Critically contrast the approach to organisations of the classical management theorists with that of the contingency theorists. Which do you think has had the greatest impact on management today and why?

Authors Avatar

Topic: Critically contrast the approach to organisations of the classical management theorists with that of the contingency theorists. Which do you think has had the greatest impact on management today and why?

The management field is characterised by a wide variety of theories, schools and directions. This essay examines the classical and contingency schools of thought -- the approaches to organization that have had the greatest impact on management today. Firstly the essay delineates and criticises the important theories propounded by classical writers. The essay continues with an account of the contingency school, and finally evaluates its impacts on managerial thought.

Up until about the late 1950s academic writing about organisational structure was dominated by the classical management school. This held that there was a single organisational structure that was effective in all organisations. (Clegg & Handy, 1999).  According to Holt (1999), the classical school is characterised by “being highly structured, with emphasis on the formal organisation with clearly defined functions and detailed rules, autocratic leadership, a rigid chain of command and control by superiors” (Holt, 1999, p.137). The three greatest proponents of classical theory were Taylor, Fayol, and Weber. Each identifies detailed principles and methods through which this kind of organisation could be achieved.

Taylor (1947) developed a systematic approach to called ‘Scientific Management’, which focused on efficient production. Through the study of task movements, or ‘time and motion studies’ as it was known, he recognized matching the correct worker to the task was crucial to increasing work efficiency. Under this so-called Taylorism, emphasis is placed on power confered to those in control. According to Morgan (1997), this approach to work design is found in traditional forms of assembly-line manufacturing and in production processes.

Another major sub-field within the classical perspective is ‘Administrative Management,’ set forth by Fayol (1949). While Scientific Management took a micro approach, Fayol saw the macro concepts, a body of knowledge which emphasised broad administrative principles applicable to large organizations. In Fayol’s account, management is conceptualised as consisting of five elements, namely planning, organizing, command, co-ordination, and control. He also developed 14 principles of management or organisation, the best-known being division of work, unity of direction and scalar chain or hierarchy. In contrast to Taylorism, Fayol emphasizes that the principles could be applied in any type of organization (e.g. government, military, hospitals, banks) and at any level of management (Grey, 1999).

The last important contributor to classical theory is Weber (1947) who observed the mechanisation of industry. Through his work he identified the first comprehensive definition of bureaucracy as a form of organisation that emphasises precision, speed, clarity, regularity, reliability, and efficiency. These are achieved through the creation of fixed division of tasks, hierarchical supervision, and detailed rules and regulations.

Overall, the classical approach is characterised by division of work, establishment of hierarchy of authority, and span of control. For classical theorists, these components were of utmost importance in the achievement of an effective organisation (Cole, 2004). If we implement these principles, as Morgan (1997) suggests, we arrive at an organisation with a pattern of precisely defined jobs organised in a hierarchical manner through precisely defined lines of command or communication.

There are is shortage of critiques of this classical approach. Firstly, it is significant that the classical theorists gave relatively little attention to the human aspects of organisation (Morgan, 1997). In particular, they can result in mindless and unquestioning bureaucracy; and can have dehumanising effects upon employees (Morgan, 1997).

Join now!

Secondly, the classical theory has its limitation for practical use. Woodward (1980) insisted that bureaucratic-mechanistic organisation might be appropriate for firms employing mass-production technologies but that firms with unit, small-batch, or process systems of production need a different approach.

Thirdly, Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out that the classical theories have tended to view the human organisations as a “closed” system.  Closed systems are “those, which, for all practical purposes, are completely self-supporting, and thus do not interact with their environment” (Cole, 2004, p.74).  According to Katz and Kahn, this closed system has led to a disregard ...

This is a preview of the whole essay