Classical authority theory:

This is known as top-down authority. It supports the principle of scalar chain or organizational
hierarchy. In this theory, authority flows from top to bottom through various levels of hierarchy.
It flows from the Board of Directors to Managing Director, to General Managers, to middle-level
managers, lower-level managers, supervisors and finally to workers. Every subordinate accepts
this authority and obeys instructions issued by the superiors.

Disobedience is followed by coercive measures to demand obedience. This authority is derived

by virtue of position in the organization. When that person leaves the organization, he loses the
authority to issue instructions also. The flow of authority is governed by the process of
delegation. Each level in the scalar chain can exercise only that much authority that is delegated
through superiors.

The authority clearly defines the job of the position, that is, the task the position holder has to
achieve through orders to be given to the subordinates. Being related to position in the
organizational hierarchy, it is also known as formal or legitimate authority.

The acceptance theory:

This theory was formulated by Mary Parker Follett but later popularized by Chester Barnard. It is
also known as bottom-up authority. It is based on the premise that authority does not flow from
top to bottom but flows from bottom to top. It implies that superiors can exercise authority only
if it is accepted by the subordinates.

The acceptance of authority by subordinates, thus, vests management with authority. The flow of
authority takes the form of request by top managers. If this request is accepted by subordinates,
managers exercise the authority, and if subordinates do not accept it, no authority is exercised by
managers.

As against classical authority, Barnard viewed authority as existent when subordinates are
willing to accept it. If employees do not accept the authority, manager loses the right to give
orders.
“Authority is the character of a communication (order) in a formal organization by virtue of
which it is accepted by a contributor to or a member of the organization as governing or
determining what he does or is not to do so far as the organization is concerned”.

“An individual will accept an exercise of authority if the advantages accruing to him from
accepting plus the disadvantages accruing to him from not accepting exceed the advantages
accruing to him from not accepting plus the disadvantages accruing to him from accepting; and
conversely, he will not accept an exercise of authority if the latter factors exceed the former.”

Individuals set limits within which they accept the authority.

These are:

(a) Actions which are unacceptable and, therefore, not carried out by them,

(b) Actions those are both acceptable and unacceptable. They are the borderline cases, and

(c) Actions which are acceptable and, therefore, carried out by them. These actions lie in the zone
of indifference and, thus, managers can issue orders with respect to these actions.

A person accepts authority if, according to Chester Barnard, four conditions are satisfied.

These are:

(a) He fully understands the communication,

(b) At the time of decision, he believes it is consistent with the objectives of the organization,

(c) At the time of decision, he also believes that it is consistent with his personal objectives, and

(d) He is physically and mentally adjusted to the communication i.e., he agrees to accept the
communication.

The fewer of these 4 conditions that are present, the lower the probability that authority will be
accepted and obedience be exacted.
Following are the basic points of difference between the two:

Classical Theory of Authority:

1. It is normative in nature. It describes the norms that managers follow in issuing directions.

2. It relates to role prescription, that is, formal roles to be performed by managers.

3. Role behavior (role of employees) more or less matches role prescription (role of superiors).

Acceptance Theory of Authority:

1. It is descriptive in nature. It describes how managers actually exercise authority over

subordinates.

2. It relates to role behavior, that is, actual behavior of subordinates towards the roles prescribed
for managers.

3. Role behavior may or may not match role prescription depending upon employees’ zone of
indifference.