Classical and Humanist Management Theories
Classical and Humanist Management Theories
“Classical and humanist management theories have had a major influenced on modern theories of leadership. Making effective use of appropriate models and theories critically examine whether this is actually the case. ” Civilization is the product of those who came before us. The evolution of today’s modern management thinking has grown and developed since nineteenth century and flourished during twentieth. The twentieth century is just part of revolution management theory which started from classical theory, ranging to human relation approaches and last flourishing now.
Management theory is out coming result of the interdisciplinary efforts of many people. Today the new modern theories of leadership, come up based on classical and humanist management theories, still develop and grow as an organisation. Leadership is setting a new path or vision for a cluster that they follow; a leader is the spearhead for that new direction. Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established. The main difference between them comes from what happen if there is one without another.
If leadership comes without management then sets a track or visualization that others follow, without considering too much how the new direction is going to be achieved. Other people then have to work hard in the trail that is left behind, picking up the pieces and making it work. Management without leadership; controls resources to uphold the current situation or confirm things happen according to already-established plans. In Organizing Genius (Addison-Wesley, 1997) Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman point out those leaders of great teams pick talent on the basis of excellence and ability to work with others.
Good leaders are not afraid to hire people who know more than they do. Jack Welch has said that his biggest accomplishment has been finding great people. A leader should project responsibilities that involve a person’s competence and values. A good leader also reinforces motivation and develops ability through coaching. Leaders know how to keep their people focused. Good leaders can build incredible relationship and can build trust. The interest of leadership come in the early 20, when was considered that great leaders are born not made.
The ideas and theories started developed after then. On the other hand those irreplaceable qualities of good leaders are based on beginning of management. The first management ideas, actually, were record in 3000-4000 B. C, when the pyramids were about to be build. Then the beginning of the modern organisation occurred with the theory called The Founders during the middle of the nineteenth century with the rise of the factory system. After came Pre-Classicism with Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Charles Babbage (1792-1871).
And then the twentieth century becomes witness on the most memorable theories called Classical School. The Classical School of Management was period of management theory ferment and activity. It was based on improvement of management effectiveness in organisations. It wasn’t only about effectiveness in worker please but they also seek to provide needed tool for more effective work and satisfied workers. Within the classical school there are the bureaucratic management, administrative management and scientific management branches.
The era of the ideas of Modern theories started with Scientific Management. Frederick Taylor put the beginning of the contemporary and still improving management. He advocated a change from the old system of personal management to a new system of scientific management. His theory argues that, each person’s job should be broken down into elements and a scientific way to perform each element should be determinate. Workers need to be careful selected and properly trained for particular job. The good corporation between management and workers is compulsory.
His theory was accepted with many positive fatbacks and negativism as well. But to modern readers, he stands convicted by his own words (1975): “… in almost all of the mechanic arts, the science which underlies each act of each workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity.
Scientific management come across with significant success. Taylor bring a success and to economic standpoints. Productivity met improvement because of his methods. After Scientific management come Human Relations Movement with Elton Mayo’s experiences in the Hawthorne Works Experiments. Mayo’s theory met success; his impacts were the creation of the industrial engineering. Max Weber – Bureaucracy come after Mayo’s scientific management. Max Weber believed that civilization was changing to pursue technically best outcomes at the outflow of emotional or humanistic content.
Weber did not advocate bureaucracy; indeed, his writings show a strong caution for its excesses: “…the more fully realized, the more bureaucracy “depersonalizes” itself, i. e. , the more completely it succeeds in achieving the exclusion of love, hatred, and every purely personal, especially irrational and incalculable, feeling from the execution of official tasks” While Weber was basically a spectator rather than a stylish, it is pure that his forecasts have come true.
His principles of an ideal bureaucracy still circle true today and many of the evils of today’s bureaucracies come from their different from those ideal principles. Unfortunately, Weber was also successful in predicting that bureaucracies would have extreme difficulties dealing with individual cases. It would have been captivating to realize how Weber would have combined Mayo’s results into his theories. It is probable that he would have seen the “group dynamics” as “noise” in the system, warning the bureaucracy’s potential for both efficiency and inhumanity.
In 1970s and 1980s, Charismatic Leadership states Effective leaders inspire assistants to obligate themselves to goals by interactive a visualisation, exhibiting magnetic behaviour, and setting an influential individual case, described by Weber as long with bureaucracy. He put the development of leadership based on well-known management. Henri Fayol – Administration. Fayol’s administration theories dovetail into the bureaucratic superstructure described by Weber. He believed that management has five principle roles; to control, to organise, to forecast and plan, to command and to coordinate.
Fayol developed fourteen principles of administration to go along with management’s five main roles. Fayol’s five principle roles of management are still actively practiced today. Development of management and leadership had continued with Frederick Herzberg (1923-) , Abraham Maslow (1908 – 1970) and on. Mary Parker Follett supported for a human relations importance equal to a mechanical or operational emphasis in management. Her work contrasted with the “scientific management” of Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915) and evolved by Frank and Lillian Gilbert, which stressed time and motion studies.
Apart of all that, in mid-1970th the Hersey–Blanchard situational leadership theory was introduced as “situational leadership theory”. It is a leadership theory conceived by Paul Hersey (professor) and Ken Blanchard (author). The theory argues active leadership is task-relevant and there is no solo best flair of leadership. The theory contained the following qualities as the main qualities of a good leader; telling, selling, participating and delegating. According to Hersey and Blanchard (1980); “Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation”.
They had separated their theory into two fundamental concepts; Leadership Style and the individual or group’s Maturity level. First described above and second describes below. The individual or group’s Maturity level: M1 – They absence the exact services vital for the work in pointer and are powerless and reluctant to do or to take duty for this job or task. M2 – They are still incapable to take on responsibility for the task being done; they are keen to work at the task. M3 – They are knowledgeable and talented to do the chore but nonexistence the poise to take on charge.
M4 – They are experienced at the task, and relaxed with their own skill to do it well. They need to be clever and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for them. In conclusion, management include and put the base on organisations, it is that organisation which makes functions, such as planning, budgeting, evaluating and facilitating. On the other hand leadership is a relationship, an essential part of an organisation. They are response for selecting talents, motivating, coaching and building trust.
From Classical human approaches to the modern leader theory there were a big different, the theories will last to change and improve, but on based on the main management theories. It is clear that modern organizations are powerfully influenced by the theories of Taylor, Mayo, Weber and Fayol. Their principles have become such a solid part of modern management that it is hard to believe that these perceptions were unique and new at some opinion in history. The current idea that these impressions are “common sense” is strong compliment to these creators.
University/College: University of California
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 8 January 2017
We will write a custom essay sample on Classical and Humanist Management Theories
for only $16.38 $12.9/page