Classical Management Viewpoint of the Worker

Through the industrial revolution alienation in the workplace has been a prominent issue that workers face due to the labour process. In a capitalist workplace, managers control the means of production giving workers little say to how they work. With the invention of scientific management, employers plan out the best way for workers to complete a task in the timeliest manner. The labour process is designed to maximize profit with little room for error or time wasting. The power employers hold over workers shows that workers are employed not on the basis of their skill but in order to follow rules. When workers are treated this way they can often be looked at as a commodity that can be replaced in an instant, further alienating them from the job at hand. Through this labour process workers are lacking in skill and the jobs themselves are

The classical or traditional approach to management was generally concerned with the structure and the activities of formal organization. The utmost importance in the achievement of an effective organization were seen to be the issues such as the establishment of a hierarchy of authority, the division of work, and the span of control.

Management can play a vital role in shaping their workplaces. A manager can invoke increases in co-operation and harmony amongst themselves and workers by addressing key issues that affect both groups. Management can facilitate this, for instance, by implementing plans that attempt to eliminate the issues that many workers face day-to-day such as monotony and fatigue (which have negative effects on productivity). Managers can reduce fatigue and monotony with job rotation and job enlargement, for example (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 264). Management can attempt to increase morale in their workplace by involving workers in decision-making processes normally closed off to managerial personnel; for instance, the addition of a new technology that a group of workers will eventually have to use. A manager could adopt a normative approach to managing their employees by conveying true, not fabricated, trust and interest in their employees and the work process as well (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 241). A manager could show this by doing the actual labour himself for a day or week or going out on the shop floor and asking meaningful questions. Since unions serve to represent the mass of workers they can work alongside management teams to better shape the workplace. The union,

The nineteenth century was a time ripe with progress and hope due to booming industrialization. As organizations and workforces grew, people looked for ways to increase their productivity and profit margins. New ideas were needed to satisfy both business owners and their employees and as such, along came theorists such as Marx or other contributors like Frederick Taylor and Elton Mayo. Taylor produced a management style coined Scientific Management whereas Mayo took a slightly different route and conducted the Hawthorne studies. Over the years theorists such as Marx, with his wildly popular theory about alienation in the workplace, have shaped our view of how management should be conducted in

Given the 21st century table in our text we can clearly see the differences of today’s managers in comparison with yesterday’s management styles. The 21st century manager is a more positive approach to dealing effectively with employees. In the past when the capitalist society and its capitalist factories and organizations were flourishing, the employees were pushed to their limits. Unions were subsequently formed to deter any potential wrongdoings and unfair labor practices. Today there are some unions, but are they necessary?

Management theory has been a topical issue in several organizational fields for centuries. Both classic and modern styles organizations have reinforced management principles to fulfil goals efficiently and effectively. From the industrial to post-industrial evolution of organizations, the emergence of several management theories and their components have been infused in business polices, protocols and regulations that transfer onto the organisation’s operations (Aldrich, 2008). Today’s literature on such practices informs the existence of two major styles of management theories: classical and contemporary.

Changes in the workplace due to the economy, technology, and globalization have affected many lives in modern day society. In addition, managerial approaches have influenced changes organizations have faced throughout the years, which tend to affect an organization’s workforce. For example, some of the changes organizations have had to encounter have been around the following, but are not limited to employee productivity, employee and organizational inefficiency, employee’s personal and professional value, and organizational structure to name a few. Furthermore, managerial approaches going back centuries have molded certain expectations people and organizations have of each other. For example, many individuals during the industrial era had an expectation to contribute to his or her household at a young age. The feeling of this type of obligation at times in today’s society are seen, but are not as prevalent. Instead of young people focusing on their studies, and skill set, they often have to find employment that he or she initially do not want to do, which often times leads to entry-level positions that are typically left. Allowing managers to often alienate and exploit the employee.

Convectional view or what is referred to as theory X, underpinned the underlying assumptions that surrounded the scientific era which the management practices at the time was evolving from. Here, effective management included harnessing the power of the human labour to achieve organization effectiveness. The manager could achieve this through effectively; organizing all element of production. Such element included natural resources, machinery and equipment, money, people, among others. Very important to note, is that the process of managing people involved keenly directing and controlling their efforts and actions to suit the organizations needs (Jone & George 2008). According to this theory, failure to constantly intervene the function of the workers would result in undesirable outcome. This is because here the workers are viewed as indolent, irresponsible, un-ambitious and self-centred. This is nature might make them passive and at times resistance to any initiative directed towards achieving organizational goals (McGregor 1960). Therefore manager could adopt the use of rewards and punishment to model the appropriate

His 15-year experimental restructuring of Semco transformed a traditional, paternalistic company environment into a very radical workspace, where there is no human resource function and 60% of top management positions became redundant (Lloyd, 1994). Semler’s most distinctive change was employee empowerment and participative leadership. Hiring is undertaken by the workers themselves, who decide on their own salary, bonuses, working hours and goals.  Semler believes that employees should deliver a final result and empowers them accordingly towards this goal. He unequivocally rejects the pyramidal structure that bears the notion of company procedures, outlining in every detail how employees should behave in every contingency. At Semco, labour unions train everybody how to read the financial statements of the company and workers participate collectively on the company’s big decisions (e.g. moving premises or buying another firm). Employee involvement at Semco is also reflected in 360-degree appraisal procedures held every six months, as well as in rotating job titles and job enrichment procedures, which offer workers a broader view of the company (Vanderburg, 2004).

In a historical aspect the evolution of management consist of six approaches starting with America’s Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century to the present: Classical, Behavioral, Quantitative, Systems, Contingency and Quality. Before the creation of factories the need for managerial skills was not needed, since products and services were delivered on a small scale and by hand. But with the invention of engines that did not require rivers to make them run, companies started to create factories to produce products in mass quantities requiring a need for more knowledge in the field of management.

Today world is continually changing, likewise with workers’ needs and environments; they tend to change in their value too. Workers want to have self-respect from other, as well as their basic necessities of life. As for managers, they have to fulfill workers need for higher performance and to fight ever-growing competition. In other words, workers are looking for job satisfaction but scientific management view worker as a ‘Rational Economic Man’ who is only motivated by money, so human relation is more relevant in today’s business management.

Past management styles or practices have been mostly authoritarian or managed from the top down. There was little regard or consideration for the input of labor, supervisors or middle management. Their opinions and experience was only asked for in times of crisis when their knowledge of a particular situation or project was needed to help upper management make a decision on a particular problem which usually dealt with a financial area that would be solved to best suit the company or benefit the company

The evolution of management though the decades can be divided into two major sections. One of the sections is the classical approach. Under the classical approach efficiency and productivity became a critical concern of the managers at the turn of the 20th century. One of

Taylor imagined that workers would be able to make out the relationship between completion of more work in units and the economic rewards been increased. Taylors work as described by (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004) depicts how theories were to take place at shop floor levels, then how facts were substituted for opinion and guess work. Henri Fayol, his fellow classical writer had a different perception which looked at organisation from top to bottom. The pace setters of classical theories had engineering background hence derived theories with scientific approach. (Buchanan and Huczunski, 2004). (Cole, 2004) talks about how the production environment under the classical theory in America had created difficulties, where labour force were skint, uneducated, and in quest of making economic fortunes. (Lemak, 2004) point out how the classical management has had

The main noteworthy stride in advancement of personnel management happened with the presentation of the substantial production lines in the eighteenth century. New mechanical methodology expanded efficiency of specialists. A large number of representatives needed to work 16 hours a day for low compensation. At that period, a few bosses noticed that fulfilled staff is more powerful than discouraged workers. In the meantime, governments gave some essential human rights and the work wellbeing enactment (Imaginative HRM). However those measures were not regular and work conditions were terrible. Another class of representative shows up in the working environment - the chief. Laborers should have been be chosen for job, in this manner the elements of individual administration were required. Staff office was made to address the pay related issues and some other contrasts between the union and the administration. In addition, Work force chief was tasked with the obligations of work debate with administration, confirming representative wellbeing and security necessities alongside worker participation.