Classical Management Theory

1571 Words7 Pages
Introduction; definitions and outlines of concepts In his illustrative definition of management, George R. Terry highlighted critical components required in defining management. He stated that it is a cyclical activity that entails planning, organizing, directing (actuating) and controlling. The final desired outcome of this, he states is to identify and achieve set objectives within available resources (Terry, 1977). Figure showing the management cycle (Terry, 1977). Henri Fayol outlined five functions that are achieved through the management cycle (Fayol, 1916); 1. Planning or forecasting i.e. forward thinking, integrated and harmonised at different strata of the organisation and within the organizations available resources. 2. Organizing;…show more content…
Controlling; the regular periodic assessment to gauge progress toward set organisational objectives, measuring and documenting performance and making appropriate adjustments to set performance on track. The theories A. Classical management theory; This theory of management is one of the oldest and, was introduced during the industrial revolution. Its historical onset is cited to be in the early 1900s through to the 1920s with major contributors like Fredrick Taylor (the “father of the scientific theory” of management), Frank Gilberth & Lillian Gilberth, Henri Fayol (Administrative theory) and, Max Weber (Theory of bureaucracy). The classical theorists’ main focus was on getting the job done, how employees got the job done and how long it took them to get the job done in short, dealing with workers inefficiencies (Sherri , 2016). B. Human relations management theory; The human relations management theory of management was postulated in the early 1920 's still, during the industrial revolution. In this time, businesses focused on productivity. The main theorist of this management approach cited is Professor Elton Mayo (a behavioural scientist) who, through his Hawthorne studies was dedicated to show the value of people in the productivity of a business and not machines (Gail,…show more content…
As such, the workforce would be strictly recruited and regulated paying keen attention to merit (e.g. identified minimum standards required of prospective employees), with clearly set up hierarchical structures of authority. In contrast, the human relations theory would at this stage seek to anticipate recruiting a workforce that demonstrates a desire for self-development toward self-actualisation. The organisation hierarchical structure would be provided as a guide of inter-departmental interfaces, and strategies toward attracting, maintaining and encouraging the performance of workers considered. Whereas the former theory would come off as a “slave mentality” theory, it serves well for businesses that require specific and measurable attributes of the workforce where free will is unlikely to be permissible. Examples of entities where this would apply include the aviation industry where pilots are required to meet stiff requirements such as specific number of flight hours. The human relations theory would inversely be best suited in planning for a business entity that requires ingenuity in order to meet objectives of organisations e.g. in the sales and
Open Document