themselves 3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are being followed. 4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the mangers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and he workers actually performed tasks. http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/ Frederick taylor and scientific management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. Behavioral science and the study of organizational behavior emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. The behavioral science was a natural progression of the human relations movement. It focused on applying conceptual and analytical tools to the problem of understanding and predicting behavior in the workplace. However, the study of behavioural science and organizational behavior was also a result of criticism of the human relations approach as simplistic and manipulative in its assumptions about the relationship between worker attitudes and productivity. The behavioral science has contributed to the study of management through its focus on personality, attitudes, values, motivation, group behavior, leadership, communication, and conflict, among other issues. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Management-Thought.html COMPARISION 1. Scientific method provides a logical framework for the analysis of the problems basically defining the problem, gathering data, analysing the data, developing the alternatives and selecting the best alternative. Whereas the behavioral approach focuses on the psychological and sociological processes (attitude, motivations, group dynamics) that influence employee performance. 2. Scientific theory focuses on the financial needs of the man but behavioural theory stress upon the social, security and esteem needs. 3. The scientific theory focuses on the job of workers, the behavioral approach focuses on the workers in these jobs. 4. Under scientific management approach workers felt exploited because their social aspect of life was disregarded. (Workers were treated as machines and not humans).while under behavioral approach workers were given a chance to implement their methods which can result in increasing their productivity. 5. Under scientific management the task were completed on time due to the main focus of completing job but under behavioral approach where main focus is the workers satisfaction leads to delay in work. 6. Behavioral approach only concerns with the attitude and behaviour of the employee rather than concerning in principles of organization (Barnes, et.al., 1970). Whereas under scientific management importance is given to the principles of the organization WEAKENSS OF CLASSICAL THEORY Classical approach has a lot of criticisms. Many studies shown doubt about the effectiveness of this approach, especially in management nowadays. The most significance failure of this approach is lack of human factors. Because of that, classical approach has point of weaknesses such as (Blauner 1964, cited in Johnson, 1993): Inability of employee to use control over work processes  Lack of employee understanding about what is the purpose on their job  Employees failed to become involved in the jobs  Lack of sense of belonging with the organization Question 3: CONCLUSION Both of these approaches have their own strength point. Classical theory can establish an industrial harmony in the organisation by using their principles (planning, organising, commanding, etc) and the bureaucracy approach. That is why many big companies are using this approach, they believed this approach will gain more efficiency and quick decision making in the organisation. As a note, such companies which are using this approach, basically, have a very large number of employees. Army is one of the examples of the company who use this approach. It is obvious such companies apply this Classical Approach, because they need standardisation and specialisation to manage their large company. On the other hand, Humanistic approach has the strength as well. This approach really emphasize in importance of personnel management, which its movement has led to ideas on obtaining more output by humanizing the work (Mullins, 2005). Having said that, this approach is really developing nowadays, with regard to the humanization, many companies using their principles to obtain the better performance and social harmony in the organisation. Team works, leadership, communication, and motivation are very popular words in management at the moment which we know it is all the human relations principles. Both of these theories have their own strength and weaknesses. I believe each theory will perform very well to some particular type of organisation and it will be much more better if we combine these theories because the coordination within the organisation can’t work unless employee within it are willing to cooperate with the management. Therefore, I argue that the needs and values of the people as a human must be considered and integrated with the needs and values as described by the vision and mission statement of the organisation. The system of the organisation has to take into account the element of the human (employee), otherwise organisation cannot move smoothly to reach their specific goals. The contingency approach stress the absence of a single best way to manage and emphasises the need for managerial strategies based on all relavent fact. In other words, each manager’s situation must be viewed separately. Wide range external and internal factors must be considered and then focus should be on the action that best fits the given situation. The contingency approach suggests that managers need to be developed in skills, that are most useful in identifying the important situation factors. They should be able to identify which technique, in a particular situation, will best contribute to the attainment of management goals. In other words managers should develop a sort of situational sensitivity and practical selectively. http://theencantador.blogspot.com/2009/11/comparison-of-classical-approach-and.html