Assessment 1

Student ID Number: R2002D104

Course name: Theories of Management- UU-MBA-712-ZM-17296
Tutor: Charis Kyriacou
Date: 23rd June 2020

1
“With reference to appropriate literature and cases, critically evaluate the influence of
classical and human relations approaches in management today.”

Management has been appreciated as both an art and a science necessary to have things done.
Ramasamy (2009) defines Management as a function in an organization in charge of direction
and control of relevant activities necessary to achieve the firm’s goals. Hitt Michael classified
the management theories into three groups namely; Classical, Neoclassical and Modern
management (Kitana, (2016). In order to understand todays management models, it is important
to study the old Management theories from where most of the current management styles have
evolved. While this essay highlights some downsides of both the classical and human relations
approaches, it also aims to bring out the influence of these theories in management today.
Classical management theory
The Classical management theory arose between 1885 and 1940 and brought about efficient
planning, organizing, influencing and controlling of work activities in organizations. These
theorists did not put emphasis on social needs or job satisfaction but their thrust was on
specialization of labor, centralized leadership and decision-making, and profit maximization
(Winder, R. (2003).The Classical management theory has three main sub-fields which are
Administrative Principles, Bureaucratic organizations and scientific management (Kitana,
2016); Pindur, Rogers & Kim, 1995).
Scientific Management Theory
In early 1880s, Frederick W. Taylor came up with a theory that promoted management co-
operation, cost controlling and work methods analysis and he called it scientific Management
theory (Pindur, 1995) sometimes referred to as Taylorism. Kitana (2016) brings out the four
principles of scientific management as follows:
1. Use a “science” to determine the most efficient way to perform specific tasks
2. Systematic recruitment of workers who were qualified for the job
3. Scientific education and capacity building of workers
4. Supportive supervision coupled with planning the worker’s activities well
Taylor believed that being able to measure work resulted in both the management and workers
winning, in that it was possible to reduce labor costs whilst increasing wages (Pindur, 1995).
Most companies that adopted the scientific management theory avoided waste at their work
operations and further reduced production costs (Tesi, 2009). This was illustrated at Richard
Feiss scientifically managed firm, where production increased, weekly wages increased ,
working hours reduced and overall costs decreased (Nyl,1995). Other advantages of Taylorism
would be due to the effective supervision and division of labor. The tasks were well carried out
by these appropriately monitored workers and quality was ensured due to the implemented
standardization. This is still the case in most modern manufacturing firms such as Toyota were
standard operations are necessary for their bulk production (Tamura, 2006). This
standardization helps Toyota achieve efficiency ,increases in quantities and decreasing costs,
while offering the client a wide variety (Peaucelle, 2000).

2
Although training of workers in science management seems as if it is beneficial to them, one
can argue that this type of capacity building had limited usage. An article in the Journal of
Health Organization and Management depicts that this training did not empower the workers
but prioritized the firm’s needs, ”Training employees to follow an algorithmic protocol is much
less expensive than educating them in the knowledge needed to make autonomous judgements”
(Wise, Duffield, Fry & Roche, 2017). Furthermore, some scholars have pointed out that this
monotony of work was not suited for mentally alert and intelligent workers and most likely led
to slackness, inefficiencies and no job satisfaction (Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2008). As if deskilling
the workers was not enough, there was an aspect of speeding up workers using a stopwatch
mechanism. This resulted into a Watertown Arsenal strike in 1911 which tried to communicate
that workers were human beings and not machines (Fleischman, 2000). Moreover, this
dehumanizing of workers came with an autocratic type of leadership which clashes with
democratic values (Pruijt,2000). Another draw back with this approach is the realization that,
although overall production costs were low , the capital to set up scientific management system
was huge , and this disadvantaged small firms (Huang, Tung, & Chou, 2013). Task allocation
also adds to the cost because of the number of supervisors not directly linked to production.
With all the seemingly negatives in the scientific management theory, the food services firms
such as meat packers, McDonalds and Burger King have adopted most of its principles. Burger
King is highly mechanized which is coherent with Taylorism (Peaucelle, 2000) and has very
few workers per shift. Patties are put on a conveyor and come out cooked on the other side,
achieving the bulk production goal. Significantly, these workers are trained in highly
standardized methods which do not encourage interaction between them and this monotony
leads to boredom. Another Taylorism principle you find with Burger King is the close
monitoring by their supervisors from their Headquarters ( Koutroumanis & Dixon ,2018;
Schonberger, 1974) and usually uses the autocratic style of leadership.
Administrative Management Theory
In contrast to Scientific Management which emphasized workers as individuals with individual
tasks, General Administration Management was focused on management of the whole
organization. Henri Fayol (1841 -1925) the father of Administrative Management theory
formulated 14 principles as follows: Division of Work, Authority, Discipline, Unity of
command, Unity of Direction, Subordination of Individual interest to the common good,
Remuneration, Centralization, The Hierarchy, Order, Equity, Stability of the staff, Initiative
and Team spirit (Mildred, Taneja, 2010). These 14 principles gave guidance to how managers
could execute the following five functions of management (Voxted, S. (2017):
1. Planning. —to plan for material, Human resource and the task
2. Organization. —to ensure availability of resources implement the plan.
3. Command. —to guide the workers so as to have the best output from the
implementation of the plan
4. Coordination. —harmonization of all efforts together so as to achieve the set goals
5. Control. —to ensure the plan is abided to
Although Fayol's critics argue that his theories were based on a limited set of experiences and
can therefore not be generalized (Reid, 1995), there are other scholars who believe these five
functions of management are applicable to all organizations even in the modern society

3
(Mildred & Taneja, 2010). From the strategic management perspective, Porter’s five forces
framework integrates with Fayols theories. In cost leadership and differentiation strategies
some of Fayol’s management functions are key ,such as command and control functions (Yoo,
Lemak, & Choi, 2006).
Inasmuch as the General Administration Management theory is applicable in all organization
in the modern world, authors have highlighted the downside of practicing it:
a) The 14 principles support the top-down style of management with limited opportunities
for feedback (Donaldson, & Fafaliou, 2007).
b) Like Taylor, Fayol’s put more emphasis on monetary renumeration, neglected other
aspects of the workers’ lives (Parker, & Ritson, 2005). This theory did not address the
relationship between the organization and the environment (Pindur, Rogers, & Kim,
(995).
c) Fayol’s principles were rigid and yet expected to be applicable to all firms (Parker &
Ritson, 2005).
d) Departmental boundaries can lead to red tape in making decisions (McNamara, 2009)

Behavioral Management Theory

In the 1920s and 1930s the human resource movement grew and there was a push for a kind of
management that would address the human aspect of business Organizations. This would in
turn motivate people in Organizations and promote teamwork. Some of the main theorists of
the behavioral or human resource approaches are Mary Parker Follett, Abraham Maslow,
Douglas McGregor , Chris Argyris and Elton Mayo with influence from Hawthorne’s studies
( Pindur, Rogers, & Kim ,1995).
The Hawthorne Studies
Hawthorne studies carried out between 1924-1927 at the Western Electric Company plant in
Cicero, Illinois contributed a lot to the birth of the human resource approach to management.
The researchers set out to discover the factors that led to increased production in the plant’s
test rooms. The initial results showed that merely changing working conditions was not enough
to increase production. In 1927 a Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his associates joined the
study and brought in the aspect of job redesign, changes in the length of the workday and
workweek, length of break times, and incentive plans . The studies provided evidence that
workers’ performance is better when they feel they are receiving special attention and that their
welfare is of interest to management. This was later called "the Hawthorne effect” and some
scholars define it as,” A situation in which the introduction of experimental conditions designed
to identify salient aspects of behavior has the consequence of changing the behavior it is
designed to identify. When people realize that their behavior is being examined, they change
how they act” (Brannigan & Zwerman, 2001). Another finding was that the informal
interactions and social relationships contribute to increase in productivity in an organization.
Abraham Maslow, and Douglas McGregor who were within the human resource approach to
management were more inclined to ensuring employees satisfaction and this resulted in the
sub-group called the human relations movement (Pryor, Humphreys, Taneja, & Toombs, 2011;
Winder, 2003).

4
Maslow's Theory of Human Needs
Maslow (1954) believed that each of us got motivated by needs and these he presented as a
pyramid. This pyramid represented a theoretical hierarchy of five needs namely; physiological,
safety, affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization fig. 1. Physiological needs include air, food,
drink, shelter, warmth and sex whereas Safety and security needs can be a safe environment,
job security and making provisions for Pensions. Affiliations implies the desire to belong to a
group and Hawthorne studies demonstrated how fulfilling this need led to increased
productivity. Wanting to be recognized and respected was a need Maslow called Self-esteem
and the desire to achieve one’s potential was Self-actualization (Kermally, 1999).The hierarchy
is such that, at the bottom of the pyramid are physical and safety needs, then social, esteem,
and competence needs and, at the top is the self-actualization (Elliot, & Williams, Frank
P,1995).
Fig. 1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Other authors though do not subscribe to this and believe that the position within the hierarchy
depends on how much of a priority a certain need is to an individual. This theory comes with
an assumption that once a need is satisfied, another one arises and as such individuals will be
motivated continuously to fulfil these arising needs. (Winder, 2003). Although another school
of thought says people do not wait to satisfy one need before moving to another as needs
overlap (Green, Carroll, & Williams,2017). Kermally (1999) gives an example of modern
society where Job security and Self-actualisation needs are developed at the same time.
Maslow’s theory has been used by Directors of management corporations to motivate the
workers by encouraging them to satisfy needs such as self-esteem and self-actualization.
Having the Y generation (Those born between 1961-1979) work under the X generation (Those
born between 1980-2000) has its own challenges and this motivational framework has proven
to be very useful in these instances (Wong & Chin, 2016). Authors have used an example of

5
Maslow’s theories being essential when a study in Taiwan was done on Information technology
professionals. It was shown that monetary rewards alone are not enough but satisfying needs
such as self-esteem was important too. (Fallatah & Syed, 2018; Wickramasinghe, 2009).
Management in this modern society has realized developing an organizational structure which
also takes care of affiliation needs is critical to the workers’ performance. They also make the
environment conducive for workers to attain Self-esteem and self-actualization. The worker’s
self-esteem is supported by management when their good work is acknowledged in either
monetary or non-monetary terms. This brings us back to the Hawthorne effect, management
shows interest in the employees’ welfare and in turn the workers perform better. Human
resource management satisfies safety needs not only in terms of safety gear in manufacturing
companies but also job safety in terms of pension or redundancy packages (Jerome, 2013).
One of the gaps with Maslow’s theory is that it underscores the relevance of culture in the
hierarchy. Lamond (2005) suggests this theory represents a western culture with more of a male
viewpoint. In addition, cultures where individualism is not encouraged the hierarchy of needs
is different. The hierarchy in the Chinese collectivist culture does not include self-esteem.
(Gambrel, & Cianci, 2003).
Theory X and Theory Y Management Approach

Douglas McGregor (1960) believed in cosmology which means that managerial practices
depended on the manager’s assumption about the workers, and these assumptions he divided
into Theory X and Theory Y. He said the Theory X managers had the following assumptions,”
(a) people are naturally lazy and try to avoid work whenever possible; (b) people are inherently
irresponsible and, thus, it is necessary to closely monitor work behavior; and (c) most workers
have little to contribute intellectually to the operation of an enterprise.” (Lawter, Kopelman, &
Prottas, 2015). On the other hand, Theory Y managers did not believe that the workers were
lazy they believed that people were willing to work, were responsible, capable of self-control
and capable of offering relevant suggestions to the Organization (Kopelman, Prottas, & Davis,
2008).
McGregor as pointed out by Adair (2006), was heavily influenced by Maslow’s theory. He
depicts that Theory Y managers helped workers achieve self-esteem and self-actualization and
this had a positive impact on production. The Y Theory supports the link between management
and satisfying workers needs which is in line with Maslow’s theory. When the workers
performance is not good, it is believed that the organization did not provide a conducive
environment. (Carson,2005; Overvold, 1987). The Theory X managers exercise authoritarian
style of management as they assume their workers can only perform when closely supervised.
In many respects, this kind of management is more harmonized with the classical management
theories where the command -and -control kind of management is common (Overvold, 1987).
One of the many disadvantages with the Theory X type of management is that the firms
experience, “organizational silence” as the workers withdraw emotionally as they feel
demotivated. The workers performance is in most cases tend to be poor and they lack initiative,
making the managers heighten their autocratic ways ( Elizabeth & Milliken, 2000).

6
Even though the Theory Y concept seems well placed, it has also received some criticism.
Some scholars describe it as, ‘manipulative’ in that its ultimate goal is to have increased
production and not the worker’s wellbeing. Besides, even where participative management, job
rotation and job enlargement have been promoted the workers do more work for less pay
(Sorensen & Minahan, 2011). Lerner (2011) in his article alludes to another point saying one
cannot make such a clear distinction between the X and Y theories since every manager has
both in them , it is just the extent that differs. Burke (2011) brings in another argument
concerning the participative management, which is advanced by the Y theory. He feels most
managers find it time consuming and are thus unwilling to implement it. In his article he says,
“ There is considerable evidence that managing and leading consistently with Theory Y
assumptions pays dividends. The evidence is there. Yet there is scant evidence that managing
and leading consistently with Theory Y assumptions, e.g. participative management, actually
occurs” (Burke,2011).
We find the influence of both these theories in today’s management. Theory X type of
management can be found in the public service, army and any other organization that practices
Bureaucratic style of management. The authority relationships described by Weber in these
Organizations align with control tendencies under X-theory (Carson, 2005). The X theory is
strongly defended by some writers who refer to the differences it team members. If the
members are adapters who find doing something done well as enough, then the X theory is the
best for them. Examples of team members likely to be adapters are manufacturing supervisors,
plant managers and machinists. Being implied in this article is that the Y theory is only well
suited for innovators such as high-level managers. (Bobic & Davis, 2003).
Scholars have given a number of examples where the Y theory can be seen as having some
influence. Lerner (2011) identifies the introduction of employee survey feedback and growth
management programs as having sprung from the Y theory. An American manufacturing
company WL Gore and Associates gives a lot of emphasis on personal initiative which is one
of the corner stones of the Y-theory. Decentralization and delegation align well with the Y
theory even as they are identified as organizational forms (Hommelhoff, 2017). Participative
decision making which is seen in most of today’s management originates from the foundation
of this theory too. Today’s performance appraisal is collaborative reshaped by McGregor’s
theory and feeding into the Management by Objective theory, where setting of goals that
involved employees was key (Sorensen & Minahan, 2011).
This essay focused on demonstrating that both classical and human relations approaches have
had influence in today’s management despite their downsides. It has shown that no theory has
been completely discarded but principles either evolve into a new approach or are mixed with
new principles. Some management principles have been adopted as they were in these early
management theories and yet some have undergone some remodeling. It would be important
to further study the cultural influence on how these management principles are adopted.

7
 References

Adair, J. (2006). PART 2. maslow and herzberg - chapter 5. the application of maslow's ideas

in industry. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/288441307?accountid=188730

Brannigan, A., & Zwerman, W. (2001). The real "hawthorne effect". Society, 38(2), 55- 60.

Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/206716597?accountid=188730

Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of douglas McGregor's theory Y. Management

Decision, 43(3), 450-460. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510589814

Dr. Nyameh, J (2013) Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and

implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s

performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3),

pp.39-45

Elliot, E. M., & Williams,Frank P., I.,II. (1995). When you no longer need maslow:

Exchange, professionalism, and decentralization in the management of criminal

justice agencies. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(1), 74. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/226965875?accountid=188730

Elizabeth, W. M., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and

development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management.the Academy of

Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/210980755?accountid=188730

8
Fallatah, R. H. M., & Syed, J. (2018). Employee motivation in Saudi Arabia: An

investigation into the higher education sector.

Fleischman, R. K. (2000). Completing the triangle: Taylorism and the paradigms.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 597-623. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/211254202?accountid=188730

Gambrel, P. A., & Cianci, R. (2003). Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in A

collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2),

143-161. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/203916225?accountid=188730

Green, J. P., Carroll, P. J., & Williams, K. A. (2017). Shaping the relative importance of

needs from recent to early autobiographical experiences. The Ohio Journal of

Science, 117(2), 61-73.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/ojs.v117i2.5815

Hommelhoff, S. (2017). Implicit managerial theories about followers and customers. Journal

of Service Theory and Practice, 27(1), 47-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-

05-2015-0124

Huang, K., Tung, J., Lo, S. C., & Chou, M. (2013). A REVIEW AND CRITICAL

ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT.

International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 5(4), 78-85. Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1355887384?accountid=188730

Kermally, Sultan. Gurus on People Management, Thorogood Publishing, 1999. ProQuest

Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UNICAF/detail.action?docID=308965.

9
Kitana, A. (2016). OVERVIEW OF THE MANAGERIAL THOUGHTS AND THEORIES

FROM THE HISTORY: CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THEORY TO MODERN

MANAGEMENT THEORY. Indian Journal of Management Science, 6(1), 16-21.

Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1800742590?accountid=188730

Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Davis, A. L. (2008). Douglas McGregor's theory X and Y:

Toward a construct-valid measure*: JMI JMI. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(2),

255-271,159-160. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/194165861?accountid=188730

Koutroumanis, D. A., & Dixon, D. P. (2018). LEADERSHIP PARADIGMS,

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES AND CULTURAL NORMS AND THEIR

EFFECTS ON SERVICE QUALITY IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY.

Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 29(2), 105-120. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/2187380377?accountid=188730

Lamond, D. (Ed.). (2005). Management history. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Lawter, L., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2015). McGregor's theory X/Y and job

performance: A multilevel, multi-source analysis: JMI JMI. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 27(1-4), 84-101,7. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1756232048?accountid=18873

Lerner, A. (2011). McGregor's legacy: Thoughts on what he left, what transpired, and what

remains to pursue. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 217-237.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112613

10
McNamara, D, E.(2009). From Fayol‟s Mechanistic To Today‟s Organic Functions Of

Management. American Journal of Business Education . 2 (1)

Michael P. Bobic, William Eric Davis, A Kind Word for Theory X: Or Why So Many

Newfangled Management Techniques Quickly Fail, Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, Volume 13, Issue 3, July 2003, Pages 239–

264, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/mug022

Mildred, G. P., & Taneja, S. (2010). Henri fayol, practitioner and theoretician - revered and

reviled. Journal of Management History, 16(4), 489-503.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341011073960

Nyl, C. (1995). Taylorism and hours of work. Journal of Management History, 1(2), 8-25.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552529510088295

Overvold, G. E. (1987). The imperative of organizational harmony: A critique of

contemporary human relations theory. Journal of Business Ethics (1986-1998), 6(7),

559. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/210841895?accountid=18873

Peaucelle, J. (2000). From taylorism to post-taylorism simultaneously pursuing several

management objectives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(5), 452.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810010377426

Pindur, W., Rogers, S. E., & Kim, P. S. (1995). The history of management: A global

perspective. Journal of Management History, 1(1), 59-77.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552529510082831

Pryor, M. G., Humphreys, J. H., Taneja, S., & Toombs, L. A. (2011). Where are the new

organization theories? evolution, development and theoretical debate. International

11
 Journal of Management 28(3), 959-978. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/888689759?accountid=188730

Ramasamy, T. (2009). Principles of management. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Reid, D. (1995). Fayol: From experience to theory. Journal of Management History, 1(3),

21-36. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552529510095134

Schonberger, R. J. (1974). Taylorism up-to-date: The inevitability of worker boredom.

Business and Society (Pre-1986), 14(2). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/233306468?accountid=188730

Sorensen, P. F., & Minahan, M. (2011). McGregor's legacy: The evolution and current

application of theory Y management. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 178-

192. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112587

Tamura, Y. (2006). Japanese production management and improvements in standard

operations: Taylorism, corrected taylorism, or otherwise? Asian Business &

Management, 5(4), 507. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200200

Japanese production management and improvements in standard operations:

Taylorism, corrected taylorism, or otherwise? Asian Business & Management, 5(4),

507. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200200

Tesi, F. (2009). The application of taylorism in france: The role of the michelin family in the

rationalization of french work. Wilmington: Business History Conference.

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/192404688?accountid=188730

Voxted, S. (2017). 100 years of henri fayol **. Management Revue, 28(2), 256-274.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2017-2-256

12
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2008). Scientific management revisited: Did taylorism fail because

of a too positive image of human nature? Journal of Management History, 14(4),

348-372. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511340810893108

Warner Burke, W. (2011). On the legacy of theory Y. Journal of Management History, 17(2),

193-201. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112596

Winder, R. (2003). Strategic management. Futurics, 27(1), 30. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/219811358?accountid=188730

Wise, S., Duffield, C., Fry, M., & Roche, M. (2017). Workforce flexibility – in defence of

professional healthcare work. Journal of Health Organization and Management,

31(4), 503-516. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-01-2017-0009

Wong, Z. and Chin, Y. (2016). Issues and Challenges Faced by Generation X While

Managing Generation Y. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7(2),

167-170.

Yoo, J. W., Lemak, D. J., & Choi, Y. (2006). Principles of management and competitive

strategies: Using fayol to implement porter. Journal of Management History, 12(4),

352-368. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511340610692734

13
14