Administrative and Leadership Theories

CLASSICAL ORGANIZATION THEORY
Scientific management theory concerned the optimization of individual workers and work processes. During the same period, classical organization theory complimented scientific management by providing a framework for the structuring the organization. The leading proponents of classical organization theory were Henri Fayol (a French engineer), Lyndall Urwick (a British company manager), and Max Weber (a German sociologist).

Classical organization theory is the “B” in bureaucracy. Weber defined the organization elements which comprised the “ideal bureaucracy.” These included:
• A clearly defined (and documented) set of rules and procedures. This is the company handbook, and other written instruments of company policy.
• Division of labor according to functional expertise. This is the notion of individual departments (sales, purchasing, accounting, etc.)
• A clear chain of command. There is a hierarchy based on management rank. Weber also stipulated that authority in an organizational setting should be based on the office itself—not on the individual. (Consider a political analogy: Neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter would be empowered to declare war or veto a bill today. Their past executive powers were based on the office they held—not on their individual persons.)
• Individual advancement based on merit. Promotions should go to those who deserve who perform well on the job.
• Professional managers. The person (or other entity) who owns the company doesn’t necessarily possess the expertise needed to keep it running smoothly on a day-to-day basis.
As you can see, many aspects of Weber’s “ideal bureaucracy” are simply measures that ensure fairness and objectivity. But critics of classical organization theory charged that it placed too much faith in the infallibility of rules and procedures, while ignoring important aspects of individual motivation.

Classical organization theory - key criticisms
Thompson and McHugh (2002: 87) point out that early 20th century management theory was promoted by engineers (among other groups) who were trying to 'extend the boundaries of their profession by trading on the general rise of interest in management and planning that was characteristic of the early part of the century.' Citing P. Armstrong from 1984, they observe that engineers found it difficult to 'sustain the privileged role as the focal point of management' as their own knowledge base became 'increasingly disconnected from their productive expertise.'
Thompson and McHugh regard these theories as being essentially prescriptive. That is to say that there was an implicit belief in underlying principles or 'laws' that governed management activities and functions. But there were also some assumptions about the role of workers in all this.

Argyris (1957) noted that if classical principles of formal organization are used, employees work in an environment in which:
1. They have minimal control over their working lives.
2. They are expected to be subordinate, passive and dependent.
3. They work to a short-term perspective.
4. They are 'induced to perfect and value the frequent use of a few skin-surface shallow abilities'.
5. Their working conditions are conducive to psychological failure. In short, people are treated more as infants than competent human beings:
"...organizations are willing to pay high wages and provide adequate seniority if mature adults will, for eight hours a day, behave in a less than mature manner!"

This approach is entirely at variance with the rhetoric (but perhaps not the reality) of modern management thinking with its emphasis on empowerment, team-work and motivated performance.
Another weakness in classical organizational theory is the assumption that all organizations are somehow alike. Thompson and McHugh (2002: 6) quote Salaman (1979: 33) who states that:
"a genuine sociology of organizations is not assisted by the efforts of some organization analysts to develop hypotheses about organizations in general, lumping together such diverse examples as voluntary organizations, charities and political organizations ... It also obstructs the analysis of those structural elements which are dramatically revealed in employing organizations, but not necessarily in all forms of organization”.

Thompson and McHugh point out that most of the literature about organizations is about work organizations. They argue that the distinctive nature of management, control and other social relations in such organizations is due to their profit-seeking nature. But they also concede that all large organizations share some characteristics noting (p7) that '...as Weber recognised, there are continuities of structure and practice deriving from the bureaucratic form present within all large-scale organizations.' They also acknowledge that many organizations within the public sector have been operating within a market environment.

Administrative Theory (Fayol)

Developed at same time as scientific management, Scott notes that administrative theory "emphasized management functions and attempted to generate broad administrative principles that would serve as guidelines for the rationalization of organizational activities" p. 36

While Taylor reorganized from "bottom up", administrative theorists looked at productivity improvements from the "top down". Early influencers were Henri Fayol (1949 trans.), Mooney and Reiley (1939) and Gulick and Urwick (1937).

Administrative theorists developed general guidelines of how to formalize organizational structures and relationships. They viewed the job as antecedent to the worker. Primarily these principles were broad guidelines for decision making.

Administrative theory was attacked by other rational theorists, especially Simon, who considered them not theory but merely truisms or contradictory statements.

These principles or "truisms" (depending on your perspective) included the following. Under coordination activities, Fayol and others suggested:

Scalar Principle
Recommends and emphasizes the hierarchical, pyrimidal structure of control relations (Scott p. 36)

Exception Principle
Recommends that all routine matters be handled by subordinates leaving superiors free to deal with exceptional issues where existing rules are inapplicable.

Span of Control Principle
Specifies that superior should have no more subordinates than they can effectively oversee.

Unity-of-Command Principle
Emphasizes that no subordinates should receive orders from more than one superior. Parsons and others have argued that this often doesn't happen effectively in most organizations (often the excecutive isn't qualified to handle more than external relations and thus delegates responsibility to more capable underlings).

Under the category of specialization issues, which are decisions about how activities are to be distributed among organizational positions and how to group positions into work groups and subunits, they suggested:

Departmentalization Principle
Activities should be grouped to combine related activities in the same administrative unit. Related activities could be based on similarity of purpose, process, clientele, or place.

Line-Staff Principle
Recommends that all activities directly related to organizational goals are line functions -- all others are staff functions that advise, service, or support. Staff units are segregated from line functions and are ultimately
subordinate to them.


THE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT.

What are the objectives of the Behavioural Science Model of management?
The behavioural science models of management were created based on criticisms of the classical and the human relations approaches to management. The classical theories were to the extreme that emphasized the formal organization as the key to understanding behaviour, whilst the human relations theories emphasized the informal organization and individual relations having a greater influence in organizational development. The behavioural scientists implemented their theories to integrate the classical and human relations approaches and created a symmetry between the two and also identified deficiencies as it relates to organizational development. The behavioural scientists attempted to explain the inconsistencies and conflicts that occurred in organizations that were not vindicated by the classical and human relations theorists.

Contributions to the behavioural theory
Chester Barnard (1938) construed the concept of cooperative system that must lead to outcomes of effectiveness and efficiency. He stated that management must express the importance of effectiveness which is the level by which the ultimate objectives of an organization is attained. Management must also be aware of the impact of efficiency, which is the satisfaction of individual motives of employees. Barnard recognized that there must be equilibrium between effectiveness and efficiency; for organization to be effective and progressive it is necessary to maintain cooperation from employees by sustaining the condition of efficiency.

Chris Argyris (1957-1993) contribution highlighted that the conflict between the organization and employees occur from disparity of the individual's maturing personality and the repressive nature of the organization (Lunenburg and Ornstein). Argyris developed the immaturity/maturity theory that postulated seven changes that should occur for maturity development in individuals. He stated that sometimes organizations prevent individuals to processed through these stages, keeping them in dependent state. This will lead to frustration of the employee that will ultimately have adverse effects on performance to achieving the organization's goals.

Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba (1957) formulated the nomothetic approach and the idiographic approach to management. Though independent, these two approaches are interactive with each other to compliment the cooperative system of effectiveness and efficiency developed by Chester Barnard. The nomothetic approach focuses on the roles, laws, structure and expectations of the organization. The idiographic approach focuses on the uniqueness, varied personalities and the needs of the individuals within the organization.

Abraham Maslow (1943), the father of motivational theories is noted for his conceptualization of a need hierarchy. The need hierarchy, constructed from the base of a pyramid, starting with the physiological needs, safety needs, belonging needs, esteem needs to self- actualization. The theory stipulated that management must be aware of these needs and create an organizational environment in which employees' needs can be satisfied. Dissatisfaction of needs demotivate employees that inherently leads to frustration, poor work ethics and unaccomplished organizational goals.

Douglas McGregor (1960) based his Theory X and Theory Y assumptions of people's work attitude on Maslow's need hierarchy. Theory X basic assumption is that the average human being has innate dislike of work and will anything to avoid work. McGregor believed that this assumption spurred the development of classical theories. Theory Y basic assumption is that individuals possess needs of self-esteem and self- actualization (Maslow's higher level of needs) that are never completely satisfied. It is on this basis, that McGregor proposed that Theory Y should be the foundation to guide managers in viewing their subordinates. Under Theory Y, work is seen as a part of satisfying an individual's need; with this assumption the personal needs of the individual is align with the organization's goals thus producing desired outcomes.

Frederick Herzberg (1993) expanded on Maslow's theory by producing a two factor theory of motivation called hygiene factors and motivation factors. The hygiene factors that include work and organizational environment such as organization's policies, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary and status are elements that can cause dissatisfaction but do not lead to motivation (compare Maslow's lower level needs). While the motivation factors are elements such as achievement, recognition, growth or advancement and interest in the job (compare Maslow's higher level needs). The management style of classical and the human relations approaches ignore these motivational elements.

Rensis Likert contributed his four system theory: exploitative-authoritative system, benevolent-authoritative system, consultative system and participative-group system. The exploitative-authoritative system defines the organization where decisions are imposed on subordinates, motivation is given by threats, little communication, work is done in extreme restrictive and rigorous conditions created by management. Benevolent-authoritative system defines the organization where managers extend leadership in condescending form, little communication, motivation is given by rewards and there is little teamwork.
Consultative system defines the organization that leadership by superiors is substantial but there is no complete trust in subordinates. Motivation is garnered by rewards and some involvement and there moderate communication and teamwork.
Participative-group system is the ideal system for Likert which provides ultimate solution for leadership style for managers as complete confidence is given to subordinate, supportive relationships, group involvement and decision making and high performance by all counterparts. This system leads to higher degree of motivation.

References:
1. Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual, Harper.
2. Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (2002) Work Organisations, 3rd edition, Palgrave.
3. Fred C. Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein, Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, 5th ed. (Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2008)
4. Accel Team Development
www.accel-team.com/human_relations