Classical Management Theories

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 principles, models and theories. From the turn of the 20th Century, the need for a formal management theory was growing evident; organisations required a system to guide managers in an attempt to improve productivity and efficiency of workers. This urgency for a theory saw the development of six major management approaches, the focus of this essay will be on two of the classical management theories; the scientific management theory and the human relations movement. The contributions of both these theories will be examined, followed by an analysis of the similarities and differences that these two theories propose. The last point will see a discussion of the relevance that these two theories have in modern managerial practice.

Scientific management was developed in the early 1900’s and fronted by Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Robbins, Bergman, Stagg and Coulter (2006) describe scientific management as:

The use of scientific methods to define the “one best way” for a job to be done.

The objective of Scientific Management was to ensure that maximum productivity was achieved for both the employer and employee. (Dwyer, 2005) Scientific Management is essentially an authoritarian approach that breaks up the “thinking” and “doing” responsibilities to the manager and worker respectively. (Morgan, 1986). The main philosophies arising from the Scientific Management approach include; an emphasis on experimentation, research, and timed studies, as opposed to “rule of thumb”, management and labour co-operation in order to ensure economic efficiency, emphasis on individualism, and the simplification of tasks to reduce learning problems and time. (Mohanty and Sethi, 1996) The underlying assumption of the Scientific Management Theory, according to Dwyer (2005) is that

Human nature is machine-like and thoroughly rational, motivated by simple, uncomplicated economical needs.

In 1924, a series of studies were conducted in an attempt to determine the effect that lighting had on the productivity of a worker. These studies were later known as the “Hawthorne Studies”. The studies, which were fronted by Elton Mayo, provided new insights into individual and group behaviour, and found that social norms or group standards were the major determinants of workers behaviour. (Robbins et al., 2006).

It is from the Hawthorne Studies that the Human Relations Movement stemmed, and this theory holds a philosophy that a manager's concern for workers will lead to their increased satisfaction and improved performance. (Dwyer, 2005) The names associated with this movement include; Dale Carnegie, Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor. The main characteristics of the Human Relations Movement included; a scientific approach to the analysis of human behaviour, concern for the well-being of workers, attention to interpersonal relationships, and a view of the worker as a significant variable. (Mohanty and Sethi, 1996)

The Human Relations Movement contradicted many of the major suppositions of the Scientific Management Theory. Scientific Management focused on the use of exact measurement to improve productivity, the detailed division of labour, and “pay by performance”. But one of the major features of Scientific Management was that decision-making was the responsibility of management and workers were to obey. In contrast the Human Relations Movement focused on worker motivation, particularly on the belief that a worker who is satisfied will work more efficiently and effectively.

Scientific Management places great emphasis on human efficiency on the job, this was executed through the organisation of human efforts in a “mechanistic manner”, so that a “one best way” was established and maximum efficiency achieved. (Mohanty and Sethi, 1996). On the other hand, the Human Relations Movement emphasised social conditions in organisations as a means of improving efficiency.

While the differences between these two management theories are extensive, there are also some notable comparisons. Scientific Management and Human Relations both sought to improve productivity; Scientific Management by minimizing wasted movements, and Human Relations by developing good working relationships. Both these theories did provide some worthy results; Taylor’s “Pig Iron Experiment”, after many trials, succeeded in a productivity increase of 200% (Wrege and Perroni, 1974), while the Hawthorne Experiments saw a 112% increase in output by workers, which became known as the “Hawthorne Effect”.

An important similarity