Developments In Management And Organisational Behaviour

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

study of management and organisational behaviour. Others say that all these

different ideas are little more than short-term fads and have little practical

value.’

What do you think? What role does management theory have in helping us

solve problems we face in our organisational lives today?PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

42

THE THEORY OF MANAGEMENT

A central part of the study of organisation and management is the development of management thinking and what might be termed management theory. The application of theory

brings about change in actual behaviour. Managers reading the work of leading writers on

the subject might see in their ideas and conclusions a message about how they should

behave. This will influence their attitudes towards management practice.

The study of management theory is important for the following reasons:

â–  It helps to view the interrelationships between the development of theory, behaviour in

organisations and management practice.

â–  An understanding of the development of management thinking helps in understanding

principles underlying the process of management.

â–  Knowledge of the history helps in understanding the nature of management and organisational behaviour and reasons for the attention given to main topic areas.

â–  Many of the earlier ideas are of continuing importance to the manager and later ideas on

management tend to incorporate earlier ideas and conclusions.

â–  Management theories are interpretive and evolve in line with changes in the organisational environment.

As McGregor puts it:

Every managerial act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses – that is to say, on theory.

Our assumptions are frequently implicit, sometimes quite unconscious, often conflicting; nevertheless,

they determine our predictions that if we do a, b will occur. Theory and practice are inseparable.1

Miner makes the point that the more that is known about organisations and their methods

of operation, the better the chances of dealing effectively with them. Understanding may

be more advanced than prediction, but both provide the opportunity to influence or to

manage the future. Theory provides a sound basis for action.2

However, if action is to be

effective, the theory must be adequate and appropriate to the task and to improved organisational performance. It must be a ‘good’ theory.

DEVELOPMENTS IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

It is helpful, therefore, to trace major developments in management and organisational

behaviour and what has led to the concentration of attention on such topics as motivation,

groups, leadership, structure, and organisation development.3

Writing on organisation and management, in some form or another, can be traced back

thousands of years.4

Also, Shafritz makes an interesting observation about the contribution

of William Shakespeare (1564–1616):

While William Shakespeare’s contribution to literature and the development of the English language

have long been acknowledged and thoroughly documented, his contribution to the theory of management and administration have been all but ignored. This is a surprising oversight when you consider

that many of his plays deal with issues of personnel management and organizational behavior.5

However, the systematic development of management thinking is viewed, generally, as

dating from the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of large industrial organisations and the ensuing problems associated with their structure and management.6

In

order to help identify main trends in the development of organisational behaviour and

management theory, it is usual to categorise the work of writers into various ‘approaches’,

based on their views of organisations, their structure and management. Although a rather

simplistic process, it does provide a framework in which to help direct study and focus attention on the progression of ideas concerned with improving organisational performance.CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

43

Figure 2.1 Main approaches to organisation, structure and management

A framework of analysis

There are, however, many ways of categorising these various approaches. For example,

Skipton attempts a classification of 11 main schools of management theory.7

Whatever form

of categorisation is adopted, it is possible to identify a number of other approaches, or at

least sub-divisions of approaches, and cross-grouping among the various approaches. The

choice of a particular categorisation is therefore largely at the discretion of the observer.

The following analysis will revolve around a framework based on four main approaches,

shown in Figure 2.1:

■ classical – including scientific management and bureaucracy;

■ human relations – including neo-human relations;

â–  systems;

â–  contingency.

Attention is also drawn to other ‘approaches’ or ideas, including:

â–  decision-making;

â–  social action;

â–  postmodernism.

See Figure 2.4 on page 64.

THE CLASSICAL APPROACH

The classical writers thought of the organisation in terms of its purpose and formal structure. They placed emphasis on the planning of work, the technical requirements of the

organisation, principles of management, and the assumption of rational and logical

behaviour. The analysis of organisation in this manner is associated with work carried out

initially in the early part of the last century, by such writers as Taylor, Fayol, Urwick, Mooney

and Reiley, and Brech. Such writers were laying the foundation for a comprehensive theory

of management.

A clear understanding of the purpose of an organisation is seen as essential to understanding how the organisation works and how its methods of working can be improved.

Identification of general objectives would lead to the clarification of purposes and responsibilities at all levels of the organisation and to the most effective structure. Attention is givenPART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

44

to the division of work, the clear definition of duties and responsibilities, and maintaining

specialisation and co-ordination. Emphasis is on a hierarchy of management and formal

organisational relationships.

Sets of principles

The classical writers (also variously known as the formal or scientific management writers

– although scientific management is really only a part of the classical approach) were concerned with improving the organisation structure as a means of increasing efficiency. They

emphasised the importance of principles for the design of a logical structure of organisation.

Their writings were in a normative style and they saw these principles as a set of ‘rules’ offering general solutions to common problems of organisation and management.

Most classical writers had their own set of principles but among the most publicised are

those of Fayol and Urwick (see Chapters 8 and 9). Fayol recognised there was no limit to the

principles of management but in his writing advocated 14.8

Urwick originally specified eight

principles, but these were revised to ten in his later writing.9

Mooney and Reiley set out a number of common principles which relate to all types of

organisations. They place particular attention on:

■ the principle of co-ordination – the need for people to act together with unity of action,

the exercise of authority and the need for discipline;

■ the scalar principle – the hierarchy of organisation, the grading of duties and the process

of delegation; and

■ the functional principle – specialisation and the distinction between different kinds of

duties.10

Brech attempts to provide a practical approach to organisation structure based on tried

general principles as opposed to the concentration on specific cases or complex generalisations of little value to the practising manager. He sets out the various functions in the

organisation and the definition of formal organisational relationships.11 Although clearly a

strong supporter of the formal approach in some of his views such as, for example, on the

principle of span of control, Brech is less definite than other classical writers and recognises

a degree of flexibility according to the particular situation.

Brech does place great emphasis, however, on the need for written definition of responsibilities and the value of job descriptions as an aid to effective organisation and delegation.

This work builds on the ideas of earlier writers, such as Urwick, and therefore provides a

comprehensive view of the classical approach to organisation and management.

Evaluation of the classical approach

The classical writers have been criticised generally for not taking sufficient account of

personality factors and for creating an organisation structure in which people can exercise

only limited control over their work environment. The idea of sets of principles to guide

managerial action has also been subject to much criticism. For example, Simon writes:

Organisational design is not unlike architectural design. It involves creating large, complex systems

having multiple goals. It is illusory to suppose that good designs can be created by using the so-called

principles of classical organisation theory.12

Research studies have also expressed doubt about the effectiveness of these principles

when applied in practice.13However, the classical approach prompted the start of a more systematic view of management and attempted to provide some common principles applicable

to all organisations. These principles are still of relevance in that they offer a useful starting

point in attempting to analyse the effectiveness of the design of organisation structure. The

application of these principles must take full account of:CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

45

â–  the particular situational variables of each individual organisation; and

â–  the psychological and social factors relating to members of the organisation.

Major sub-groupings

Two major ‘sub-groupings’ of the classical approach are:

1 scientific management, and

2 bureaucracy.

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

Many of the classical writers were concerned with the improvement of management as a

means of increasing productivity. At this time, emphasis was on the problem of obtaining

increased productivity from individual workers through the technical structuring of the work

organisation and the provision of monetary incentives as the motivator for higher levels of

output. A major contributor to this approach was F. W. Taylor (1856–1917), the ‘father’ of

scientific management.14 Taylor believed that in the same way that there is a best machine

for each job, so there is a best working method by which people should undertake their jobs.

He considered that all work processes could be analysed into discrete tasks and that by scientific method it was possible to find the ‘one best way’ to perform each task. Each job was

broken down into component parts, each part timed and the parts rearranged into the most

efficient method of working.

Principles to guide management

Taylor was a believer in the rational–economic needs concept of motivation. He believed

that if management acted on his ideas, work would become more satisfying and profitable

for all concerned. Workers would be motivated by obtaining the highest possible wages

through working in the most efficient and productive way. Taylor was concerned with

finding more efficient methods and procedures for co-ordination and control of work.

He set out a number of principles to guide management. These principles are usually

summarised as:

■ the development of a true science for each person’s work;

■ the scientific selection, training and development of the workers;

â–  co-operation with the workers to ensure work is carried out in the prescribed way;

â–  the division of work and responsibility between management and the workers.

In his famous studies at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Taylor, who was appointed

as a management consultant, applied his ideas on scientific management to the handling of

pig iron. A group of 75 men were loading an average of 121

/2 tons per man per day. Taylor

selected a Dutch labourer, called Schmidt, whom he reported to be a ‘high-priced’ man

with a reputation for placing a high value on money, and a man of limited mental ability.

By following detailed instructions on when to pick up the pig iron and walk, and when to

sit and rest, and with no back talk, Schmidt increased his output to 471

/2 tons per day. He

maintained this level of output throughout the three years of the study. In return Schmidt

received a 60 per cent increase in wages compared with what was paid to the other men.

One by one other men were selected and trained to handle pig iron at the rate of 471

/2 tons

per day and in return they received 60 per cent more wages. Taylor drew attention to the

need for the scientific selection of the workers. When the other labourers in the group

were trained in the same method, only one in eight was physically capable of the effort

of loading 471

/2 tons per day, although there was a noticeable increase in their level of

output.PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

46

Reactions against scientific management

There were strong criticisms of, and reaction against, scientific management methods from

the workers who found the work boring and requiring little skill. Despite these criticisms

Taylor attempted to expand the implementation of his ideas in the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. However, fears of mass redundancies persuaded the management to request Taylor

to moderate his activities. Yet Taylor’s belief in his methods was so strong that he would not

accept management’s interference and eventually they dispensed with his services.

Scientific management was applied for a time in other countries with similar criticisms

and hostile reactions. The ideas of scientific management were also adopted in the American

Watertown Arsenal despite the lingering doubts of the controller. He was not convinced

about the benefits of paying bonuses based on methods which reduced time taken to complete a job; also the workers reacted unfavourably to time and motion studies and he was

fearful of a strike. The controller eventually gave way, however, and the scientific management approach was adopted – to be followed almost immediately by a strike of moulding

workers. The strike at Watertown Arsenal led to an investigation of Taylor’s methods by a

House of Representatives Committee which reported in 1912.

The conclusion of the committee was that scientific management did provide some

useful techniques and offered valuable organisational suggestions, but gave production

managers a dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. The studies at Watertown Arsenal

were resumed but the unions retained an underlying hostility towards scientific management. A subsequent attitude survey among the workers revealed a broad level of resentment

and hostility, by both union and non-union members, to scientific management methods.

As a result of this report the Senate banned Taylor’s methods of time study in defence

establishments.

Taylorism as management control

There has also been considerable interest in ‘Taylorism’ as representing a system of management control over workers. Taylor placed emphasis on the content of a ‘fair day’s work’ and

on optimising the level of workers’ productivity. A major obstacle to this objective was

‘systematic soldiering’ and what Taylor saw as the deliberate attempt by workers to promote

their best interests and to keep employers ignorant of how fast work, especially piece-rate

work, could be carried out.

According to Braverman, scientific management starts from the capitalist point of view and

method of production, and the adaptation of labour to the needs of capital. Taylor’s work

was more concerned with the organisation of labour than with the development of technology. A distinctive feature of Taylor’s thought was the concept of management control.15

Braverman suggests Taylor’s conclusion was that workers should be controlled not only by

the giving of orders and maintenance of discipline, but also by removing from them any

decisions about the manner in which their work was to be carried out. By division of labour,

and by dictating precise stages and methods for every aspect of work performance, management could gain control of the actual process of work. The rationalisation of production

processes and division of labour tends to result in the de-skilling of work and this may be

a main strategy of the employer.16

Cloke and Goldsmith also suggest that Taylor was the leading promoter of the idea that

managers should design and control the work process scientifically in order to guarantee

maximum efficiency. He believed in multiple layers of management to supervise the work

process and in rigid, detailed control of the workforce.

Taylor’s theories justified managerial control over the production process and removed decision making

from employees and from owners as well. The increasingly authoritative operational role of management diminished the direct involvement of owners in day-to-day decision making. Managers saw this

as an opportunity to solidify their power and adopted Taylor’s ideas wholesale. In the process, they

affirmed efficiency over collaboration, quantity over quality, and cost controls over customer service.17CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

47

Critical reflection

‘Despite the strong criticisms of scientic management, in the right circumstances the

underlying principles still have relevance and much to offer business organisations

today. It is just that many commentators appear reluctant to openly admit that this is

the case.’

What are your views? Where could scientific management be applied for the best

overall effect?

RELEVANCE OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

While Taylor’s work is often criticised today it should be remembered that he was writing

at a time of industrial reorganisation and the emergence of large, complex organisations

with new forms of technology. Taylor’s main concern was with the efficiency of both

workers and management. He believed his methods of scientific management would lead

to improved management–labour relations and contribute to improved industrial efficiency

and prosperity.

Taylor adopted an instrumental view of human behaviour together with the application

of standard procedures of work. Workers were regarded as rational, economic beings motivated directly by monetary incentives linked to the level of work output. Workers were

viewed as isolated individuals and more as units of production to be handled almost in

the same way as machines. Hence, scientific management is often referred to as a machine

theory model.

Taylor’s work continues to evoke much comment and extreme points of view. For

example, Rose suggests:

It is difficult to discuss the ‘contribution’ of F. W. Taylor to the systematic study of industrial behaviour

in an even-tempered way. The sheer silliness from a modern perspective of many of his ideas, and

barbarities they led to when applied in industry, encourage ridicule and denunciation.18

The theme of inefficiency

Rose argues that Taylor’s diagnosis of the industrial situation was based on the simple theme

of inefficiency. Among his criticisms are that Taylor selected the best workers for his experiments and assumed that workers who were not good at one particular task would be best at

some other task. There is, however, no certainty of this in practice. Taylor regarded workers

from an engineering viewpoint and as machines, but the one best way of performing a task

is not always the best method for every worker.

The reduction of physical movement to find the one best way is not always beneficial and

some ‘wasteful’ movements are essential to the overall rhythm of work. Rose also argues that

the concept of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is not purely a technical matter. It is also

a notion of social equity and not in keeping with a scientific approach. Drucker, however,

claims:

Frederick Winslow Taylor may prove a more useful prophet for our times than we yet recognize . . .

Taylor’s greatest impact may still be ahead . . . the under-developed and developing countries are now

reaching the stage where they need Taylor and ‘scientific management’ . . . But the need to study Taylor

anew and apply him may be the greatest in the developed countries.19

According to Drucker, the central theme of Taylor’s work was not inefficiency but the need

to substitute industrial warfare by industrial harmony. Taylor sought to do this through:PART 1 THE ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

48

â–  higher wages from increased output;

â–  the removal of physical strain from doing work the wrong way;

â–  development of the workers and the opportunity for them to undertake tasks they were

capable of doing; and

■ elimination of the ‘boss’ and the duty of management to help workers.

Drucker also suggests that Taylor’s idea of functional foremen can be related to what is

now known as matrix organisation (matrix organisation is discussed in Chapter 9). Support

for Drucker’s views appears to come from Locke who asserts that much of the criticism of

Taylor is based on a misunderstanding of the precepts and that many of his ideas are

accepted by present-day managers.20

Impetus to management thinking

Whatever the opinions on scientific management, Taylor and his disciples have left to

modern management the legacy of such practices as work study, organisation and methods,

payment by results, management by exception and production control. The development of

mass assembly line work (‘Fordism’), which was invented by Henry Ford in 1913 and which

dominated production methods in Western economies, can be seen to have many common

links with the ideas of scientific management.21 The concept of Six Sigma can also be related

to Taylor’s quest for ‘systematic management’. For example, in his book on the future of

management, Hamel makes the following observation:

One can imagine Taylor looking down from his well-ordered heaven and smiling fondly at the

Six Sigma acolytes who continue to spread his gospel. (His only surprise might be that 21st-century

managers are still obsessing over the same problems that occupied his inventive mind a hundred years

earlier.)22

The principles of Taylor’s scientific approach to management appear still to have relevance today. We can see examples of Taylorism alive and well, and management practices

based on the philosophy of his ideas. As an example, Figure 2.2 shows a ‘Hanger Insertion

Programme’ for a large American department store. Large hotel organisations often make use

of standard recipes and performance standard manuals and it is common for housekeeping

staff to have a prescribed layout for each room, with training based on detailed procedures

and the one best way. Staff may be expected to clean a given number of rooms per shift with

financial incentives for additional rooms. The strict routine, uniformity, clearly specified

tasks, detailed checklists and close control in fast-food restaurants such as McDonald’s also

suggest close links with scientific management.

Whatever else Taylor did, at least he gave a major impetus to the development of management thinking and the later development of organisational behaviour. For example,

Crainer and Dearlove suggest that although Taylor’s theories are now largely outdated, they

still had a profound impact throughout the world and his mark can be seen on much of the

subsequent management literature.23 And Stern goes a stage further:

The ‘scientific management’ of Frederick Taylor . . . shaped the first coherent school of thought with

application to the industrialised world. He was our first professional guru and Taylorism – with its twin

goals of productivity and efficiency – still influences management thinking 100 years on.24

It is difficult to argue against the general line of Taylor’s principles but they are subject to

misuse. What is important is the context and manner in which such principles are put into

effect. There is arguably one best way technically to perform a job, particularly, for example,

with factory assembly line production. However, account needs to be taken of human

behaviour. People tend to have their preferred way of working and the need for variety and

more interesting or challenging tasks. Provided work is carried out safely and to a satisfactory standard and completed on time, to what extent should management insist on the ‘one

best way’?CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

49

KEY IDEAS

Hanger Insertion

â–  The new programme involving the process of hanging merchandise on hangers efficiently and

effectively.

The purposes of this new programme:

■ To assist the stores in better customer service – by having the merchandise ready to go on the

floor, saving space in the stockroom, and creating customer goodwill.

â–  To increase the units per hour produced.

â–  To perform the job duties as efficiently and effectively as possible.

TECHNIQUES

■ Keep the necessary items needed in your range. All supplies should be within arm’s reach. For

example, place the trash bin next to you, have your hanger supply near you. You should not need

to take any steps.

â–  For ANY prepack, Unpack merchandise in the prepack or unpack enough of the prepack in

the amount to be placed on the trolley, tearing the plastic off of the entire

group.

Lay the merchandise out on the unpack table, and if applies, unfold each

piece, removing tissue, etc.

Insert the hangers and hang the entire group of merchandise at once.

â–  When removing hangers from the merchandise, have the merchandise in a group on the unpack

table; remove these hangers working from the front to the back.

â–  When inserting hangers, as a group, insert working from the back to the front of the group on the

unpack table. Hang pieces as a group.

â–  If merchandise is bulky, Leave merchandise folded, remove all of the plastic at once,

insert hangers for merchandise unpacked, hang all pieces on the

trolley, then remove at the same time all excess plastic, clips, etc.

â–  When possible, it is more efficient to remove all the plastic at once after the merchandise is hung.

â–  When hanging pants, skirts, etc., slip the hanger over both sides of the piece of merchandise and

push metal clips down at the same time. This will alleviate additional steps.

â–  When pants are in plastic and hangers have to be removed, hang them first, take pants off

hangers, lay on table, throw away plastic, insert hangers.

â–  When having to button pants, skirts, etc., take the top of the button through the hole first. This

makes the process flow easier and more efficient.

â–  Put your supply of hangers in the cover of a tote and place on the table next to you.

Figure 2.2 Hanger Insertion Programme: an example of scientific management

It seems that Taylor did not so much ignore (as is often suggested) but was more unaware

of the complexity of human behaviour in organisations and the importance of the individual’s feelings and sentiments, group working, managerial behaviour and the work

environment. However, we now have greater knowledge about social effects within the

work organisation and about the value of money, incentives, motivation, and job satisfaction

and performance.