Difference Between Neoclassical And Behavioural Theories

Behaviorism and humanism are two theories of learning. Both theories are very important, and have many good qualities, which makes it difficult to say that one is better than the other. When it comes to learning, behaviorism does not consider mental processes, rather it looks at our response to stimuli in our environment. Whereas, humanism sees learning as personal, and is dependent on each individual self. Even though the two theories seem completely opposite of each other, there are some similarities between them pertaining to learning.

Psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud focus on how a child’s instinctual mind interacts with his or her social environment and the important people in it to produce many characteristics and behaviors. There are the structure of the mind and the structure of personality.

Managers and shareholders are the utmost contributors of these conflicts, hence affecting the entire structural organization of a company, its managerial system and eventually to the company's societal responsibility. A corporation is well organized with stipulated division of responsibilities among the arms of the organizational structure, shareholders, directors, managers and corporate officers. However, conflicts between managers in most firms and shareholders have brought about agency problems. Shares and their trade have seen many companies rise to big investments. Shareholders keep the companies running

Throughout this task I will do my best to explain how firms determined to maximize profit do just that. Specifically I will delineate how such firms choose the optimum level of production or output for the goods they produce and how they behave with respect to various elevations of marginal revenue. In my attempt it will be appropriate for me to clarify the definitions of various economic terms in order to assure a proper understanding of my thoughts on this topic, I will provide these definitions throughout.

Nowadays, after the passing of several bills constraining the actions of corporations, acting in a similar manner would pose several legal and ethical issues. This is why, Freeman argues, this ancient idea of managerial capitalism is no longer effective.

Compare the Behaviourist and Psychodynamic approaches to Psychology in terms of theoretical assumptions and methodology.

In what ways are management of companies different or how are they similar to one another? And what is the importance of management in how a company runs nowadays? Many of us question about why knowing the history of management is important to Managers? According to (Samson et al, 2012, Page 53) “A historical perspective provides a broader way of thinking; a way of searching for patterns and determining whether they recur across time periods.” In the history of management, many trends have appeared. Many argue that the new techniques being introduced may not have a permanent solution. Others think that managers adapting to new techniques for continuous improvement in this ever changing world. It is important to know the background of how these management perspectives evolved and who and how is it being used now.

This paper analyzes five great management theorists: F. W. Taylor, Max Weber, Mary Parker Follett, and Douglas McGregor. Each theorist will be compared by four management functions: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling as detailed in the textbook: The Essentials of Contemporary Management-Sixth Edition from Gareth Jones and Jennifer M. George. We begin by discussing commerce prior the industrial revolution and then we define the key management functions, followed by an examination of each theorist, applying a template of analysis and critique.

Psychology is not just philosophical speculation and reasoning over the years it has evolved and it is now also recognised as a science, to understand what psychology is all about it is necessary to know it’s origins and the theorist who brought it out of obscurity, Sigmund Freud. He developed the Psychodynamic or Psychoanalytical perspective to enable better understanding of human behaviour these concepts will be discussed further later in this study. After Freud opened the gateway other perspectives and approaches have been developed, now with five main areas of psychology - Cognitive, Behaviourist, Biopsychology and Humanist approaches. For a comparison with the Psychodynamic theory, Behaviourist Theory will be discussed.

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

This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees,

Learning is the relatively permanent change in behavior (Burns, 1995), and can come in the form of observable activities and internal processes. Explanations of what happens when these actions occur are known as learning theories. These theories include behaviorist, cognitivist, humanist, social learning and constructivist. In this essay behaviorist and cognitivists will be described, compared and contrasted in order to truly understand their approache.

The definition of ‘management’ is controversial and subject to much debate. There have been many contradictory views on what the term ‘management’ means and accordingly how one should correctly manage an organisation. These theories have been put forward by several highly regarded management scholars over time. By taking into account past knowledge and contemporary views on management, we are able to ‘’explore how thinking has changed through time’’. (Brooks, 2006). Moreover, businesses have, and can continue to be able to adapt these theories and put them into practice. Successfully applying correct management practices is especially vital in a global business environment which is becoming very competitive. ‘’Most management theories, even those that do not resonate comfortably with the prevailing mood, have attractive and valid elements to them.’’ (Robinson, 2005). For example, some of these theories can be seen flourishing in fast food chains like McDonalds.

Various heads of these departments alongside a board and an assigned president then made decisions for the organization thereby adding a ‘visible hand’ to the affairs of the organization leading the enterprise in a set direction. Another point to be taken under consideration here is that an industrial enterprise, in addition to the functional units, also expanded in other ways. There were defensive expansion trends i.e. horizontal or vertical expansion, and the offensive ones, i.e. geographical and product diversification. Further evolution in the industrial enterprise led to performance monitoring measures i.e. inclusion of a long-term and innovative corporate strategy with middle and the top management being the sole decision makers. However, with labor intensive industries i.e. printing or textiles, they don`t offer a competitive advantage for the integrated enterprises (Chandler & Montgomery 1979: 71). Therefore, in these cases, mass retailers tend to dominate with large purchasing units while eliminating other intermediaries.

Proponents of the knowledge-based theory of the firm point out that this one sided concentration on incentive conflicts in the economics of organizational literature overlooks the production side of the firm. Langlois and Foss, for example, argue that the literature has unreflectively relied on a dichotomy between productive aspects and exchange aspects of the firm, that is, on a dichotomy between production costs and exchange costs. In analyzing exchange costs the literature recognizes that exchange itself is not costless, but involves transaction costs from imperfect knowledge and opportunism. But in analyzing production costs, there has been an embedded agreement that price theory tells us all we need to know about production. As Langlois and Foss point out, however, it is very likely that knowledge about how to produce is imperfect and that knowledge about how to link together one person’s (or organization’s) productive knowledge with that of another is imperfect. These twin issues of capabilities and coordination are discrete from the hazards of astringent that other traditional beliefs have focused on. Both knowledge resources and (imperfect) production costs can be said to vary depending on the attributes of a production process, in the same way that transaction costs differ depending on the asset attributes of investment projects. Thus, instead of holding technology constant across alternative modes of organization as a