Click on ' JOIN THIS SITE ' to get instant updates on new posts on this blog. And also for 'INTERACTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS' regarding this blog's posts 'JOIN ITS FACEBOOK COMMUNITY/GROUP' that is mentioned on the right hand side of this page.
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT MOVEMENT:
The Scientific management theory/approach is one of the most important theories of traditional public administration formulated by Frederick Winslow Taylor who was an engineer by profession and always viewed each and every thing and its aspects scientifically and since he was into the production field,he was to be concerned with increasing efficiency of workers to increase production within the least possible time with the least possible resources. Thus,ruling out wastage to the maximum and increase profits to the hilt.
Taylor is regarded as the father of the Scientific management approach.The Scientific management approach in its literal sense means a scientific way of managing an organization. His theory helped pave the way for many modern management approaches and techniques,some opposed him whereas some supported him but there is no denying that his theory was the one that started their very existence.
He was employed at a time when the Industrial revolution was at its peak and matured (the 19th century) and industries were trying to find a solution to the complex problems of organizations due to the same. The Industrial revolution no doubt brought alongwith it enormous capital but also there was an ever increasing demand of goods and production had to be speeded up to meet the demands around the world.Taylor advocated the scientific approach towards industrial work,processes as well as management to increase industrial efficiency and economy as well as profit. to solve all those problems since the traditional conditions and work methods as well as tools and non standardized procedures in existing factories were pitiful.Workers used their own methods of working and thus there was inconsistent performances.
All this led Taylor who worked his way from bottom to the top management and knew the nitty gritty of the job to suggest scientific management as the best solution. Scientific Management as a term was coined by Louis D. Brandies in 1910 and subsequently used by Taylor in his book " Principles and Methods of Scientific management". Though Taylor had written his theory much before the essay by Woodrow Wilson, he got the fame after the publication of the essay and the mass interest that it generated on the lines of having a separate administration from politics and to develop it as a true science.
Taylor as an engineer and manager developed and invented many tools for cutting steel and shoveling and many more that lead to a great decrease on the workload of the worker as well as increased efficiency with minimum number of movements for a particular job thus leading to high profits.
The basic principles(rules) of Taylor's Scientific management were:
1) Standardisation of work methods: A scientific method for each job/task of a worker via scientific observation and analysis of a particular job to find out the one best way to do that task that would lead to reduced work for the worker as he could do more with limited number of movements.Use of bench marked and standardized tools and equipments and methods would improve quality control and inspections thus reducing cost of production and increasing efiiciency. Taylor emphasised on the ' right man for the right job' by proper selection and training and ensuring fair wages and reasonable prices for standardised goods to consumers.
2) Equal division of work and responsibility between management and workers: At that time workers had all the load of work and they were left to fend for themselves to complete the work. Thus Taylor advocated that the management had to seriously undertake functions for which it was best suited to i.e. planning,organising,controlling and determining methods of work instead of leaving all this to the mostly uneducated worker who knew nothing of this and was only concerned with doing his job through the skills he had. This principle according to Taylor would help create a mutual understanding and dependence between the latter and the former in the long run that would eliminate all unnecessary conflict and mistrust that was existing between the two at that time. He believed that this mutual harmony instead of discord is the just and rightful characteristic of scientific management.
3) Scientific selection of workers and their progressive development: He advocated through this principle the need for the management to study the nature and character of each job/work and then scientifically choose the right worker for the same who possess the necessary skills for the same. It is also the duty of the management to study the limitations and possibilities of workers for their development as Taylor believed that every worker had a definite potential for development. he advocated for a systematic and thorough training of workers for the job after being selected . It is also important that the worker accepts the new methods,tools and conditions in their own interest and does it sincerely.
4) Mutual collaboration of workers and management: According to this principle there should be active cooperation and cordial relations between management and workers instead of discord and distrust in order to increase the production and efficiency of the company/organization. A healthy environment needs to be created. A formally prescribed scientific method of production in organizations will lead to a lot of conflicts that occur due to lack of clear communication and confusion from top to bottom between the latter and former disappearing.
Apart from these four basic principles Taylor also expressed concern about the following in the process of Scientific management:
a) Mental Revolution: He advocated a change in the attitudes of workers and management towards each other and their responsibilities. Managers should stop worrying about accumulating the most and instead focus on generating the most that will lead to more funds for them. The workers should stop worrying about increasing wages without putting in extra effort and instead increase their responsibility and efficiency and increase production that will definitely lead to raise in their salaries sooner or later.
b)Division of work: Planning function to be taken over by management who were appointed for the same as they have been trained and skilled for the same and workers to concentrate on completing their functional task as per the rules and guidelines and methods planned by the former.Thus,each doing the job for which they have been appointed and are best skilled for.
c) Selection and training of workers: Taylor advocated the selection and training of workers for best performance of the work in an organisation. Right person for the right job. This is the duty of the management to choose a candidate for a particular job on the basis of his nature,character and capacities and also provide for formal training and clear instructions to them to perform prescribed motions with the standardized tools and materials.
d) Work study and work measurement: Work should be studied systematically and scientifically and various laws and rules are to be applied to everyday work to find the one best way to do that job. Taylor studied each and every movement of the worker with a stop watch and removed all the unnecessary movements and found out the minimum time required for each job. This not only helped reduce time but also slow movement and fatigue of workers thus increasing efficiency and production leading to great profits for the organisation.
e) Work as an individual activity: Taylor never advocated group work/activity. He asserted that people were only motivated by personal ambition and tends to lose his individuality/individual drive in a group setting. He stated that workers should have no verbal interaction as it leads to undue personal pressures.
f) Development of management thinking: He viewed scientific management as a medium to develop management as a science. It means that specific laws and rules could be derived for management studies and practices and those laws relate specifically to wage rates and way of doing work to increase the rate of production. Taylor advocated the use of standardized tools and equipment as well as methods.
g) Standardisation of tools: Taylor himself developed and invented many standardized tools to increase production and efficiency and those after a successful stint became the benchmark to be used for those particular jobs.One of his most famous studies involved shovels. He noticed that workers used the same shovel for all materials. He determined that the most effective load was 21½ lb, and found or designed shovels that for each material would scoop up that amount. Taylor was able to convince workers who used shovels and whose compensation was tied to how much they produced to adopt his advice about the optimum way to shovel by breaking the movements down into their component elements and recommending better ways to perform these movements. This led to huge increase in efficiency and production.
h) Task prescription: It means that a worker should get a clear prescription and description of what task is to be done by them in clear language and instructions that is understandable by him/her by the management through proper planning.
i) Trade unions: Taylor was against trade unions or group activity as mentioned earlier as he believed that it was unnecessary since the goal of the workers and managemnt was the same. As scientific management would make everything crystal clear for everybody in the organisation ridding it of any conflict and with fair wages there is no need for trade unions.
j) Incentive scheme: Taylor suggested a piece work rate incentive for workers. That means if a worker achieves a greater output than the target assigned to him he/she would then receive a bonus payment for each piece extra. And the bonus should be generous and consistent to encourage the workers to produce more.
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT MOVEMENT:
Taylor pointed out that 'management was a true science resting upon clearly fixed laws,rules and principles as a foundation'. He asserted that management comprised a number of principles that could be applicable in all types of organisations be it a home,a farm,a business,church,universities or governmental departments and charity organisations. Taylor became extremely popular and his books - A Piece rate system ( 1885),Shop management (1903),The art of cutting metals(1906) and The Principles of Scientific management (1911) sold like hot cakes and schools of business started giving courses in these areas. Popular scholars took great interest in this area and published many articles and books. Taylor's followers were called to serve as advisors in hundreds of companies. Taylor in 1905 was called to deliver a seminar in the House Of Lords committee regarding his theory,that much was his impact.
Soon,Scientific management became a movement as it resolved many industrial problems through its objective principles and had tremendous effect on industrial practises in the US spreading to Germany,England,France,Sweden and other European countries. It became an International movement soon. Russia was its greatest success after the Bolshevik revolution where Lenin was all up for his theory to be implemented there and propagated it vigorously.
1) Considered as pro capitalist,i.e. only favoring the rich and ruling class society and not the workers.
2) Trade unions criticised it as a theory to destroy collective bargaining with the ruling class by the workers for their benefits.
3) Very mechanical and thought of workers as nothing more than mere cogs in a wheel. Not humanistic as it only concerned itself with efficiency and production and managerial problems not the psychological and emotional problems of workers like the routine and monotony of their work and uncertainty of employment,etc. Humanistic approach scholars advocated that workers also needed justice and status as well as opportunities and not just a rise in wages.
4) managers also opposed Taylor as they felt he was putting unnecessary burden on them and equating them with workers through his principles of equal division of work and responsibility and training for managers.
5) His opposers stated that he made the workers nothing more than robots who were dependent only on orders of management and were not to use their own heads from the experience and skills they had and doing the job physically he knew much more than management.
6) They opposed his idea of functional foremanship by saying that the worker would fail as he would not be able to please so many supervisors everytime.
7) Psychologists stated that simply following rules makes workers depersonalised and they would develop a dislike to their work and this would lead to robotising of workers with no ideas of their own.
RELEVANCE OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONCLUSION:
Even though it drew a lot of criticism, the significance of this theory can never be underestimated as it is the one that gave rise to the growth of management science and the theories that followed. Taylor was not totally against human relations as one can see he mentioned in one of his basic principles that there should be a ' mutual collaboration of workers and management'(read it in detail above) and many more. It helped managements in many organisations overcome worker issues in the US successfully and for the long term.That us why his ideas spread to all parts of the world and also to socialist countries like Russia. And it is also being followed in India even now. This shows its importance and relevance to organisations irrespective of the nature of economy.
Taylor's theory brought a practical solution to the enormous problems of complex and growing organisations in the Industrial revolution peak and also lead to alleviate many problems of workers as well as management and also the issues between the both.
CLASSICAL THEORY :
The Classical Theory Approach is also known as the Administrative Management approach and Structural theory approach as it deals with advocating management/business practices and formal organisation's structure. Its important proponents are Henri Fayol,Luther Gulick,L.F. Urwick,J.D Mooney,A.C. Reilly,M.P. Follett and R. Shelton.Each of them provided their own principles and improvised on each others works but belonged to the same school of thought and thus differed very slightly.
This approach was mainly concerned about developing certain universal principles of organisation since it believed that there were certain fundamental principles on the basis of which an organisation can be established to achieve its specific objectives leading to maximum organisational efficiency and economy. This appraoch treats an organisation as uninfluenced by outside influences like society and personal problems etc, that's why it is also termed as 'closed organisation theory' and ' Mechanical organisation theory'. It didn't take much to the human factor and importance of motivation. As Taylor was concerned with workers and emphasised on floor activities,this approach focuses more on the top management instead of workers.
Henri Fayol is regarded as the founder of this managerial approach that stressed on a structure of an organisation whose management worked by being guided by universally and scientifically valid principles of management to get the most out of the workers and achieve the organisation's objectives. Fayol was a reputed businessman who started off as an Engineer in a mining company and rose to take over it when it was officially on the verge of bankruptcy but his style and method of administration there pulled it out of despair and made it the most successful company of its times. Thus, he penned down his practices after being requested by many in book called " General and Industrial management" and later he also contributed to the theory of Public administration in his book " The theory of Administration in the State".
Fayol stated that there were six groups of work that every organisation's activities consisted of - technical functions,commercial functions,financial functions,security functions,accounting and administrative functions. And managerial functions according to him consisted of - planning,organising,commanding,co-ordinating and controlling.
Fayol's fourteen principles of organisation were his major contribution to the field of administration. The principles were:
1) Division of work - Work should be divided equally.
2) Authority - Authority should be invested in a position so that it can carry out its responsibilities attached to it.
3) Discipline - Discipline has to be maintained all the time.
4) Scalar Chain - Hierarchy is to be clearly outlined so that there is no confusion from top to bottom and vice versa.
5) Unity of Command - One supervisor for one worker.
6) Centralization and Decentralization - All important decisions to be taken at the top and routine tasks to be disseminated at lower management level.
7) Unity of direction - The system of communication is to be in one direction that is top to bottom.
8) Subordination of individual interest to general interest - Workers are to think of organisational good first before themselves individually.
9) Remuneration - Proper & consistent remuneration to be provided so that no one is dissatisfied
10) Order - Order to be maintained at all times.
11) Equity - Justice is to be prevailed at all costs and all are to be treated fairly and equally.
12) Stability of tenure - A stable tenure for security of job and peace of mind of worker so that he is content to do his job.
13) Initiative - All initiatives that contribute to the good of the organisation are to be encouraged and considered.
14) Esprit de corps - A feeling of team work,loyalty and integrity between employees towards themselves and the organisation as a whole at all times and all means to be employed to promote the same.
Though these principles are ambiguous and limited in nature,it provided the basis for the development of principles of administration by later thinkers.
Gullick & Urwick,both had rich experience working in the civil services and military as well as industrial organisations thus in their writings you can sense a combination of both public and business administration.Gullick also contributed on the basis of his analysis certain principles of organisation as Fayol"
1) Division of work on specialisation
2) Based on departmental organisation - Work to be divided into smaller units for more efficiency called departments of the organisation.
3) Coordination through hierarchy - Clearly outlined hierarchy helps in avoiding confusions and facilitating coordination among workers.
4) Coordination through committers
6) Deliberate coordination - Coordination achieved deliberately through planning.
8) unity of command
9) Line and Staff - Line agencies are field work agencies who will be supported by staff agencies who are specialists in the field.
10) Span of control - Each supervisor to control a certain amount of employees performing the same task or similar tasks. Number of employees not mentioned,depends from organisation to organisation and tasks.
And of course who can forget how he summed these all up in his famous abbreviation of POSDCORB i.e. Planning( What needs to be done and how it will be done),Organisation(establishing a formal structure of authority to divide,arrange,define and coordinate work),Staffing(Recruiting and training of personnel and their conditions of work),Directing( making decisions and issuing orders and instructions),Coordinating( interrelating various divisions and parts of the organisation for smooth execution of tasks to achieve organisation objectives) ,Reporting( informing the agency to whom executive is responsible about what is going on) and Budgeting(fixed planning,control and accounting and auditing).
Urwick had his own set of principles,though not much apart from his colleagues of the same school. They are:
1) Scalar principle
2) Principle of Coordination
3) Principle of organisational goals and objectives
4) Principle of Span of control
5) Principle of correspondence
6) Principle of specialisation
7) Principle of responsibility
8) Principle of definition
Mooney and Reiley's principles:
1) Coordinative principle
2) Scalar principle
3) Functional principle
4) Staff/line principle
All these principles or guiding rules are supposed to help managers manage their organisations in the best possible manner and increase efficiency and economy.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION:
Lets discuss some of the important principles listed above in detail.
The theory of departmentalisation ( by Gullick):
He advocated that work in an organisation can be divided and given to newly created departments for the same. Now the basis on which departments are created are:
1) Function or purpose: For a major function or purpose of the organisation departments are created, for example - to regulate trade and commerce in the country there is a department of commerce. To look after the welfare of people there is a department called Welfare department. Universally,this principle is applied mostly in governmental organisations. A department is a part of the government. There can be departments under ministries or autonomous departments like the Department of Atomic Energy that is not under any ministry but under the prime minister himself.
Advantages of departments are that it ensures better discipline and eliminates time wastage and energy,they are self contained and low coordination costs are involved in running them. they are much more successful in attaining goals. However its disadvantages are failure to use updated technology,lack of possibility of work division and not enough specialists for guidance.
2) Departments made on the basis of Process or Skills: It means that a department is created for a specialised technique to be applied for a particular job like engineering,accounting,stenography,legal advice,etc. Thus there are Department of Law,Department of Engineering,Department of account and auditing etc. advantages are that these departments are up to date with technical skills and specialisation. Is uniform and coordinates all engineering services under one department. Disadvantages are that it is very mechanical and creates interdepartmental conflicts and is not much concerned with welfare. Further failure of one department effects the whole enterprise.
3) Departmentalisation on the basis of Persons or Clientele: For example, the 'old age department' serves the old people needing special attention. disadvantages of this kind of department is that coordination becomes difficult on account of overlapping and duplication many a times.
4) Departmentalisation on the basis of Place or Territory: Examples are 'District administration department' or 'tribal area department' where functions performed in a particular area are clubbed together and one department is formed. it helps in intensive development of an area. But such department can suffer from lack of functional specialisation and growth many a times.
Some departments can be seen overlapping each other too like the Department of medicine can also be considered as a process based department as it involves skills and can also be considered as purpose based department as there is a purpose behind its existence and that is standardisation of medicine and its development. Therefore one has to be careful in segregating them and their workings.
CRITICISM OF CLASSICAL THEORY:
It is criticised as neither empirically valid nor universally applicable as claimed by its principles. Herbert Simon has criticised the principles as nothing more than proverbs that are general statements with no practicality. And they contradict each other at many times like one principle says Unity of command and the very next one suggests span of control,etc.
It is criticised as pro management biased and over emphasises on formal structure neglecting organisational dynamics and variables like workers' stress and emotions,etc and societal influences on the same. Human beings are considered insignificant in administrative processes.
RELEVANCE OF CLASSICAL APPROACH:
In spite of the criticisms, lets not forget that this theory and its principles,many of them still hold their ground even today. Like division of labour,coordination and delegation which are practised in organisations and governments even today. Organisations cannot function without many of these principles. A lot of these principles have been tweaked by modern thinkers and used in organisations today but lets not forget the base was provided by the classical theorists only. No principles have been able to replace them and they are taught in many universities and colleges today. It helped the later theories of administration germinate. It put the idea of a formal structure of an organisation in the heads of scholars and helped develop a proper and rational blueprint of an organisation and the relationships within.
WEBER's BUREAUCRATIC MODEL:
Max Weber was a German sociologist who is credited with laying down the first proper theory of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy was first coined by a French economist Vincent DeGourney in 1745 which literally means 'desk rule'. Weber is considered as one of the most important thinkers and contributors to administrative theory as his model of bureaucracy brought along a paradigm shift in the field.
Bureaucracy refers to a hierarchical organisation in which functions and powers are divided as per formal rules and regulations. Weber states that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organisation and is purely official and rational.His theory was a response to the questions posed by the Industrial capitalist economy that required an efficient administration for their functions.Though bureaucracy was in practice since 186 century b.c through the mode of public exams for recruitment Weber was the first to attempt the systematic understanding of Bureaucracy.
Weber stressed that Bureaucracy was legitimate authority. And according to him the components of authority are:
1) An individual or a body of individuals who rule.
2) An individual or a body of individuals who are ruled
3) The will of the rulers to influence conduct of the ruled
4) Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of the objective degree of command and
5) Direct or indirect evidence of that influence in terms of subjective acceptance with which the rule obeyed the command.
All these parts are to be in perfect tandem to each other if the authority is to be considered legitimate and successful.
Weber also categorised people in organisation and how they behave:
1) Those who are accustomed to obey commands
2) Those who are personally interested in seeking the existing domination continue
3) Those who participate in that domination
4) Those who hold themselves in readiness for the exercise of functions.
After discussing the various parts that make up authority and make it seem legitimate to be followed above, Weber has gone on to classify Authority in its various ideal/pure forms which is based on its claim to legitimacy and how the above mentioned components/parts of authority remain the same but adapt and work in tandem under different forms of authority. He starts from the type of authority in ancient times to medieval times and the modern times.
TYPES OF AUTHORITY - WEBER:
1) Charismatic Authority: It is based on following a leader who has personal charismatic qualities that attract people. In this type of authority society no legal rules govern administration. Followers obey the leader's orders primarily because they perceive him as having super-human qualities.
2) Traditional Authority: It depends on the acceptance of the sanctity of immemorial trdition and it is the most universal and primitive type of authority structure. Its administrative staff may consist of two patterns: patrimonial and feudal. in the patrimonial patten the officials of administration are personal servants of the ruler and they owe him traditional loyalty. in the second one that is feudal pattern the officials have greater autonomy with their own sources of income but even they owe the ruler traditional loyalty. Nepotism is rampant.
3) Legal-Rational Authority: Here,the bureaucracy forms the core of the administrative system. It is called 'rational' because in it the means are clearly designed to achieve certain specific ends. It is called 'legal' because authority is exercised by means of system of rules and procedures that are already established before hand. This is what is being practiced in the modern society today in government organisations and bureaucracy and Weber considered it the most sensible and efficient form of authority.
MAX WEBER's ELEMENTS/BASICS OF BUREAUCRACY:
Max Weber listed out some basic features of bureaucracy ,especially the Legal Rational Type.They are:
1) Impersonal order - Officials remain unattached and are only concerned with their job without becoming personally involved.
2)Rules - Officials are bound by rules and these rules regulate the office conduct. Rules become more important at times than the goal of theo rganisation leading to red tapism.
3)Sphere Of competence - It involves circle of obligation to perform functions which is systematic division of labour/work.
4)Hierarchy - There is a hierarchy system and the lower ones are working under the upper management.
5) Separation of personal and public ends - Officials cannot use their official position for personal gains.
6)Written documents - All actions are recorded in writing to make the administration accountable to people and provide for future a ready reference as and when asked for.
7)Monocratic type - Certain functions performed by bureaucracy cannot be performed by others.
8) Selection by merit
9) Fixed remuneration of officials.
10) The official is subject to discipline and control while performing tasks.
11) Office remains forever,officials change. office is important not the person occupying it.
12) Required position and authority is allocated to a designation so that its incumbent can discharge his duties smoothly and people follow his orders.
13) Allocation of activities of the organisation needed to fulfil its goals.
LIMITS ON BUREAUCRACY:
Max Weber has also suggested ways to curb bureaucracy from becoming a giant and arbitrary power. Those are:
1) Collegiality - A group of people to be considered before taking any major decision and only on securing majority can it be implemented. Its disadvantages are that at times it is misused and speed of decison and responsibilities are held back.
2) Separation of powers: Like at first the CAG had responsibility of both accounting and audit that made him a monopoly and transparency as well as efficiency was subverted. thus, accounting was given to another body and now CAG only performs Auditing function. thus, both the bodies keep a check on each other and the government collectively.
3) Amateur administration: From time to time amateurs should be taken in.
4) Direct Democracy: Office of the bureaucracy is permanent and guided by the legislative assembly and also answerable to them directly instead of the minister in charge being accountable to Lok Sabha for his ministry's bureaucrats.
5) Representation: In the democratic form of govt. the authority of the state/bureaucracy will be elected by representative of the people.
1) Unresponsive to popular demand and desires.
2) Red tape or over formalism - Officials only following rules all the time and so files take longer to travel from desk to desk.
3) Bureaucracy is self perpetuating - Increase of staff but no increase in work thus leading to tax payer paying more money for nothing.
4) Self aggrandisement : Ministers are responsible in a democracy for their bureaucracy's functioning in their ministry.
5) Departmentalism or empire building: Bureaucracy encourages the evil work of govt into a number of isolated and self dependent sections each pursuing its own needs without any adequate correlation with the rest.
6) Bureaucracy loves tradition and stands for conservatism: Develops an negative psychology that breeds non-transparency and stoppage to information.
RELEVANCE OF WEBER's BUREAUCRACY:
His ideas in spite of criticism are followed religiously in govt. and private organisations till date like selection of officers based on merit and utility of written documents,hierarchy,etc. Bureaucracy has stood the test of time and irrespective of time and place and whether socialist or capitalist one will find bureaucracy everywhere. It cannot be possible to perform some of the functions of the welfare state and development programmes without bureaucracy and people look to bureaucracy for their day-to-day requirements.
Max Weber studied the various factors and the condition that contributed to the growth of bureaucracy in ancient as well as modern times,i.e the development of modern large scale organisations and technology and the capitalist system. His theory has helped develop a structure of bureaucracy and also infuse professionalism into it in modern times. Bureaucracy as stated by Weber was more capable of operating with greater efficiency and rationality if timely reforms are incorporated from time to time as per the time and situation to make it more relevant to the present day.
CRITIQUE OF WEBER's THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY:
Many renowned scholars critique bureaucracy in totality by calling it bungling,arbitrary,wasteful,rigidness and mechanical,inhuman and soulless and despotic.
Gouldner,a scholar who tested Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy over many decades found internal contradictions that reflected tensions between claims of expertise and obedience based on discipline and called Weber's theory as a machine theory.
Presthus also pointed out the Weberian model as a product of alien culture which is fairly inadequate for imposition in developing societies.
Scholars stated that Weber's theory of bureaucracy was suited for developed nations as there was uniformity there and less welfare work but not for developing countries as a lot of issues brought up in these countries everyday needs human and new approach.
Weber's over emphasis on rules and precision seems to be self defeating as the officials will be caught up in these only and not be bothered about their customers that is the people.
Talcott Parsons state that there will always be conflict with subordination and hierarchy as the person issuing orders might not have the professional skill for the job of juniors that he is supervising and this will give rise to conflicts thus rigidity should be replaced with flexibility art times to solve this.
Plus, Weber's bureaucratic model is said to be lacking the consideration that people running administration come from different backgrounds and have different cultures and might not view every action and decision the same way as a robot as compared to to others.
Karl Marx considered bureaucracy as an arm and agent of the state and the ruling class or bourgeois and was exploitative in its nature. However,he could not suggest any reforms or alternative to a bureaucratic structure and could not get rid of it either.
Thus, Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy does stand strong till today with timely reforms as it is yet to find a successor or a more viable alternative.
POST WEBERIAN DEVELOPMENTS:
The post-Weberian development view has emphasised on decentralisation and bottom up approach. It advocates not a rigid model of administration instead it aims at an administration which is responsive,responsible,accountable,transparent and result oriented and technology savvy. Monocratic type of organisation of Weber has changed to a public - private partnership corporation and there is more shift to privatisation with the govt playing the role of a facilitator in this time of liberalisation,privatisation and globalisation.
DYNAMIC ADMINISTRATION ( MARY PARKER FOLLETT) :
Mary Parker Follett a contemporary management theorist contributed to the development of management though which differed from other writers of her period. She figured in between the classical theorists and the human relations and behaviourist theorists.
To her organisation was a social system and psychological and sociological aspects were given prominence in her writings. According to her conflicts in an organisation were inevitable and conflicts are neither good nor bad. Rather it provides opportunities for good and bad results. She advised managers to use conflict in a constructive manner by suggesting three ways to do the same. These are:
1) Domination to resolve a conflict- Here only one party wins which is the stronger one. The weaker party remains disgruntled and this will lead to very ugly consequences later. therefore this should be avoided.
2) Compromise - Where no party benefits but settle mutually for the time being. But this sort of resolution is only a short term one and the conflicts keep building up internally and become more dangerous when it shows its face again and then it might become out of hand to even try to settle it. This method also she did not suggest much.
3) Integration to resolve a conflict - Follett considers this technique to be the best. As under this method there is a feeling of win-win equation & both conflicting groups see their issues addressed. And this is long term solution.
THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION(in detail):
This process unfolds in three steps:
1) Surfacing of conflict or identification of existing issue.
2) Analysis of the conflict and development of a solution - A solution should be such that it no way leaves any room for the conflict resurfacing or a new conflict arising and it should benefit all and a circular response should be evoked where every member gets to vent out his feelings so that he feels heard.
3) Anticipation of results.
HINDRANCES TO THE SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION:
1) It requires high degree of knowledge and analysis.
2) It requires high order of creativity and innovation
4) It may require more resources.
4) Superiors may have the tendency to continue domination.
5) True integration may not be achieved as groups may not agree to substitution.
6) Rushing to the application of scheme may create problems as its proper comprehension may require time.
7) Groups may feel inadequately represented but may not show at that particular time when integration is seemed to be achieved.
FOLLET's DEPERSONALISING OF ORDERS:
Follet stated that human beings by nature do not like to be dictated and do not like following orders therefore she called for depersonalisation of orders which as per Follet is that situations should give out orders and not people and see how people readily follow it because they feel a sense of control along with a sense of urgency. As per Follett - Orders shall come from action and not actions from orders.
FOLLETT ON AUTHORITY:
As per Follett Authority is the right given to exercise power and resources could be directed/managed in regard to some work completion. She say authority and right is embedded in the work to be done and not in the position or person. Authority travels in the direction that the work is travelling.
She rejects the notion of delegation of authority stating that it is as a myth which is created by superiors to elevate themselves and according to her wherever work is to be carried out,authority as the vested right in work shall be and go there.
FOLLETT ON CONTROL AND POWER:
Folett feels that power is the phenomena through which groups are seen directed by few people to discharge some functions. She favours the concept of 'power with' instead of 'power over' and said that people should work together rather than dominating.Control as per Follet should be based on facts and not on some rule based structure as people will overthrow that soon.
LEADERSHIP AS PER FOLLETT:
Follet advocates leadership as highly significant phenomenon that should be vested on a person who has the right knowledge,understanding and ability in a particular situation to direct a group. Leadership as per her is situational. Each situation if same can have the same leader but where there is a different situation then a new leader should take over who has the capacity and knowledge for the same. this would benefit the entire group. She states that a leader needs to communicate well and motivate his group regularly. Follett also states that as per her analysis organizations that have followed a flexible leadership have flourished whereas the ones that have stuck to hierarchical leadership have gone unsuccessful and unstable.
CO-ORDINATION AS PER FOLLETT:
Follett calls it a harmonious ordering of affairs and has suggested 4 dimensions trough which co-ordination could be seen achieved in organizations:
1) Co-ordination by direct contact that seniors shall maintain and will be flexible and not hierarchical.
2) Co-ordination as a reciprocal relationship of all factor that is all nodes and their functions shall be related with each other.
3) Co-ordination in early stages that is involving those who could be seen concerned right from the beginning when policy goals were being finalised.
4) Co-ordination as a continuous process that is, efforts in regards to co ordination shall be manged through out and timely.
STATE AND DEMOCRACY AS PER FOLLETT:
Follett mentions that the State is the highest order of realisation of any social group and that individuals find fulfilment of their goals and objectives in groups only. She supported democracy as a foundation of a true state as people will be allowed to vocalise their feelings,opinions and reservations freely in such an order.
Purpose of law of a state as per follett is to ensure groups achieve their fulfilment without making anybody compromise on any count.
She also asserted that participation of people should not be limited to the ballot box only but continuously throughout the decision making processes as groups can lead the larger state with their democratic soul in the right direction.
CRITICISM OF FOLLETT:
She is criticised as an Idealist. The thread of consistency and continuity is absent in her thought and though her ideas can be plucked from here and there and mixed with other thinker's ideas in order to implement,they cannot be implemented in totality as it would lead to chaos. She has also been criticised for pursuing collectivism(in her theories of co-ordination and State) and individualism( in her theory of conflict & leadership) at the same time without providing specific dimensional definitions in their regards.
HUMAN RELATIONS SCHOOL(ELTON MAYO AND OTHERS):
The Human Relations Approach was the starting point of the human revolution in administrative and organizational theory since the previous theories only concentrated the formal structure and technical aspects of organization and ignored the human aspect of it. This theory focuses on human beings,their psychological motivations and informal group behaviour and looked at management as not being secluded but a web of interpersonal relationships. The scholars from the human relations school advocated that human relations was the heart of the task of management as the latter involves working with a group and collective endeavour of people. Thus, viewing the individual in an organisation as socio-psychological being and taking care of motivating him/her should be the priority for a long term benefit of both.
This theory resulted from the conducting of the Hawthorne experiments at the Western Electric Company by the pioneer of this school of thought Sir Elton Mayo and his colleagues of the Harvard Business School in USA in the late 1920's & early 30's and the growing unrest due to the mechanisation of work forces due to the outgrowth of Scientific management and classical approaches implementations.
Mayo started off with his first experiment also called ' the first enquiry' when he was called to analyse the issue of a successful textile mill in Philadelphia facing a high general turnover of labour(attrition/labour leaving after a short period work and joining elsewhere) in the mule spinning department even though everything was being provided to them. Mayo introduced incentives to them but that id not solve the problem,so the problem was not economic. After great analysis Mayo tinkered with the rest periods of the workers and found out that when they were given adequate rest the workers felt motivated and subsequently labour turnover came down and kept decreasing and production increasing. Thus their morale was also boosted and to keep this going Mayo suggested to the management to introduce a scheme of bonus proportionate to their extra production(incentive scheme). This issue was resolved and Mayo found his answers that if there is proper ventilation,lighting,improvement in working conditions and wage incentive scheme as well as adequate rest is provided to workers they will produce more.
So,taking this into account, George Pennock of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science decided to test the above hypothesis of Elton Mayo at the Western Electric Company in Hawthorne,USA. He divided people equally into two groups, one was to be the test group(that were the experiment testing group) and the other the control group( where normal way of working was carrying on) carrying out the task of electrical equipment production and this was to test the relationship between level of illumination and its effect of production. The test group illumination was changed periodically and the control group remained constant,as time passed on it was found that irrespective of the illumination both of the groups increased their level of production.The researchers were confused and so abandoned this and went on to test wage payments,rest period ,etc and found that even though irrespective of the above changes both the groups produced more and more than before. This puzzled them even more and they withdrew all changes and came back to square one. This resulted in low production again but gradually it kept increasing. In the end it was concluded that probably the workers were aware that they were being watched and so they got conscious and wanted to keep their jobs and so worked harder and harder till the experiment went on.
To explain the failure of this Illumination project,the team suggested two hypothesis(an idea or explanation based on known facts but has yet not been proved):
1) Individual wage payment incentive had stimulated increase in the output.
2)The changes in supervisory techniques had improved the attitudes of workers and output.
Now Mayo was called in to test the two hypothesis and find out the root cause and end the uncertainty. Thus Mayo set up the Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment(1927) where again two groups were formed (test and control) of 6 girls each and they were put on an individual incentive plan. No major change in output over 2 years of analysis and thus the first hypothesis was rejected.
Now to test the second hypothesis Mayo called for a relaxed atmosphere in the test group and as a result production increased as workers felt they were being cared for instead of being treated as machines and their efforts were of help. Fellow workers and supervisors were asked to interact freely with each other. It established that work satisfaction depended on informal social pattern of the working group.Thus the link between supervision,morale and productivity was establilished and the second hypothesis was proven right.
The next experiment of Mayo and his team was on the human attitudes and sentiments( 1928-31)where over 20.000 workers were given an opportunity to vent out their feelings regarding anything about the organisation and management or his job or co-workers. It was found that :
a) Workers appreciated this and got a feeling of being equal status with the management.
b) Supervisors changed their attitudes as they felt that they were being scrutinised by the team and subordinates were having a free say about their methods.
This proved that the behaviour of workers cannot be seperated from their feelings and sentiments which are products of the individual's personal history.
The last experiment 1931-32 in the same company was to test the hypothesis of organisation as a social being/Social organisation meaning that organisation is not cut off from society and external conditions influenced its internal workings since and organisation is run by human beings. Three groups whose work was inter-linked were chosen for this experiment also called 'The Bank Wiring Experiment'. Here wages were given on the basis of group incentive plan where each individual got his incentive only if the group in totality achieved its target. Mayo found out here that the groups worked together but underperformed deliberately and remained at the same level always and followed a code of conduct amongst themselves,that was:
1) One should not maintain social distance and if one is an inspector he should not behave like one.
2)One should not turn out too much worker else he would be called a 'rate buster'
3) One should not turn out too little work else he will be called a ' chesler'.
4) One should not tell a supervisor anything negative about a associate else he would be called a ' squealer'.
This behaviour he contributed to the following reasons - workers viewed these researches as disturbances and had no connection with the management on general economic conditions of the plant,and thought that these researches were focussing too much on group activity and so they had to be well behaved,they felt a threat to their job security if they did too much work then they would be surplus and they would not be required.They felt that management represented authority and were trying to discipline them and so they decided amongst themselves not to follow their orders to the cue.
Thus, Mayo and his team deduced the following conclusions from all the studies that:
1) Authority should be based on social skills rather than expertise to secure co-ordination.
2) One should not neglect the human aspect of organisation while emphasising the technical and economic aspects of the same.
3) Social and human life were equally important in an organisation. And these experiments brought out a new style of managerial skills where apart from technical skills the management should handle human situations,motivate,lead,and communicate regularly with workers.
Mayo's Hawthorne experiments and the Human relations movement helped sort out a lot of absenteeism in industries during the second world war especially in the USA.
This approach called for a system of rewards and sanctions or the ' carrot and stick ' procedure where good work is rewarded and sanctions(orders) are passed against erring employees and humanistic view of organisation. It weaved together the concept of emergence of an informal organisation within a formal organisation and how they both influence each other and are interdependent.
1)Its overemphasis on human relations and neglecting that use of formal structure of organisation,technology and conflicts influencing behaviour of workers.
2) Very utopian and not practical as purely conflict free organisations are not found.
3) Too much stress on informalism and underestimating the need of formalism at many times.
4) Mayo covered unscientific research as his findings were based on very small groups and not did not deal with entire organisation and upper management etc.
5) It is criticised for only talking about inter relationships in an organisation and how workers carry out their jobs in the organisation without talking of the outside environment/society and family and how it affects the workers.
Even though its criticism it is regarded as a major development in administrative theory till date and you will find his techniques being used in all organisations like rewards and orders,parties and celebrations,group outings and appraisals to boost morale and motivation.
FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE ( CHESTER I. BARNARD):
Barnard is considered as a highly influential contributer and thinker to the field of administrative and organisational analysis and theory. He developed his analysis based on his own practical experiences while working at various levels in companies. He was a humanist(human relations school) as well as Behaviourist(theory of study of human mind based on people's actions and behaviour not on what they say that they think or feel). His work ' Functions of the Executive' was a marvel in the field of administrative science.
He advocated through his theory that:
1) Man alone is incapable of fulfilling his needs as he is limited by various factors like physiological,geographical and psychological and so he joins a group to attain the same.
2) Organisations are cooperative social systems where members join for achievement of goals and objectives which may not be possible individually and all these working together help achieve the organisational goals and objectives in totality as well.
3) For formation of a group entity three conditions are to be fulfilled which are: a common purpose ( co-operative that is to keep the group together as well as subjective which is personal goals of the individual members) of the group,willingness by each member to contribute to the same and the ability to clearly communicate with each other.
4) A member will continue contributing to the group until he is suitably rewarded and satisfied. These inducements can be monetary or social status or place of choice for work or general like being valued/cared for.
BARNARD ON AUTHORITY:
Barnard stated that authority did not lie with a position or a person rather it lay with the ' Zone of acceptance or indifference ' of the subordinate who is receiving it. A subordinate will comply to an order if it falls within this zone,if not he will reject it. So, the management should try inducements and sanctions and counselling as well as clear communication from time to time to expand this zone so that more and more orders are received by the subordinate without any issues. There are four premises on the basis of which a subordinate is seen making a decision of accepting or rejecting a communication/order from above:
1) Communication shall be understood by the subordinate.
2) It shall be compatible with the goals and objectives of the organisation.
3) It shall be consistent with the personal objectives and goals of the subordinate.
4) Physical and mental ability of the subordinate to comply with the communication.
Barnard has also stated that authority as described in traditional theories is nothing but a myth as people in an organisation have their own reasons for following orders like they are scared of losing facilities and rewards etc as compared to other members,people shy away from responsibilities and so prefer following orders,people fear organised retaliation from the side of organisation as questioning an order of superior may be taken as a rebellion against organisation.
He was in favour of informal organisation existing within a formal organisation and stated that both are inseparable and that both should be nurtured as the success of one depended on the other. Formal structure stifles human beings and the informal structure helps them let off steam and return rejuvenated.
Barnard also laid a lot of emphasis on clear and formal as well as informal channels of communication as it was the life of a smooth functioning organisation. Each worker if he knew clearly what was the objective of the organisation and the role he has to play and how he has to play in achieving the same then there would never be any confusions or conflicts. Formal communication will help in work oriented issues and the informal channels bring forth to the management human issues like feelings,values,requests etc that would usually not come forward through the formal channel and this would help in improving the morale and motivation of employees majorly.
BARNARD ON FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE:
According to Barnard there are 3 major functions which a chief of an organisation should discharge in his official capacity:
1) To establish a system of communication- through a proper and fixed organisational structure,personnel management scheme and maintaining informal communication arrangement).
2) To promote the acquisition of efforts through proper incentive schemes,training and education as well as correct outlook.
3) To define organisational purposes that allow free and direct communication from up and down both and are to stabilise the organisational activities and benefit the workers personally as well to achieve the overall organisational objectives.
BARNARD ON LEADERSHIP:
He defined leadership as the power to inspire co-operative personal decisions among workers by creating faith in an organised way. % qualities of leadership as per Barnard are:
1) Vitality and endurance
2) Decisiveness - Decision making
3) Persuasiveness - Promising
5) Intellectual capacity - thinking factor of unseen consequences and how to deal with it organisedly.
Lacks practicality as he has not given practical examples. Not descriptive mostly prescriptive regarding formulation of purpose principle.
Barnard's theory is still very relevant as he was the first to pioneer a bridge between human relations and behaviourism and he led the behaviourists on their analysis. His concept of 'zone of acceptance/indifference of a worker' as well as clear communication whether formal or informal is still followed even today.
SIMON's DECISION MAKING THEORY:
Herbert Simon is also a great contributor of administrative theory and is regarded as the first Behaviourist . The human relations were considered as the first Behaviourists but it was not fully developed and it was not recognised as such. According to Simon administration/management requires an enquiry into how decisions are made and tasks performed and was the essential process of organisational action. In his book 'Administrative Behaviour' he argued that ' making a decision is really making a choice between alternative courses of action or even between action and non-action'. His theory has directed the scholars to study the importance of decisions and how they are made.
He states that there can never be a 'one best course of action or decision' as stated by Classical Theorists as in reality an administrator can never have all the complete information and knowledge to do so and there will always be a better course of action which he is not aware of. And so he takes a decisions based on principles of bounded rationality or limitations of human capacity in solving complex problems. Such limitations arise from internal or psychological facts of stress or motivations on one hand or external,environmental factors on the other hand. And thus, the decision taken by an administrative man is 'satisficing' that is satisfying and sufficing rather than maximising for the situation and 'best choice' as per his knowledge.
STAGES IN DECISION MAKING:
a) Intelligence Activity Stage: This stage identifies the problems of an organisation and the head of the organisation has to analyse and understand the organisational environment to proceed to a resolution.
b) Design Activity Stage: After problem identification,the organisation head starts to look for various suitable courses or strategies or alternatives and identifies the merits and demerits of each.
c) Choice Activity Stage: Once alternatives have been developed, the administration begins the choice activity stage. It critically evaluates the different consequences of all alternatives available and a decision is taken after examining the abovementioned alternatives' merits and demerits and the most suitable course of action is selected. This stage requires skills such as judgement,creativity,quantitative analysis and experience in the decision making process.
VALUES AND FACTS IN DECISION MAKING - SIMON:
Simon opined that every decision comes with 2 components associated with it:
1) Value component: Refers to such preferences which decision maker may be seen pursuing as an ethical statement and which cant be evaluated as true or false.
2) Fact component: Refers to such verifiable premises where propositions can be tested to determine that whether they are true or false. Science as per Simon is concerned with facts and not values.
Choosing of correct and factual aspects is what Simon advocates. But decision making is always clouded with values. Simon opines that administrative man should avoid values in decision making as much as possible to find rationalism. However he did not completely rule out values and suggested that values can be incorporated in decisions relating to fixation of end goals while factual judgements shall be seen pre-dominant in the implementation of such goals.
PROGRAMMED AND NON-PROGRAMMED DECISION MAKING:
In regard to organisational decision making Simon identified two types of decision making:
1) Programmed decisions: Decisions having repetitive components and where pre established examples are present.
2) Non Programmed decisions: Non repetitive in nature and directed towards solving problems in new environments and new variables.
Simon advocated delegating to sub-units programmed decisions whereas non-programmed decisions should be retained with the upper level strategic management.
RATIONAL DECISION MAKING - SIMON:
Simon says that rationality in organisational decisions could be improved using the following tools:
1) Promoting high degree of specialisation.
2) Applying Scientific tools in the process of Decision Making.
3) Promoting operations on the basis of market mechanism.
4) Promoting knowledge of political institutions.
5) Creating a wider base of knowledge so that rationality could be improved in problem solving.
His distinction between facts and values has received a lot of criticism from socialists and welfare state specialists who emphasise on values being present in decisions taken for betterment of society.
His idea of efficiency is viewed by many as not comprehensive and adequate to explain the entire purpose of organisation.
He has been criticised for inadequacy in his conceptual framework where social setting/society and environment and its influences on the worker/administrator has been completely ignored and only decision making in an organisation is focused upon.
His contribution is unforgettable. He shifted focus to the human mind and its ways of decision making. He received the Nobel prize for his theory as it helped open up unanswered questions about organisational decision making issues and resolve many complex problems of modern day industries.
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT (RENSIS LIKERT,CHRIS ARGYRIS,D. McGREGOR):
Participative Management as a theory advocates the use of a democratic and participative process in decision making instead of imperative decision making taken at superior levels only. Subordinates are given equal stage as upper management in important decisions of the organisation to help them achieve self confidence and self respect and a feeling of belonging to the organisation as a whole. Thus leading to integrated and successful organisation environment and functioning.
Participative management consists of the following steps:
1) Involvement of subordinates in the Establishment of the overall objectives.
2) Active involvement of the subordinates during finalisation of goals for his node.
3) Sufficient discretion given to the subordinate in regards to the procedures to be applied for completing the assigned task.
Through this process of participative management one can see the coming together of both the psychological,social,economical as well as rational as well as organisational/official aspect of a worker with sufficient autonomy. Subordinates don't feel like they are being imposed with orders but are equally a part of those orders.It promotes equity.
Participative management can be seen in practice in panchayati Raj institutions.
Likert is an important theorist of organisation and is known for his famous works ' New patterns of management(1961)' and Human organisation-its management and values(1967)'
He studied organisational structures and considered them as interaction influence system where success is achieved if there is a reciprocal influence by many members,in simple words participation as a whole by all members.
His 4 systems of management were:
1) System 1 - Exploitative-Authoritative: Under this system Likert states there is rigid hierarchy and rules followed and superiors feel that talking down and directing their subordinates is the answer to all solutions as subordinates should only do what is prescribed to them as they lack the requisite knowledge. Strict punishments are given out in cases of non-compliance to superior orders and organisational rules.
2) System 2 - Benevolent-Authoritative: Superior is benevolent but takes all decisions and makes rules. However,at times he may selectively allow some inputs from subordinate nodes. Carrot and stick formula is used(please read above for definition). Some times harsh punishments may also be instituted and though communication is mostly downward on the hierarchy scale at some times it can be reversed as well.
3) System 3 - Consultative: Here though decisions are taken at the superior level only but substantial confidence is exhibited towards subordinates level. Superiors believe that a consultation with all employees working in the same function before taking an organisational decision to achieve set objectives always lead to good choices. Controls over subordinates are situational. Communication flows both ways that is top down and vice versa and motivation is substantial for workers. Rewards and participation are present along with occasional punishments as and when required.
4) System 4 - Participative: In this system a superior has complete confidence in his subordinates and communication flows in all directions in a free environment. Controls are self established as in subordinates have self control and take important decisions in the organisation with approval of superior who acts more of a Friend,philosopher and guide to subordinates and the principle of equity is ensured. Since subordinates are given such a free hand there is also a lot of responsibility on their heads as they voluntarily take up the task and so they have to be ready for the consequences no matter how worse they are. So this keeps them on their toes and they work as hard as possible to keep up their status and employment and self respect and self confidence thus leading to the best interests of them and the organisation.
Another important contributor to humanistic perspective of organisational/administrative theory.He criticised Classical theorists.He stated that the formal/closed organisation theory suggested by them only leads to the worker becoming frustrated and failure. He along with Right Bakke developed a fusion process theory of management and workers in which he had emphasised:
1) Socialising: Through this process individuals are made in to representatives of the organisation they work for.
2) Personalising: Through this mechanism organisational groups or facilities are used by employees for his self actualisation or achievement of his highest possible talent and potential.
He argued for managers to provide their subordinates with sufficient space and give them recognition for tasks well performed and help them progress and evolve. New initiatives should be encouraged and responsibility should be encouraged in members. An open and frank attitude towards ideas both from bottom & above should be emphasised.
He has been criticised for his over emphasis on human and interpersonal aspects because as per many scholars organisation is not for the welfare of individuals but for the organisation as a whole and the responsibility of the management is not to develop people but to develop the climate and opportunities for self development.
He is relevant as he has joined the area or increasing organisational health and conditions in order to improve interpersonal competence and for an environment of motivation by managers for self-realisation of workers as individuals.
McGregor in his argument has emphasised again on humanistic perspective and the involvement and participation in the organisational functioning in an organisation through his book 'Human Side Of Enterprise'. To explain the types of management styles existing in organisations he has given the following concepts:
1) Theory X of managers: It emphasises on structure,rules and procedures.
2) Theory Y of managers: Emphasise on human aspect. More successful approach in organising groups for productivity and efficiency as members experience high job satisfaction and for this reason perform commitedly.
Lets go into details of McGregor's Theories X and Y of managers in organisations.
Theory X following Managers:
Managers following this kind of approach feel that:
1) Workers have a natural dislike for work.
2)Workers do not like taking responsibility.
3) Workers do not like challenging tasks.
4) Workers work better in an environment of standardized rules and procedures.
5) Workers lack creativity and innovation.
6) Workers like to be directed/ordered and perform better when specific orders are directed at them.
7) For the motivation of workers carrot and stick arrangement can be used.
Theory Y following Managers:
Managers following this kind of approach feel that:
1) Workers show interest towards work when they have sufficient work assigned.
2) Workers take responsibilities when they are provided with opportunity for recognition.
3) Workers take up challenging tasks when superiors show trust in them.
4) Workers work better when they are allowed necessary discretion in regards to selection of procedure and methods while performing a task.
5) Workers can be creative and innovative where they are provided sufficient space for the same.
6) Workers perform better when their "self" is allowed to operate.
7) Workers are seen to be motivated when they are provided with opportunities for advancement,learning and recognition.
CONCLUSION OF ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED THEORIES TAKEN TOGETHER:
Keep in mind that all these theories are relevant even today and that's why they are being discussed and taught even today all around the world. Some concepts are taken from all theories and implemented as per the situation in organisations and governmental organisations. All of them have contributed majorly to how to deal with employees in an organisation in different situations. All theories were responses to each other and the questions and issues that kept cropping up in organisations from time to time,for which answers had to be delivered. Scientific management and classical theorists,Max Weber as well as Mary Parker Follett helped in developing a formal structure of organisation and streamlined each and every task as well as principles of management thus developing the theory of management and taking to a subject of study. Then, the Human relations and Behaviourists approach gave life to that formal structure and mechanical jobs by studying the human being working in it and running the organisation and the problems he faced and how managers are to deal with them and solve them in the best possible way. And last but not the least,all these participative management theories contribute to the concept of motivation and human behaviour and aspirations that need to keep in mind while boosting their morale to work better and to the ideas of decentralisation,innovation and development of professional managers.
So,one can see all the above theories are mixed and mashed to the right mix in order to suit the organisational situation as well as the government organisations it is in.
For IGNOU notes refer - http://www.scribd.com/doc/52476113/www-prep4civils-com-Pub-Ad-01-Administrative-theory
The next blog which will be published very soon will cover the next segment,that is:
Process and techniques of decision-making;
Communication; Morale; Motivation
Theories – content, process and contemporary;
Theories of Leadership: Traditional
So all those who are already subscribed,you will receive the new post updates via email and for the others reading this post right now,just select the 'Subscribe via email' option at the bottom of this page and receive instant updates of new posts here in your mailbox without any hassle._________________________________________________________________________
Click on ' JOIN THIS SITE ' to get instant updates on new posts on this blog. And also for 'INTERACTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS' regarding this blog's posts 'JOIN ITS FACEBOOK COMMUNITY/GROUP' that is mentioned on the right hand side of this page.