Critical Evaluation of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Classical and Human Relations Theories

The advantage of the Autocratic leadership style is that it improves efficiency and productivity in addition to be able to quickly respond to

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived

← Autocratic leaders tend to excel at providing clear expectations, structure, as well as the specifics of how to perform the tasks. They are also excellent at providing certain controls to monitor progress, status, etc.

Autocratic leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute control over a group.

Let’s begin by analyzing F. W. Taylor. Taylor’s scientific method can be summed up as a systematic study of relationships between people and tasks to increase efficiency (Jones and George 2015). There are four principles involved in this method: (1) Study the way workers perform their tasks, gather all the informal job knowledge that workers possess, and experiment with ways of improving the ways that tasks are performed. This step has the similar attributes of the organizing and controlling tasks discussed earlier in that the controlling task also involves evaluating the division of labor. (2) Codify the new methods of performing tasks into written rules and standard operating procedures. This step is very much about the organizing task. Although there are written rules, this aspect diverges from the leading

Compare and contrast of the classical school of management and the human relations school of management

Frederick W. Taylor was ahead of his time for his concept of Scientific management. It was a revolutionary way of running a business, that swept all over the globe, and his ideas were applicable to many different industries. Substituting disorder and conflict for a new untested method of control, cooperation, and science. Taylor understood there were no incentives for working harder. Knowing this, he payed workers based on output, allowing workers to make more money on any given day. It seemed like everyone would enjoy and prosper under this system, but that was not the case. Workers liked the opportunity to make more money in this system but many of them resisted this new idea. Being under constant supervision made work much harder for them.

These theories were proven relevant by their popularity (Brooks, 20) “Taylor’s thinking preceded the widespread adoption of mass production techniques, possibly best demonstrated by the early 1920’s motor manufacturers, most significantly Henry Ford in the USA.” Production lines were sequential and followed a strict rule of the “one best way” which may be because the new industry and workers did not have a large amount of knowledge or expertise on how their jobs should be done.

Initially at Ford motors, production used to take place by keeping the vehicle at one position and making the workers move in and about gathering the several parts together. This method unfortunately was a very tedious and time-consuming process. In view of this fact, Henry Ford appointed Taylor to monitor the operations taking place. Ford applied the scientific management

Organizational theory studies the various variables that influence the behavior of an individual(s) working within an organization, but also, “prescribes how work and workers ought to be organized and attempts to explain the actual consequences of organizational behavior (including individual actions) on work being performed and on the organization itself.” (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p.145). Of the many approaches to organizational analysis, Classical Organizational theory has been, even to this day, extremely influential by focusing on more formal concepts such as bureaucracy, rationalization and scientific management. Although, over the decades organizational management has taken on a more human relations approach to getting more productivity out of employees, it is contributors like Max Webber, Fredrick Taylor, and Luther Gulick that laid down the basic foundation organizational theories by recognizing the need for control and procedures.

The twentieth century has brought in a number of management theories which have helped shaped our view of management in the present business environment. These emerging theories have enabled managers to appreciate new patterns of thinking, new ways of organising and new ways of managing organisations and people. Over the years these different theories have enabled the study

The year 1911 saw Frederick Winslow Taylor publish a book titled ‘The principles of scientific management’ in which he aimed to prove that the scientific method could be used in producing profits for an organization through the improvement of an employee’s efficiency. During that decade, management practice was focused on initiative and incentives which gave autonomy to the workman. He thus argued that one half of the problem was up to management, and both the worker and manager needed to cooperate in order to produce the greatest prosperity.

Previously workers would work on their own and strived to improve their skills. The development by Taylor informed staff on what to do and how to do it. The third principle was about cooperation between employers and employees. This principle had two aims one was to achieve productivity through his defined processes and the other was to ensure management and workers worked together.

Define and discuss the different theories of management, using practical examples from your experience or knowledge. Compare classical management theory to any contemporary.

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