Introduction
Management comprises various theories, schools and directions. Management entails organization and direction of duties dependent on specific job context. Management theories define ways in which individuals can be organized and productive in the performance of workplace duties. In addition, theories of management synchronize workplaces with the aim of attainment of common goals. This essay highlights the classical and contingency schools of thoughts. The mentioned approaches have indicated the most significant impact in the management field. The essay provides an account of the classical writers, contingency school and relays the impact of the theories on managerial thought.
Classical Theory
The classical management theory was developed by Henry Fayol, Max Weber and Fredrick Taylor. The approach comprises three streams, namely, bureaucracy, administrative theory and scientific management.
Bureaucracy
Max Weber was a German sociologist who provided a bureaucratic model for management in complex organisations. Bureaucracy was then considered the most efficient form for large and complex organisations. The essential elements include a hierarchy of authority, standardisation of methods, division of labor and employee selection and promotion (Akintayo and Uzohue, 2016, p. 12). A bureaucratic organization has characteristics such as well-defined authority, division of labor by specialization, impersonal employee relations, systematic procedures that deal with work situations and a system of rules that cover employee rights and duties. Bureaucracy is crucial since it ensures consistency in employee behavior, eliminates conflict in the performance of duties and provides maximum utilization of human resources within organisations. However, bureaucratic organisations contain disadvantages such as excessive paperwork, employee resistance to change and inhibited initiative and growth among workers.
Administrative Theory
Henri Fayol is described as the father of modern management. Henri Fayol established the pattern of management with concepts such as the unity of command, a span of control, authority responsibility, departmentation and pyramidal organisational form. Fayol stressed on the basic applicability of management principals. In addition, the engineer established that technical ability dominates in lower management level whereas managerial capacity dominates in higher management levels (Bakogianni, 2016, p. 96). Fayol established a managerial philosophy with three categories of elements of management, principles of management and managerial training and qualities. Managerial training and qualities involved physical qualities such as sound health, mental attributes such as wisdom, moral qualities such as integrity and general knowledge and experience. The contributions of Fayol and Taylor are complementary since they possess the realization that managerial and personnel problems were the keys to industrial success (Sulieman, 2019, p. 17). Besides, the theories applied scientific methods while addressing the mentioned problems.
Scientific Management
Fredrick Taylor revolutionized plant management leading to the development of time and refined wage incentives. The theory primarily describes a scientific study of work by managers as a means of identifying the best ways of getting the job done. The approach provides a foundation for industrial engineering. Taylor championed the securing of maximum prosperity for both employers and employees. Consequently, the theory encourages appropriate training of staff and increased productivity through reduced labor (Chin, 2017, p. 12721). The theory contains principles such as task idea where the productivity of staff is dependent on the provision of favorable conditions. The theory contains more principles such as proper use of equipment, division of labor, planning, experiments, cost accounting and healthy factory atmosphere.
The classical theory of management is criticized for overlooking employee needs within the work environment. Furthermore, the argument ignores human error in work output (Olum, 2019, p. 40). The classical theory portrays strong influence on modern operations. Moreover, the approach is tough and rigid in nature. The attainment of theory objectives such as productivity are at the expense of human relations and creativity. However, the theory has effectively improved the productivity and efficiency of personnel in organisations that have successfully adopted the theory. Thus, classical theory seeks to provide a better working environment in the form of increased wages and incentives.
Contingency Theory
The contingency theory forms an integral part of management theory since it provides a comparison of the two approaches. The theory stipulates that the internal subsystems in an organization establish a perfect structure for organisational success. In addition, the structures in an organization dictate the relationship between the company and its employees (Mills and McKimm, 2016, p. 270). The theory is relevant to the effectiveness of personnel. Organisational structures are dependent on managers, employees and vary from organization to organization. The theory further explains that reduced supervision improves the relationship between a company and employees thereby leading to the development of creative roles.
Fielder points out the correlation between the traits of a leader and the effectiveness of the organization. The theory further points out that the characteristics of leaders should be variant dependent on situations at hand. Furthermore, employee behaviorisms and attitudes are contingent on altered circumstances. The contingency theory is in practice in many organisations all over the world. Organisations vary strategies in use to adequately accommodate challenging situations even in the future (Peretomode, 2012, p. 15). The contingency theory provides management with a variety of options through which the organisations react to problems. Thus, the theory offers discretion throughout the process of decision making. Organisations that adopt contingency theory permit management to bend and override policies dependent on circumstances at hand. The contingency theory is inadequate in that it fails to provide a variety of actions that would be undertaken in different scenarios.
Differences
The classical theory focuses on the internal systems of an organization, while contingency theory focuses on the external dynamics of an organization. The contingency theory acts as a complement to the classical approach. The contingency theory provides additional information covering the deficiencies of the classical theory. Moreover, the classical theory addresses universal principles applicable in all situations, while the contingency theory focuses on the remedy. The contingency theory is results-oriented. The classical theory focuses on interrelationships, while the contingency theory focuses on situational variables. In addition, the classical theory has a simple approach as compared to the complex contingency theory.
Conclusion
The classical theory of management emphasizes employee efficiency and improved organisational productivity through quantitative methods. The approach adopts the assumption that personnel have economic and physical wants while disregarding employee social wants. On the other hand, contingency theory explains that the effectiveness of management is dependent on behaviorisms. The classical viewpoint is rational since it relates to the application of scientific methods in boosting organisational productivity. The classical theory is relevant in modern-day. Besides, the theory is in use in many organisations with modifications. On the other hand, the contingency theory is used in the determination of appropriate candidates for specific job requirements.
Reference List
- Akintayo, O. and Uzohue, C. (2016) ‘Wait for your time’ concept in management practice in the Nigerian terrain: appraising and critique of classical management theories’, British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 16(2), pp.1-13.
- Bakogianni, A. (2016) ‘What is so ‘classical’ about classical reception? Theories, methodologies and future prospects’, CODEX – Revista de Estudos Clássicos, 4(1), pp.96.
- Chin, T. (2017) ‘Harmonious leadership: a yin-yang harmony approach to integrate western contingency theories’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), pp.12721.
- Mills, J. and McKimm, J. (2016) ‘Contingency theories of leadership: how might we use them in clinical practice?’, British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 77(5), pp.268-271.
- Olum, Y. (2019) ‘Contextualizing classical and contemporary management theories in African society’, Information and Knowledge Management, 9(7), pp. 23-57.
- Peretomode, D. (2012) ‘Situational and contingency theories of leadership: are they the same?’, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), pp.13-17.
- Sulieman, M. (2019) ‘Roots of organizational knowledge in classical management theories: a literature review’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 10(10), pp.12-19.