The Classical/Modernist Approach Was Appropriate to the Time in Which It Was Developed but It Is No Longer Suitable to the Needs of Contemporary Organisations and Change

The administrators in Kristins case definitely took the modernist approach. They implemented decisions based upon the scientific model Authority was divided by offices and responsibility. Each office had specific tasks to complete and acted on that rational alone. No one took a minute to think outside of the box or to consider latent evidence. Everyone had the own specific duty to perform and that was

Classical organizational theories: As a group, we do not feel that the classical organizational theory complies with the six core values of the NASW code of ethics. We did not feel that the classical organization theory provided any help, support, or benefits to help the members reach their maximum potentials, other than those who are already at the top. We also felt that this theory did not provide equal rights, protection, or social benefits as a part of the social justice perspective of the core values. Where the power and resources rest at the top of the agencies who utilize this theory, we feel that those at the bottom are not held in high esteem, valued, or appreciated. We also feel that the importance of human relationships is dismissed

In society, there are groups that interact with each other. They may be families, churches, government agencies, or anything in between. Those groups can be defined as systems, and in the systems perspective that is what they are referred to (Hutchison, 2017). In the 1960s, Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed the general systems theory in relation to biology, but it was widely publicized and used for various subjects (Hutchison, 2017). Hutchison (2017) summarized Bertalanffy’s theory by saying, “any element is best understood by considering its interactions with its constituent parts as well as its interactions with larger systems of which it is a part.” (p.

This essay will discuss the relevance of the ideas of classical theorists in today’s work and organisations. I will evaluate why these ideas gained popularity when they were published by looking at the influences that classical theorists were surrounded by at the time of their development. I will then focus on bureaucracy and scientific theories, by looking at the organisations and countries that have adopted this style and how a negative reputation has been

The General Systems Theory (GST) came about as an effort to describe the systems approach, born from the biological concept of the organism developed in the first part of the 20th century (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). In contrast to the mechanistic systems which are closed and have a direct relationship between a cause and its effect, a biological or social system is open, operating on a principle of equifinality, where regardless of the starting point, the objective can be achieved (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Any system will achieve equilibrium, but an open system can reach a steady state by accessing resources from outside itself (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The underlying assumptions of GST rely on the organization of a company resembling the inner workings of an organism. However, subgroups within organizations can act independently of the the whole, in

The fundamental of orthodox management literature is concerned with the efficiency and effectiveness of an organisation. It copes with several problems such as the classical and human relations theory, motivation and leadership. It also assumes that employees are a key asset as well as the society has moved to a Post-Fordism and post-bureaucratic approach. However, orthodox management is only concerned with how the organisation is behaving instead of why the business is conducting in a certain way. Another limitation is that the theory is merely a group of people’s idea so it is always contestable. In this essay, I will describe how the conventional management theory apply to today’s organisations; demonstrate the reality of work through

Maddern, J., Courtney, M., Montgomery, J., & Nash, R. (2006). Traditional and emerging organisational designs (2nd ed.). Marrickville, Australia: Elsevier Australia.

The foundational concept of systems theory is as old as Aristotle's statement that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But when the biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy created the concept of general systems theory (GST), he was reacting against a powerful contemporary emphasis within his field which stressed reductionism rather than a holistic perspective. "He fathered an organismic approach to biology as a reaction to the vitalism-reductionism arguments that were rampant in his day," which focused upon components of organisms instead and the notion that living systems were innately different than non-living systems (Provost 2011). Von Bertalanffy instead stressed that all systems shared similar properties, regardless of their nature. First and foremost, the components of every system from a cell to a human being, to a society of human beings must be understood in consort, not in isolation This signified "a unity of the observed universe and hence of science" (Provost 2011).

My name is Jamie Federoff and I am currently studying at the University Of Southern Queensland (USQ) and hoping to get my degree in creative arts majoring in theatre. Systems theory is an important theory proposed by biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in the 1940’s and later developed by Ross Ashby in 1964. It is a theory that explores a set of theoretical concepts used to describe a variety of things in terms of a system. There are three content influences in the system theory.

This unit mentioned systems dynamics mostly, but I thought it was interesting to see the different perspectives when talking about holism versus reductionism, as well as The Scientific Method versus The Scientist’s Toolbox. Systems dynamics is an important part of this unit, but I also think that comparing different

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.

In order for any organization to be successful, they must find effective ways to change systems and policies that are ineffective in creating a successful environment. A system consists of four things, elements, attributes, internal relationships, and the system environment. The systems theory is transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). The study investigates all the principals common to all complex bodies, and the models which can be used to describe them. Von Bertalanffy (1971) was the creator of the “system” concept, he developed this idea as an answer to the limitations of individual disciplines in addressing complex social issues (Mitchell, 2005). The underlining principal of this theory is that an organization consists of multiple, interdependent parts that collectively form more than the sum of their parts. Developed from the systems theory, are three separate theories with the basis of each being the systems theory. The activity theory considers the entire program versus just one single sector, it sees the operation as a whole instead of sub departments, it combines both micro and macro elements of the organization. The chaos theory does not mean a chaotic hectic situation, rather a situation where there appears to be little to no order, there really is a hidden underlying order. The complexity theory is

Along with the development of organizations and corporations over the past 200 years, organizational behaviour and the associated concepts have undergone revolutionary changes. From Adam Smith (1776) to Peter Ferdinand Drucker in the 21st Century, numerous experts have proposed and advocated various concepts and ideas on organisational behaviour and associated practices. For example, in the pre-history era, Adam Smith（1776） has noted that the division of labour, this method and idea has been accepted and adopted in different kinds of organization. And the same era, the Principles of Scientific Management was proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911, which has focused on how to work to maximize the benefits to staff, mangers and society, moreover, it also developed some methods of supervision, uniform and work standard. Actually, no matter the scientific management by Taylor or Weber’s management of Bureaucracy, these theories are provide the foundation for Modernism. Gradually, it can be distinguished by three different types of organization theories in different areas, including Modernism, symbolic-Interpretive and Postmodernism. These three theoretical perspectives can be analyzed and discussed by several parts, such as environment, social structure, technology and organizational culture. In the Modernist perspective, there have three main organization theories, including general system theory, social-technical systems theory and contingency theory. However,

According to Modern Management Concepts & Skills, Classical Approach defined as management approach that emphasizes organizational efficiency to increase organizational success (Certo, P. 509). The approach broken into two areas: The Lower Management Analysis focused on “One Best Way” of do a job. The second area, Comprehensive Analysis of the management concern focused on a universal process including principal of management. Classical management approach theory developed around nineteenth century. Given the period “The Rise of Industrial America”, “the relatively high wages for skilled workers led employers to seek ways to replace skilled with unskilled or semi-skilled workers”. (White, Richard) The theory originally designed to fix the inefficiency of the factories during that time. As a result, the classical approach theory gravitated toward economic and physical efficiently rather than human factors.

In the beginning of the twenty century, classical management theory was proposed. This classical management theory maintains labours’ high level specialization, centralized decision making, as well as maximize profit. (www.businessdictioary.com ) The main two thoughts of classical theory are bureaucracy and scientific management. Nowadays some people argue that the classical management theory is no longer suitable for modern world and they are outmoded because of the business environment has changed. This management theory is not that feasible since it is inflexible and dehumanized which should be modified. However, there is another voice that classical management theory is the foundation of numerous modern management methods, so it is not out of date and it just need some improvement. The aim of this essay is to discuss two kinds of classical theory bureaucracy and scientific management theory and demonstrate that they are not out of date and they develop into the cornerstone of some modern management theories.