Amongst means putting in rigid framework by

Amongst
all the different subtypes of Management there are two main classical theorists
Henry Fayol and Frederick Taylor.One of the earliest Theories was developed by
a theorist called Henry Fayol in the early 19th Century. Today Fayol
is known as the Father of modern management. He was the Director of a mining
company in France that employed more than one thousand people. The high demand
for leadership and organisation of this large workforce stimulated Fayol’s mind
to develop his theory, “The Five functions of Management” which highlights the
key qualities and functions that a manager should possess. “His is a normative
and pre-scriptive model: it indicates how managers should conduct their
activities in order to achieve efficiency” (Brooks,
I 2009). This essay will include the view of classical and human relation
theorists and how they impact management today.

The
Five Functions theory reflect Henry Fayol’s mindset that is echoed in these two
famous quotes of his, “Planning means both to assess the future and make
provision for it.”, and “Its object is to point out mistakes in order that they
may be rectified and prevented from recurring.” The two quotes highlight Henry
Fayol’s motivations and personality as a manager who is very proactive,
prepares for the future by setting objectives and looks to critique his
employees in order to improve communication and the quality of work completed. (17 ASTONISHING HENRI FAYOL QUOTES –
BRANDONGAILLE.COM)  

These
are the Five Fundamental Functions that he believed make a good manager:

 Plan
and forecast: Preparing the steps and a series of actions that needs to be
taken in order for an Organisation to meet its Financial and Non- financial targets
in the future.                                                                                                                                 Organise: To achieve the principles
laid out by Henry Fayol, and so each person in the Organisation understands
their role. This also means putting in rigid framework by which each person
partakes in fulfilling the administrative principles embraced by Fayol.                                                                               Co-ordination: “To ensure resources
actions and outputs are co-ordinated to achieve desired outcomes”.                                                                                                  
Command: Top provide
direction for employees to guide the about their duties and to provide the
necessary supervision and instructions to motivate the workers so that they
perform each activity effectively to maximise productivity.                                                                                                                                  Control: “ensuring that activities are
in accordance with the plan that orders are followed and principles are
applied. (Brooks, I 2009).
According to Fayol the ideal manager is somebody that pre-plans the direction
of the Organisation and takes control the employees actions by providing strict
instructions to make sure the ultimate goal is achieved. He portrays the ideal
manager as a conductor/ instructor that gives feedback monitors the employees
to eliminate mistakes and inefficiencies. According to Fayol a manager commands
and controls the actions of his subordinates, and interferes when he believes
an employee has strayed of the path of the common goal. These were the fundamental
qualities that Henry Fayol felt were imperative to be a successful manager.

However,
“The five functions” Produced by Fayol has several Limitations. An example is
that it does not fully reflect the full complexities that Managers may face in
the present-day workplace, especially since new regulations and technologies
have been implemented, meaning managers in the 21st Century work in a different
environment to Fayol. (Businessmate.org,
line 30 2017). Especially in the 21st Century where employee
rights and freedoms have progressed significantly and become more just, in
comparison to the 1800’s. Another difference is the development of technology
which makes communication instant amongst large organizations. Therefore
Fayol’s 5 functions seem a little out-dated and more specific for managing
large labour forces.

Due
to the limitations presented by “the five functions of management”, and his
experience in the mines of France when he was still a young man you can infer
that the pressures and demands of the job helped him expand his theory through
trial and error to formulate, “The 14 principles of management”, theory that is
in accordance with his original views. It consists of 14 principles of
management that are divided into two groups namely, primarily structural
principles and Other principles as tabulated below.

“Division
of Labour”, still a common practice in agricultural industry or Factories by
which longer complex tasks are separated into smaller simpler ones and together
as a collective each member of the workforce is responsible for a segment
(fraction) of the process. This allows each employee to focus solely on one
task and practice doing it consistently enabling them to perform it with speed
and accuracy, as it becomes second nature. This seamless integration of workers
building the product in organized stages, reduces production time, thus
increasing the rate of manufacturing generating greater yields of productivity creating
more profit. A modern-day example of how division of labour is still used in
the 21st Century is seen in this article. BBC Oneplusone smartphone
Factory in Shenzhen, China. Each worker performs a specific task and at the
end of the line you have a fully functioning smartphone. This Factory portrays the coherence of of Fayols
principles  in the present day.

The
Smartphone Factory in China also conveys the principle of unity of direction as
these individuals are wearing the same uniform and treated equally. In
addition, they have to obey the task orders issued by the manager avoiding
unnecessary disorder and confusion. The labour force is also working
collectively to achieve a joint target, i.e. the production of smartphone units.
At this particular factory 90 smartphones were produced per hour. Despite
performing each task individually, they are contributing to the bigger picture
and each worker has contributed equally to the final product enabling them to
take pride in the product they have manufactured, linking into the idea of
“espirit de corps”- which states Organizations should aim to promote team spirit and
unity.

Fast
Food Restaurants such as KFC and McDonalds, are a good representation of how “remuneration”
and “initiative”, two of Fayol’s Principles are not carried out fairly in
today’s society. The Principle States that employee satisfaction depends on
fair remuneration for all workers, including Financial Remuneration implying that
employees are paid almost equally and that wealth is more equally distributed,
synonymous of socialist views that say wealth should be distributed equally The eater artcile 2007

The
article addresses the large pay gap between workers and CEO’S of Fast-food
companies. McDonalds and KFC CEO’S earned a staggering 74 and 72 US Dollars
more respectively per US dollar that a worker made. This Contradicts Fayol’s
ideals that Remuneration should be fairer for workers financially as well as
non-financially. From this we can gather further evidence about modern
societies capitalist approach to management, contradicting Fayol’s principles. Demonstrating
how in theory providing the workers with a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction
is important, but may be considered as too costly and time consuming. Indicating
that in a Capitalist society with high demand and competition.

A
prominent figure in the mid-20th Century that challenged Henry Fayol’s
Theories was a Canadian academic called Henry Mintzberg who criticized Henry
Fayol’s Theories and labelled them as folklore in an article he wrote “The
Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact”

In
this article he opposes Fayol’s view that managers plan all components and
oversee every detail of a project but claimed managers today work following a
schedule that is quite emphatic and disorderly, which he described as “brevity
and discontinuity” in his article, suggesting managers want to tackle present
issues in and organisation, such as replying to hundreds of emails or speaking
on the telephone to numerous people. These numerous short bursts of work that
last only a few minutes is what Mintzberg classified as the useful activities
of managers. Conversely to Fayol’s principle which says managers should be organised
and need to plan in advance, Mintzberg claimed managers dislike reflective
tasks and work at a really fast pace meaning they touch on hundreds of tasks
but rarely delve into a task in detail, portraying managers as opportunists who
perform many tasks and abandon tasks that require prolonged hours of work and
an ordeal of focus.

Mintzberg’s
set out his own managerial roles summed up below: 

Mintzberg
felt managers were more effective when they split their work into 3 sections
and across a broad scope of tasks that deal with the present issues. He
believed managers should monitor employees

Another
classical theorists was Frederick Taylor, which presented his theory of
scientific management Taylor’s theory was a response to a motivational problem,
called “soldiering -the attempt among workers to do the least amount of work in
the longest amount of time”, as highlighted in the article this problem deeply
affected the United States of America, as productivity was severely decreased
due to this lazy approach to work (The economist-2009) . Taylor’s theory broke
the work process down into the smallest possible units, or sub-tasks, in an
effort to determine the most efficient method possible for completing a
particular job.

Taylor
set out these principles of scientific management that would yield
standardisation and discipline. He essentially standardised the entire system,
to minimise excuses for performing a task. In contrast to Fayol who was more
concerned about the emotional state the workers and focused on boosting their
moral. Taylor was a disciplinarian. Fayol’s idea of a successful manager and
catering to their needs so that this positive effect would lift their spirits
and infiltrate through the hierarchal layers to produce a positive effect to
maximise profits. Fayol used principles of unity and team spirit to help the
employees work together and build a healthy relationship between the managers
and employees. Fayol felt a worker’s and manager’s relationship should be

On
the contrary Taylor opted for standardisation of the manufacturing method and
aimed to treat his employees as machines by which they performed tasks. Taylor
swiftly “Replaced rule-of-thumb”, which means to eradicate old habits and old
methods with new methods based on scientific study of how the tasks to be
carried out more effectively. Furthermore, he was a strong believer in scientifically
selecting the correct person to do a specific task. By producing a specialised workforce,
he would eliminate the inefficient employees and optimize productivity. Jobs
were standardised and simplified preferably to only one action. Taylor was an
advocate for providing individuals with clear-cut instructions on what they
have to do, to prevent confusion and wastage of time, due to his obsession with
achieving perfect efficiency.  Then he supervises
them while they performed these manufacturing labour tasks.  Taylor introduced “A Piece-Rate System”, where
he timed the amount of work employees did using a stopwatch and used a notebook
to record how much each employee would be paid based on their efficiency. This
contrasted with Fayol’s idea of “equity”, because only the hardest workers will
get the most money according to Taylor’s model, this pay difference can lead to
disputes diminishing Fayol’s principle “espirit de corps”. Taylor and Fayol had
dissimilar views on remuneration

Taylor’s
rationale based on remuneration differed significantly to Fayol’s as he
believed that workers should be paid based the amount of work they do. However,
Fayol believed employees were not solely motivated financially, and he cared
deeply for the creativity of employees. Whereas Taylor treated worker like robots;
dehumanising them and perhaps depriving them of a sense of fulfilment which contradicts
what Fayol highlights as an important one in his 14 principles “initiative”.
Instead Taylor enforced repetition, simplicity, and a more uniform approach. (The economist 2009)

On
the opposite end of the spectrum the Human relations school is in favour of an
emphasis on people. Elton Mayo was a human relations theorist. The Australian
professor of Philosophy, began his involvement in the Hawthorne studies in
1928. The Hawthorne study began in 1924, which involved
isolating two groups of workers in order to experiment on the impact of their
productivity with different incentives. Well in actual fact the results showed
that it was non-financial incentives that actually impacted productivity a
drastic change to the classical management theories of Taylor

The
Outcomes of the experiment were in fact a lot more complex reflecting how human
necessity should be prioritised. Mayo placed this shocking discover down to the
following factors: Social pressures may have controlled or affected levels of
output- meaning that concerns were dominated by social issues as opposed to
managerial concerns. This raised the belief that social non -financial motivation
is the key aspect to improve performance. These Findings Contradict Frederick
Taylor’s Principle of remuneration challenging the ideals of Classical
Management that portray a more ration approach. The new Human relations
approach is centred around communication and teambuilding inducing transparency
amongst modern organisation to maximise the espirit de corps effect that Fayol
highly valued.

In
conclusion, I believe that the Classical theories provided by Theorists of
Classical management gave us the foundations for management today as they
provided us it the basic principle to boost productivity and manage large
workforces especially during the industrial revolution. The classical gave us a
(chain of command) a hierarchy system that we implement across all frameworks
in the modern wold. However, with the turn of the century in 2000, the
digitalisation of industry became more apparent and technology advanced causing
the environmental setting of managers to change. Additionally, with the rise of
unions and employee right, it was clear that management needed to develop in a
social aspect and respect the rights and freedoms of employees.