Table of Contents

.PRE-CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THOUGHT.............................................................................................2

1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Contributors of Pre-scientific Management Theory..........................................................................4
1.2.1 ADAM SMITH (1729–1737).....................................................................................................4
1.2.2 ROBERT OWEN (1771-1858):...................................................................................................4
1.2.3 CHARLES BABAGE (1792-1871):..............................................................................................4
1.2.4 JAMES WATT JUNIOR (UK 1796 - 1848) AND MATHEW ROBINSON BOULTON (1770 - 1842): 5
1.2.5 HENRY ROBINSON TOWNE (1844 -1924):................................................................................5
1.2.6 SEEBOHM ROWNTREE (1871- 1954):......................................................................................6
1.2.7 ANDREW URE: (1778–1857)....................................................................................................6
1.2.8 CHARLES DUPIN (1784–1873):................................................................................................6
1.2.9 HENRY VARNUM POOR (1812-1905):......................................................................................6
1.3 Criticism Forwarded on pre-classical management thought.............................................................7
1.4 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................7
Reference..............................................................................................................................................10
1. PRE-CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THOUGHT
1.1 Introduction
If we look at recorded history, a number of monumental examples of management can be traced.
The Sumerian, Egyptian, Axum, Chinese, Greek and Roman civilizations represent significant
practices in management. The management skills required for the Chinese in building the great
wall, the Egyptians in constructing the majestic pyramids, Axumites in building the obelisks
and the Romans in developing their sophisticated cities equipped with roads and aqueducts.
These are just a few examples of how humans throughout thousands of years of history have
always relied on management skills to achieve goals and aspirations.

As the villages grew and civilizations evolved, the managers also grew and evolved. They
became the priests, the kings, the ministers holding power and wealth in the society. Written
documents found in the Sumerian civilization which flourished some 5000 years ago, contains
evidence of management control practices.
As early as 4000 B.C., the Egyptians were aware of the importance of planning, organizing and
controlling. The huge pyramids of Egypt stand a mute testimony to the managerial and
organizational abilities of the ancient Egyptian civilization. According to Herodotus, One
pyramid required 100,000 men working for 20 years, covering 13 acres, using 2.3 million blocks,
each weighing an average of 2.5 tons (Mendelssohn, 1971), (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). To
produce such a monument required proper planning, work allocation, organizing, directing,
controlling and decision making.
The Romans who built a vast empire extending from Britain in the west to Syria in the east ruled
it for many years only because of their superior and advanced managerial abilities.

The Chinese philosopher Mencius (372-298 BC) advocated the conceptual models and systems
that are now classified under the term of production management techniques. He was also an
early proponent of the division of labor. Ancient Greeks, on the other hand, understood the
advantages of, and practiced uniform work methods. Division of labor was also recognized by
Plato (427-347 BC) who wrote in “The Republican”, ‘A man whose work is confined to
such limited task must necessarily excel at it’. Other early writing on management included Sun
Tzu’s “The Art of War”, a military strategy book written in 6th century BC which recommends
being aware of and acting on the strengths and weaknesses of the manager’s as well as an

1
enemy’s, and in Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, leaders are recommended to use fear – but
not hatred – to maintain control (Kwok, 2014).

From the above paragraphs, it can be concluded, that the application of management principles
has been around a lot longer. They represent management concepts that helped in smooth
administration of these civilizations. Though famous even today, they do not provide significant
information about the way these civilizations were managed.

These concepts did not provide important insight into management of business (or economic)
institutions. No important techniques were available to solve organizational problems until the
end of 15th century. It was during the 13th and 14th centuries AD the large trading houses of
Italy needed a means of keeping records of their business transactions. To satisfy their needs
Luca Pacioli published an essay in 1494 describing the Double Entry System of Book-keeping
for the first time.

The Industrial Revolution, a time from 1700s through the 1800s, was a period of great upheaval
and massive change in the way people lived and worked (Lloyd & Aho, 2020). It is where
management theories developed as a systematic field of knowledge.

It is because with the industrial age came the birth of the corporation. With large, efficient
factories pumping out products, companies needed to forecast demand, make sure adequate
supplies of materials were available, assign tasks to workers, and so forth. It was indeed
a historical event for two reasons: (1) because of all the organizational aspects(hierarchy,
control, job specialization, and so forth) that became a part of the way work was done,
and (2) because management had become a necessary component to ensure the success of
the enterprise (Robbins et al., 2013).

In this connection, the development of management theory can be recognized as the way people
tried to bring success in their organization. Many economic theorists during this period described
the notion of management. Adam Smith and James Watt have been recognized as two theorists
who launched the world toward industrialization. Adam Smith brought about the revolution in
financial thought, and James Watt's steam engine provided cheaper power that revolutionized
English commerce and industry. Both provided the base for modern concepts of business
management theory and practice (Waren & Bedeian, 2009).

2
1.2 Contributors of Pre-scientific Management Theory
A number of individuals in the pre-classical period of the middle and late 1800s offered ideas
that laid the groundwork for subsequent, broader inquiries into the nature of management.
Among the principal pre-classical contributors are Adam Smith, Robert Owen, Charles Babbage,
James Watt, Mathew Robinson, Seebohm Rowntree, Andrew Ure, Charles Dupin, Henry
Varnum Poor and Henry Towne.

1.2.1 ADAM SMITH (1723–1790)

Explicated the concept of division of labor on his book “Wealth of Nations” written in the year
1776. Smith stated that market and competition should be the controllers of economic activity
and that tax policies were destructive. The specialization of labor was the basis of Smith's market
system. He argued the economic advantages of the division of labor(or job specialization)
that is, breaking down jobs into narrow, repetitive tasks. Using division of labor, individual
productivity could be increased dramatically (Robbins et al., 2013). According to Smith, a
division of labor provided managers with the maximum opportunity for improved output.

1.2.2 ROBERT OWEN (1771-1858)

A successful British entrepreneur was well ahead of his time in recognizing the importance of
human resources. He became particularly interested in the working and living conditions of his
employees while running a cotton mill in New Lanark, Scotland. As was common, the mill
employed 400 to 500 young children, who worked 13-hour days that included 1 hour off for
meals. Although his business partners resisted some of his ideas, He firmly believed that
workers' performance in industry was influenced by the working conditions and treatment of
workers. He introduced new ideas of human relations - shorter working hours, housing facilities,
training of workers in hygiene, education of their children, provision of canteen etc. Robert
Owen managed a group of textile mills in Lanark, Scotland, where he used his ideas of human
relations, which is considered as a groundwork in the specific field. Though his approach was
paternalistic, he came to be regarded as the father of Personnel Management (Aquinas, 2007).

1.2.3 CHARLES BABAGE (1792-1871)

An English mathematician is widely known as the father of modern computing. Like his
contemporaries, Babbage, through his application of technological aids to human effort, earned a
place in history as the patron saint of operations research and management science. He theorized

3
and applied a scientific approach to management long before the scientific management era
began in the United States.

His projects produced the world‘s first practical mechanical calculator and an analytical engine
that had the basic element of a modern day computer. Difficulties in directing his various
projects, however, helped him to explore new ways of doing things. In the process, he made
direct contributions to management theory.

Babbage was enthralled with the idea of work specialization, the decree to which work was
divided into various jobs. He recognized that not only physical work but mental work as well
could be specialized. Babbage also devised a profit-sharing plan that had two parts, a bonus that
was awarded for useful suggestions and a portion of wages that was depended on factory profit
(Aquinas, 2007).

1.2.4 JAMES WATT JUNIOR (1769 - 1848) AND MATHEW ROBINSON

BOULTON (1770 - 1842)
James Watt Junior and Mathew Robinson Boulton contributed to the development of
management thought by following certain management techniques in their engineering factory at
Soho in Birmingham (Singh, 2019), Those are-

 Production Planning  Provision of welfare for personnel

 Standardization of Components  Scheme for executive development
 Maintenance  Marketing Research and forecasting
 Planned machine layout  Elaborate statistical records

1.2.5 HENRY ROBINSON TOWNE (1844 -1924)

H.R Towne was the president of the famous lock manufacturing company "Yale and Town". He
urged the combination of engineers and economists as industrial managers. This combination of
qualities, together with at least some skill as an accountant, is essential to the successful
management of industrial workers. He favored organized exchange of experience among
managers and pleaded for an organized effort to pool the great fund of accumulated knowledge
in the art of workshop management. (Aquinas, 2007).

4
1.2.6 SEEBOHM ROWNTREE (1871- 1954)
Rowntree created a public opinion on the need of labor welfare scheme and improvement in
industrial relations. The Industrial Welfare Society, The Management Research Groups and the
Oxford Lecture Conferences in the U.K owed their origin and progress to the interest and passion
of Rowntree (Singh, 2019).

1.2.7 ANDREW URE: (1778–1857)

Ure, deeply concerned in industrial education, set out to prepare for publication a systematic
account of the principles and processes of manufacturing. The essential principle of the factory
system was the substitution of ‘‘mechanical science for hand skill ... [and to provide] for the
graduation of labor among artisans.’’ Although Ure devoted a large portion of his book to the
technical problems of manufacturing in the silk, cotton, woolen, and flax industries, he
eventually dealt with the problems of managing. Obviously pro-management in his analysis, Ure
sought an automatic plan to prevent individual intractable workers from stopping work as they
pleased and thereby throwing a whole factory into disorder. According to Ure, workers had to
recognize the benefits of mechanization and not resist its introduction. To establish this
automatic plan, management had to ‘‘arrange and connect’’ manufactures to achieve a harmony
of the whole. In every establishment, there were ‘‘three principles of action, or three organic
systems: the mechanical, the moral and the commercial.

‘‘Mechanical’’ referred to the techniques and processes of production, ‘‘moral’’ to the condition
of personnel, and ‘‘commercial’’ to sustaining the organization through selling and financing.
The scientist Ure treated the mechanical part of manufactures extensively (Waren & Bedeian,
2009).

1.2.8 CHARLES DUPIN (1784–1873)

He was an industrial educator in France. According to him, besides technical knowledge for
contributing to organizational output, managers also needed broader management skills to
maximize industrial output. He emphasized more on management education than technical
education (Waren & Bedeian, 2009).

1.2.9 HENRY VARNUM POOR (1812-1905)

Poor advocated a "managerial system" with a clear organization structure in which people could
be held completely accountable and the need for a set of operating reports summarizing costs,

5
revenues and rates. He recognized the danger such a system might make people feel like cogs in
a machine. To overcome this, he suggested a kind of leadership, beginning at the top of an
enterprise that would overcome routine and dullness by instilling in the organization a feeling of
unity, an appropriation of the work, and an esprit de corps. Thus, Poor called for a system before
Taylor. He called for the recognition of human factor before Mayo. He also suggested leadership
to overcome the rigidities of the formal organization much before Chris Argyrols (Christiana,
2017)

1.3 Criticism Forwarded on pre-classical management thought

 Early writings emphasized the techniques and not managing by itself. In an age of
expanding technology, it was difficult for early writers to separate the managerial
function from the technical and commercial aspects of running a firm. Management was
more concerned with finance, production processes, selling, and acquiring labor, all of
which were indeed critical at the time, rather than with developing principles or
generalizations about management. An analogy might be that of young children learning
to walk: the motor urge is so great and consumes so much of their energy and attention
that the development of speech is retarded. As the skill of walking is perfected, speech
develops. The early entrepreneurs were just learning to walk in the new factory system;
the technical and human problems consumed so much of their time that they had little left
over for articulating generalizations about management.
 Secondly, the technical genius, the inventor–pioneer, and the owner–founder dominated
the period. Success or failure was more likely to be attributed to their individual
characteristics rather than to any generalized ideas about what skills managers needed.
Each industry and its problems were considered unique, and hence the principles derived
by one entrepreneur were not considered applicable to different situations (Waren &
Bedeian, 2009).

1.4 Conclusion
In organizations, management is an activity that performs certain functions to obtain the effective
acquisition, allocation, and utilization of human efforts and physical resources to meet the
organization’s objectives and yield positive benefits to organizational members. The cultural
environment, characterized as having economic, social, technological, and political facets,

6
 shapes values and forms institutional arrangements that have a significant bearing on people,
organizations, and management as an activity. Early civilizations reflected some attempts to
relate individuals to organizations, but generally placed a low value on economic activity and
held a parochial view of the management function.

Figure 1.1 Synopsis of Pre-Classical Management Thought

People seek satisfaction of their needs through organized efforts,

giving rise to management as an activity

Early civilizations: parochial view of management function in the

military, the household, the church, and government

The cultural rebirth established preconditions for industrialization

Industrial Revolution; creates factory system and managerial

problems

Focus on organization and methods: Babbage, Dupin, Focus & Recognition to human problems; Owen & Poor
Montgomery, Ure, McCallum, and Poor

Industrial Revolution creates factory system and managerial

problems

Post-Civil War: the expansion of industry

Systematic management: Introduction to scientific management

Source: - (Waren & Bedeia, 2009)

7
The cultural rebirth brought new views of people, economic activity, social values, and political
arrangements and established the preconditions for the Industrial Revolution. This technological
and cultural revolution created the factory system to replace the domestic system and posed
managerial problems on a scale never before encountered.

These problems can be grouped in three categories: (1) the organizational and methods problems
of melding technology, materials, organizational functions, and productive processes in an
efficient manner; (2) the human problems of acquiring, developing, stimulating, and controlling
human behavior toward preconceived ends; and (3) the managerial problem of fusing both these
facets to accomplish objectives.

Throughout the study of management thought, we have seen that various writers shift their
relative emphasis on the importance of the organization and methods facets with related to the
human facet. This does not mean that these two facets are mutually exclusive, but that it is a
matter of relative focus, and this focus to a large degree is influenced by the cultural
environment. For example, Charles Babbage was concerned with the human problems of the
factory, but his primary interest was the analysis of production techniques. Robert Owen, on the
other hand, was more concerned with the impact of industrialization on people. Likewise, Henry
Varnum Poor was concerned with the systematization of the railroads but recognized the
interaction of the organization and methods facets with the human facet.

Figure 1-1 illustrates in summary form management thought before scientific management. It
shows early ideas about management activity, depicts the relative emphases of management
pioneers, and provides the basis for the beginnings of the scientific management era in the
United States.

8
 Reference
Aquinas, P. G., (2007), Management Principles and Practice, Bharathiar University, EXCEL
BOOKS PRIVATE LIMITED

Christiana, M. V. (2017). Organizational Behavior. Educreation Publishing

Kwok, A.C. (2014). The Evolution of Management Theories: A Literature Review. Nang Yan
Business Journal, Vol 3. DOI: 10.1515/nybj-2015-0003

Lloyd, R., & Aho, W. (2020). The Four Functions of Management. Digital Pressbooks.
Retrieved from https://fhsu.pressbooks.pub/management/chapter/the-history-of-management/

Mendelssohn, K. A. G. (1971). A Scientist Looks at the Pyramids. Engineering Evidence

Connected with the Building of the Great Pyramids Suggests Conclusions that go far Beyond the
Problems of Pyramid Design, 59(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/27829540

Robbins, S. P., Decenzo, D. A., & Coulter, M. (2013). Fundamentals of Management (8th ed., p.
21). Pearson.

Robbins, S., & Coulter, M. (2012). Management (11th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Singh, D. K. (2019). Business Management (6th ed., pp. 12-15). Innovative Institute.

Waren, D. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought (6th Edition).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.