Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page | 1
The linguistic origins of the word “management” lie in the Latin word for
“hand”. In the sixteenth century, management had come to mean the act of
controlling (“bringing to hand”) a horse or a wild animal. Ever since, the word
has had strong connotations of control.
At about the same time, the first business schools were established in the
United States to develop a normative theory of organisational administration.
Over the last century or so, many theoretical approaches have been adopted
to make sense of organisational behaviour, particularly the manner in which
they are effectively administered. We shall divide these approaches into five
Page | 2
The Classical School
“Taylorism”, as it has become known, has, since its inception, received strong
criticism. It was said to drain work of its interest, to de-skill labour, to deny
people pride in the work they did, to treat working men as mindless automata
complying with the instructions given by others, and to place far too much
power in the hands of a small cadre of managers. Studies showed that men
who worked in these conditions felt demeaned and became resentful.
First Draft -20 August 2009 gohargoddard@aol.com
The Leading Edge Forum Rethinking Management and Employee Engagement
The notion that human beings are “resources” descends directly from Taylor’s
concept of how management could be made “scientific”. The modern practice
of applying standard procedures, emulating best practice, demanding
compliance with company-wide processes, adopting world-class practices is,
for good or ill, a child of Taylorism. Management remains to this day imbued
with an instrumental view of the workplace, treating people as rational,
economic agents motivated by monetary gain linked to personal output. Each
person is a unit of production to be managed rather like a machine. Indeed,
scientific management is sometimes called the “machine theory model”.
Drucker himself was highly influenced by Henri Fayol, one of the first writers to
try and describe management in terms of a fundamental set of activities or Page | 4
Working at the same time as Taylor but before Fayol, Max Weber, a German
sociologist, was interested in power and authority, and in particular, how
“bureaucratic structures”, as he chose to call them, placed constraints on the
arbitrary or unskilled exercise of power. He admired bureaucracy because of
its purely technical superiority over any other form of organisation. By
defining tasks and responsibilities within a clear, hierarchical structure of
management, work could be made rational, systematic and well-ordered.
Bureaucratic solutions to organisational design have their critics. The main line
of attack is that bureaucracies tend to inflexible, rule-bound and conservative;
and that bureaucrats themselves can be officious, status-conscious and
unresponsive. Because rules and procedures cannot, by definition, cover every
eventuality, they tend to stifle initiative and inhibit change. Sometimes, the
rules and procedures become ends in themselves, and a culture of “red tape”
takes over.
Critics of Weber argue that he neglected the informal organisation and the
ways in which individuals and groups pursue their own goals, invent their own
methods, and find ingenious ways of subverting the formal system. Others,
such as Chris Argyris, have argued that bureaucracies are antithetical to the
psychological development of the individual. They draw upon only a small part
of human potential. They crowd out creativity, autonomous choice, a sense of
responsibility, commitment, self-control and innate ambition. Working in a
bureaucracy can all too often become a dehumanising experience. Simon
Caulkin has suggested that organising around the task rather than the person
has the effect of reducing each person’s horizon to the confines of his own
small plot, at the expense of the larger purpose of the enterprise. Robert
Merton has noticed the development of a “bureaucratic personality” for which
a fixation on rules leads to dysfunctional rituals such as “goal displacement”,
the habit of sacrificing overall purpose to short-term compliance.
The classical school, with its bias towards the rational, quasi-scientific design of
organisational structure, job content and working methods, tended to ignore
the psychological dimension of those working in these environments and
adhering to these principles. The truth is that people are not machines,
First Draft -20 August 2009 gohargoddard@aol.com
The Leading Edge Forum Rethinking Management and Employee Engagement
subject solely to the will of the designer. They like to feel in control of their
own behaviour. They take positive enjoyment in variety and they relish
exercising their own imagination and ingenuity. They are happy to adopt
challenging assignments and to take responsibility for the result. Setting to Page | 6
one side people’s feelings, preferences and aspirations in the cause of
simplicity, efficiency and perfection can all too often be self-defeating.
From these experiments, it became clear that the quality and integrity of social
relationships at work were critical to performance. Neglecting the
fundamental significance of work groups, styles of leadership, quality of
communication, sources of personal motivation, and inter-personal relations
was, it was argued, to omit the most critical performance variables of all.
Whereas the classical writers had taken the perspective of management,
looking at organisational effectiveness through the eyes of those in authority,
the human relations school adopted the perspective of those whose jobs were
subject to the design decisions of managers, that is, the vantage point of the
workers on whom the performance of the whole enterprise ultimately
depended. In contrast to the classical school’s emphasis on raising
organisational performance by rationalising the workplace, the human
relations schools stressed the imperative of humanising it.
It did this by recognising the informal organisation as the true living heart of
the enterprise. Employees, they believed, are the true architects of the
organisation that actually gets work done. They set the rules and values by
which they do their work. They form the groups in which collaborative work is
performed. They combine forces in the ways they want. They set the
First Draft -20 August 2009 gohargoddard@aol.com
The Leading Edge Forum Rethinking Management and Employee Engagement
performance standards and regulate the pace of work. They discover the best
ways of accommodating the requirements of managers and the formal
structures of the organisation. They choose their own level of commitment to
the corporation. Loyalty tends to be directed to colleagues and fellow workers Page | 7
rather than to the boss or to the company. People prefer to work for each
other rather than for the goals set by those ostensibly in power. Even the
lowliest person has his own dignity and takes pride in owning his own decisions
and judgments.
Human Relations theorists showed that the reasons people go to work and the
rewards of doing so are diverse. For most employees, earning a living is only
part of the package. Work meets social and emotional as well as financial and
physiological needs. Freud notes that work is an effective mechanism for
keeping us sane. People go to work to socialise, to find a common cause to
serve, to belong to a group, to serve as a member of team, to gain respect and
social esteem, to make friends, to feel useful, to keep out of harm’s way, to be
occupied and to keep busy. Denis Pym once observed that “work is a front for
living”.
In the 1940s the humanistic approach was given a boost by the work of
Abraham Maslow. He was interested in individual development and personal
motivation. He put forward a hierarchical model of human needs. Only when
the “lower needs” were satisfied do individuals progress to the fulfilment of
their “higher needs”. He suggested five levels of need, from basic physiological
requirements at the lowest level, through needs for safety, love, esteem and,
at the highest level, self-actualisation. Organisational theorists adopted
Maslow’s model enthusiastically, seeing in it a normative model of effective
management and a blueprint for the idealised organisation. A high performing
company would be one, they suggested, that brought the maximum number of
its employees up to the top rungs of the hierarchy of needs.
Like Herzberg, Douglas McGregor built on Maslow’s ideas as they apply to the
world of work. He identified and described two broad styles of management,
that he termed Theory X and Theory Y. Each took a different (and admittedly
extreme) view of human nature. Each view had dramatically different
implications for how management should be practised. McGregor himself
believed that Theory Y came much closer to the truth of human nature.
Theory X makes the assumption that people are basically lazy and therefore
shirk work if they can. They actively resist taking responsibility for anything if
they can, and would much prefer to take instructions from others. They lack
ambition and crave security above anything else. They are motivated only by
the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy: the need for pay and job security. For
these people, the appropriate management style is directive, coercive, and
controlling – a “carrot and stick” approach.
Theory Y takes the opposite line. It sees in people a natural desire to work and
to excel. People enjoy bringing their energy and ambition to work in the
service of a shared set of organisational goals to which they are happy to
subscribe if fairly remunerated for their efforts and achievements. They are
comfortable taking responsibility for themselves and directing their own lives.
Like everyone else, they can be creative, committed and conscientious in the
right conditions. They are motivated primarily by the higher levels of Maslow’s
hierarchy: by the need for affiliation, esteem and self-actualisation. For these
people, the right management style is the creation of those conditions in which
all employees serve the organisation’s goals by serving their own higher-level
needs.
The legacy of the human relations school is profound and can be found in any
successful firm. It includes a concern for job satisfaction and job enrichment,
empowerment strategies, learning and development activities, the promotion
Page | 9
The Open Systems School
If the Classical bias was to study “organisations without people” and if the
Human Relations bias was to study “people without organisations”, then the
Open Systems School of Management chose to try and reconcile these
differences and produce a more coherent, more balanced model of effective
management.
Other writers have focussed on the intimate links between technology and the
social patterns of work. C.R. Walker and R.H. Guest looked at how assembly
line methods influenced the behaviour of employees; L.R. Sayles looked at the
relationship between technology and the nature of work groups; and R.
Blauner diagnosed problems of alienation in relation to various production
technologies.
The sociologists working within the Social Action school sought to analyse the
company from the perspective of the individual employee (the “actor”), each
with their perceptions of their own interests and opportunities. It is the
subjectivity of each person’s interpretation of their situation and their role Page | 11
that determines their behaviour. All experiences are mediated by meanings –
and these meaning are wholly personal to the individual whose actions and
behaviour are being modelled. Hence the importance of building a theory of
how people attach meanings to their work, to the organisation they work for,
and to the goals of the organisation itself. Social action theorists place the
individual’s own definitions of their situation and its possibilities at the heart of
their research.
Social Action theory tends to see the organisation, not as a unified group with
shared goals, common values and a single leader, but as competing factions,
each fighting their own corner and each loyal to different leaders and varied
objectives. The distinction that is drawn is between unitary and pluralistic
approaches to organisation. For social action theorists, the natural state of
most organisations is political and conflictual.
Bowey’s theory of social action is based on three core principles: 1) that the
explanation of individual behaviour requires the concept of “meaningful
action”; 2) that the actions that an individual takes are best understood from
the perspective of these meanings; and 3) that actions serve either to
reinforce or to modify these meanings.
The legacy of the Social Action school is its individualistic and eclectic
perspective on the organisation and the limited power that managers, who
are, of course, individuals themselves with their own agendas, can exercise in a
setting where people naturally form coalitions and interest groups that are
often at variance with the “officially” espoused aims and methods of the
formal organisation.
Every business situation, like any game at any stage of play, is unique. The
next move in the game will always be a question of judgment, and never
simply adherence to a rule. Managers cannot escape from the fact that there
are no substitutes for first-hand thinking, or surrogates for subjective
judgment, or ready-made solutions. There can be no equivalent of “painting-
by-numbers” in the management of a company. The best decision will find its
rationale in the specificity of the prevailing situation. Business success is
inherently a singularity, and never simply a data point in a theory of how to
win.
Theorists who treat business management as more like cooking than chess – in
other words, capable of being turned into recipes – are committing a category
mistake. Over the last 20 years, particularly with a resurgence of interest in
strategic innovation, business school scholars have challenged the notion that
there can be such a thing as a science, or indeed a theory, of management at
all.
In the last few years, several writers have articulated a vehemently anti-
managerial stance, arguing that companies and government departments are
massively over-managed, or at least managed in a crude and heavy-handed
manner. Sumantra Ghoshal, in a sequence of articles for the Harvard Business
Review at the turn of the millennium, suggested that the bias towards
Jules Goddard
August 2009