Paper No : 06 Management of Libraries and Information

Principal Investigator
&
Dr. Jagdish Arora, Director
Centres and Knowledge
Subject Coordinator Centres INFLIBNET Centre, Gandhinagar

Module : 03 Schools of Management Thoughts

Development Team
Paper Coordinator

Principal Investigator
Dr. Jagdish Arora, Director
&
Content Writer INFLIBNET Centre, Gandhinagar
Subject Coordinator

Content Reviewer Prof Dinesh K Gupta

Paper Coordinator Professor, V M Open University

Prof H R Chopra
Content Writer Retd Professor and Chaiman, Department of Library
and Information
Science, Panjab UniversityScience, Panjab University
Retd Mrs Renu Arora
Content Reviewer
Head, Education and Training, CSIR-NISCAIR

Content Reviewer
 MODULE 3

SCHOOLS OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHTS

I. Objectives

The objectives of the unit/module are to:

- Make you acquainted with various theories of management,

- Describe the need for applying Classical theory of management,
- Explain as to how Neo-classical theory of management emerged,
- Establish the developments in field of management after the Modern theory of
management, and
- Apply the management theories and principles for management of library
organizations.

II. Learning Outcomes

After going through this unit/module you would learn about the development of the
management thoughts elaborated in three sections, namely: classical theory; neo-
classical theories, and modern theories. You would know that classical theory addresses
earlier theories along with Scientific Management and, Operational Management and
Bureaucratic Management. The Neo-classical theories dealt with human relations, social
systems, decision theory, management science and human behavior. Finally, you would
go through the modern theories of management which include: systems approach or
system, contingency approach or contingency and learning organisation.

III. Structure

1. Introduction
2. Classical Theory
2.1 Early Contributions
2.2 Scientific Management School
2.3 Operational Management School
2.4 Bureaucratic School
3. Neo-Classical Theory
3.1 Human Relations School
3.2 Social Systems School
3.3 Decision Theory School
 3.4 Management Science School
3.5 Human Behavior School
4. Modern Theory
4.1 Systems Approach or System School
4.2 Contingency Approach or Contingency School
4.3 Learning Organisation School
5. Summary
6. References

1. Introduction

Management practice is as old as human civilization when people started living together in
groups. Every group requires management and the history of human beings is full of
organisational activities. However, the study of how managers achieve results is
predominantly a twentieth century phenomenon. Earlier, management concepts were
applied in the field of business only and the researchers did not pay much heed to it. The
situation started changing with the beginning of twentieth century, especially the World
War I created the situation when people started thinking of the solution to the problem of
how limited resources could be applied in better way. The World War II added further
problem to this end. Growing competition and complexity of managing large business
organisations further provided impetus to developing systematic management concepts
and principles. This led to emergence of a variety of approaches in management.

The evolution of the schools of management thoughts can be grouped in the following
categories, although some overlapping can be there. Similarly, a particular school of
thought did not really start with the end of the previous one, as far as the time period is
concerned. As L. M. Prasad has rightly stated, this classification is time specific because
what is modern in today’s context, may not remain the same in future.

Classification/
Management Thoughts Period
Grouping

I. Classical Theory 0. Early contributions Up to 19th Century

1. Scientific Management School 1900-1930

2. Operational Management School 1916-1940

 3. Bureaucratic School 1930-1945

II. Neo-Classical 4. Human Relations School 1930-1950

Theory

5. Social Systems School 1940-1950

6. Decision Theory School 1945-1965

7. Management Science School 1950-1960

8. Human Beahviour School 1950-1970

III. Modern Theory 9. Systems School 1960 onwards

10.Contingency School 1970 onwards

11.Learning Organisation School 1990 onwards

2. Classical Theory
2.1 Early contributions

The concept of organisation and administration existed in Egypt in 1300 B.C. According to
L.M. Prasad, Confucius’s parables included suggestions for proper public administration
and admonitions to choose honest, unselfish and capable public officers long before
Christ. Kautilya gave sound principles of state administration as early as in 320 B.C.
Roman Catholic Church introduced the concept of staff personnel in Church
administration, which was further carried on by military organisations. The history lists a
group of German and Austrian public administration as a source of strength during 16th to
18th centuries. These contributions provided some insights about how resources could be
utilized more effectively. However, these contributions were outside the field of business
and other economic organisations.

In the 16th century, Machiavelli wrote ‘The Prince’ in an attempt to gain favour with the
ruler of an Italian city state and described the way that a good prince or leader should act.
He propounded two basic approaches, namely, ‘Love approach’ and ‘Fear approach’ as a
basis for leadership and administration. He suggested four basic principles concerning:
“mass consent, cohesiveness, will to survive, and leadership. Later in the Age of
Enlightenment and Renaissance, change of societal value, human worth and individual
knowledge, ability, skill and accomplishment were acknowledged, but these alone were
 not enough to be a good manager. Industrialism and the factory system of the early 19th
century saw the use of management skills, assembly line operation and costing systems.

In fact, the management theories in the early period were not really theories, but some
discrete practices or experiences. For that matter, management theories in the present
century are also not totally free from certain problems. To become a theory, an experience
or practice need to undergo several modifications, syntheses and tests. For this purpose,
a sound theoretical and conceptual framework is essential for a theory to take shape. Lack
of adequate concept formation is considered a serious drawback in the development of a
unified and integrated management theory. Management scholars have borrowed and
applied concepts from other disciplines. That is why management theory has evolved a
symbiotic relationship to its related and supporting disciplines like mathematics, statistics,
behavioural sciences, economics, etc. The classical management theory consist of a
group of similar ideas on the management of organisations that involved in the late 19th
century and early 20th century (1880’s – 1920’s ). The Classical School is also known as
‘Traditional School of Management’ among practitioners. The primary contributions of the
Classical School of Management include: (i) application of science to the practice of
management; (ii) development of the basic management functions; and (iii) articulation
and application of specific principles of management.

2.2 Scientific management school

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is considered to be the father of ‘Scientific

Management’. Subsequently, he was supported by Henry Gantt, George Berth, Edward
Felen, Lillian Gilberth and Harrington Emerson. Four basic parts of a series of ideas
developed by Taylor are as under:

- Each person’s job should be broken down into elements and a scientific way to
perform each element should be determined;
- Workers should be scientifically selected and trained to do the work in the
designed and trained manner;
- There should be good cooperation between management and workers so that tasks
are performed in the designed manner;
- There should be a division of labour between managers and workers. Managers
should take over the work of supervising and setting up instructions and designing
the work and the workers should be free to perform the work themselves.
 Thus the Scientific Management provides a logical framework for the analysis of problems.
Taylor’s contributions can be described in two parts: elements & tools of Scientific
Management; and principles of Scientific Management.

(a) Elements and Tools of Scientific Management

Taylor conducted various experiments to find out how human being could be made more
efficient by standardizing the work and better methods of doing the work. These
experiments have provided the following features of Scientific Management:
i. Separation of Planning and Doing:
This means the planning should be done by the supervisor and the worker should
emphasize only on operational work.
ii. Functional Foremanship:
Taylor evolved this concept based on specialization of functions. In this system,
four persons are involved in planning (route clerk, Instruction card clerk, Time &
Cost clerk, and disciplinarian); and another four persons are concerned with
doing the work (speed boss, inspector, maintenance foreman, and gang boss). All
of them give instructions to workers on different aspects of work.
iii. Job Analysis:
This helps in fixing fair amount of work so that there are least movements,
consequently less time and less cost. Taylor also suggested making fatigue study
and calculating time for the rest period of the workers to complete the job.
iv. Standardization:
This is required to be maintained in respect of instruments and tools, period of
work, amount of work, working conditions, cost of production, etc. This should be
fixed in advance.
v. Scientific selection and Training of Workers:
Selection should be made keeping in view the qualifications, experience, aptitude,
physical strength, etc. of the workers. Most suitable persons should be selected
fairly and then necessary training should be given to them before putting them on
work.
vi. Financial Incentives:
For motivation, good workers should be rewarded, given higher pay and promotion.
This would lead to efficiency and more work.
vii. Economy:
 Taylor suggested that due consideration should be given to economy and profit,
which can be achieved by eliminating wastage of resources and making the
resources more productive.
viii. Mental Revolution:
There should be mental change in management as well as workers from conflict to
cooperation. Taylor says that this is the most important feature of Scientific
Management because, in its absence, no principle of Scientific Management can
be applied.

(b) Principles of Scientific Management

The fundamental principles propounded by Taylor are as under:

i. Replacing Rule of Thumb with Science:

While the use of scientific method denotes precision in determining any aspect of
work, rule of thumb emphasizes estimation. Hence it is essential that all details
should be measured precisely and should not be based on mere estimation. This
approach can be adopted in all aspects of management.
ii. Harmony in Group Action:
Group harmony suggests that there should be mutual give and take situation and
proper understanding so that group as a whole contributes to the maximum.
iii. Cooperation:
Scientific management involves achieving cooperation rather than chaotic
individualism. It is based on mutual confidence, cooperation and goodwill between
management and workers.
iv. Maximum Output:
Continuous increase in production and productivity instead of restricted production
either by management or by workers would lead to more profit.
v. Development of Workers:
In Scientific Management, all workers should be developed to the fullest extent
possible for their own and for the organization’s highest prosperity. It requires
scientific selection of workers, their proper training and regular updating according
to the requirement of new methods of working.

Thus the Scientific Management created awareness about increasing operational

efficiency. However, from the point of view of the development of theoretical
framework, the principles of Scientific Management were more concerned with
 problems at the operating levels and did not emphasize management of an
organization from the manager’s point of view. That is why; some critics are of the
opinion that Scientific Management is more relevant form the engineering point of
view rather than the management point of view. In its early development, Scientific
Management had little concern for the external environment of the organisation
and was almost exclusively concerned with internal operations. It also placed little
emphasis on the needs of the workers, instead of focusing on producing better
results.

2.3 Operational management school

Henry Fayol (1841-1925), a French industrialist is the chief architect and father of the
‘Operational Management Theory’. It is also known as ‘Administrative Management School
of Thought’. He concentrated on the role that managers should perform as planners,
organizers and controllers. He was of the opinion that managers needed basic principles
upon which to operate. Henry Fayol was the first to write about the functions of
management such as planning, organizing, command, coordination and control. He
propounded fourteen ‘Principles of Management’, which are listed below (Source: Fayol,
Henry. General and industrial management. Trans. Constance Storrs. New York: Pitman ,
1949, pp. 22):

Division of Work: There should be a clear division of duties. Breaking jobs into smaller
pieces will results in specializing. Management should be separate and distinct.
Authority: The authority that individuals possess should be equal to their responsibility.
Anyone responsible for the results of a task should be given the authority to take the
actions necessary to ensure its success.
Discipline: There should be clear rules and complete obedience to behaviour in the best
interest of the organization.
Unity of Command: An employee should receive orders from only one supervisor, in
order to avoid confusion and conflict.
Unity of Direction: There should be one head and one plan, in order to ensure a
coordinated effort.
Subordination of Individual Interest to the General Interest: Employee should place
the organization’s concerns before their own interests.
Remuneration of Personnel: Pay should be fair.
Centralization: Centralization is the most desirable arrangement within an organization.
 Scalar Chain: Each position is part of a vertical chain of authority (the scalar chain).
Communication should move up and down this chain of command.
Order: To avoid conflicts, there should be a right place for everything and everyone in
the organization.
Equality: Equality of treatment must be taken into account in dealing with employees.
Justice should be tempered with kindness.
Stability of Tenure of Personnel: Long term stability for workers is good for an
organization.
Initiative: Initiative rewards must be provided to stimulate production.
Esprit de Corps: Develop a strong sense of morale and unity. Communication is the key
to a satisfied working group.”

Henry Fayol was of the opinion that the workers are generally lazy in nature, especially
when they work in groups. Discipline is very essential for getting the work done. They can
be motivated by the incentive of higher wages for more work or better work.

Thus, the above mentioned schools of classical perspective emphasized efficiency and
clear rules for effective management. They gave more importance to the interests of the
organisation rather than those of the workers. These schools of thought are generally
criticized for giving undue emphasis on the formal aspects of organisations and neglecting
the effects of individual personalities, conflicts within the organisations and decision
making process on the formal structure. According to Stueart and Moran, these classical
schools of management thoughts have been criticized as leading to rigidity and resistance
to change. Yes, the theories of these schools provided a way to efficiently organise and
manage the large organisations. Even today, many organizations including libraries and
information centres depend heavily on the classical school of management thoughts.

2.4 Bureaucratic school

Max Weber, a German Sociologist, introduced many of the theories of the Bureaucratic
School. He was the first to articulate a theory of the structure of authority in organisations
and to distinguish between power and authority, and between compelling action and
voluntary response. According to Stueart and Moran, he was more concerned with the
structure of the organisation than with the individuals. Most of his writings and research
relate to the importance of specialization in labour, of regulations and procedures, and of
the advantages of a hierarchical system in making informed decisions. Weber
characterized a bureaucratic organization as an ideal type of organisation in which:
 - Labor is divided with a clear indication of authority and responsibility;
- The principle of hierarchy exits;
- Personnel are selected and promoted based on qualifications;
- Rules are written down and applied uniformly and impersonally;
- Promotion into management is only through demonstrated technical competence;
and
- Rules and procedures ensure reliable and predictable beahviour.
Weber advocated that all the above characteristics of Bureaucratic school are extremely
powerful and the bureaucracies work well under many conditions, especially in stable
organisations and in stable environments. Many large organizations, including many
libraries, have been structured to reflect Max Weber’s Bureaucratic School of
Management thought.
In the views of L. M. Prasad, many authors have questioned the validity of bureaucracy.
In most of the cases, either the conditions are not found in practice, or even if found, may
not result in to efficiency. Especially the following aspects of bureaucracy work against
efficiency of the organisation, though they are supposed to contribute to efficiency:
- Rules are often provided for guidelines but often they become source of
inefficiency because of too much emphasis on rules;
- Rigid organizational hierarchy works against efficiency. It emphasizes necessary
superior-subordinate relationship which are detrimental to congenial
organizational climate; and
- In dealing with people, total impersonal approach cannot be adopted because
people have emotions, feelings and sentiments which affect decision making.
Thus people cannot work totally according to rules.
Bureaucratic structure can work well when environment is highly static and predictable.
However, the nature of environment for large organisations of today is highly dynamic and
heterogeneous, in which more interaction between organisation and environment is
required. There is high need for information monitoring and processing. Thus an open
system perspective is more suitable for the management of modern day organisations,
while bureaucratic structure has closed-system perspective.
3. Neo-classical theory
The schools of management thought developed during the period 1930’s to 1960’s are
known as ‘Neo-Classical School of Thought’, which are discussed as follows:

3.1 Human Relations School

Prominent advocate of this approach was Elton Mayo. Two other co- researchers of this
school were F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson. Subsequently Mary Parker Follett
also contributed to this school of thought. Mayo, Roethlisberger and Dickson conducted
studies at Hawthorne Illinois plant of Chicago Western Electric Company, which became
famous as ‘Hawthorne Experience’ or ‘Hawthorne Studies’ later. Developed during the
middle of the 20th Century, this approach emphasizes the complexity of mankind and
devotes much more attention to the satisfaction of human needs within the organisations.
As the management involves getting things done with and through people, the study of
management must revolve round human behaviour. That is why, it is also known as
‘Behavioural Science School’ or ‘Organizational School’ or ‘Leadership School’. This
approach brings the study of human behaviour ranging from personality dynamics of
individuals at one extreme to the relations of culture at the other extreme. Therefore, this
approach can be divided into two groups: ‘Interpersonal Behaviour Approach’, and ‘Group
Behaviour Approach’. While the interpersonal behaviour approach is based upon
individual psychology, the group behavior approach relies on social psychology and
emphasizes on organizational behavior. The main assumptions of the ‘Human Relations
School’ are as under:

- As management is a process of getting things done by people, managers

should understand human behaviour;
- Motivation and good human relations should be the base for better
productivity; and
- Motivation, leadership, communication, participative management and group
dynamics are the major themes of this approach.

But human behavior is not the total field of concern of the manager. Wherever secrecy of
decision is required and when decisions have to be made quickly on emergent basis, this
approach may not work. The Human Relations School is considered to be a swing in the
opposite direction of classical theory. Here, only ‘Human variables’ have been considered
as critical and all other variables have been ignored altogether. Every organisation is
made up of a number of diverse social groups with incompatible values and interests.
These groups might cooperate in some sphere, while these may compete and clash in
others. In fact, it is very difficult to satisfy every body and turn the organisation in to a big
happy family. Moreover, the techniques of Human Relations School try to play a trick on
the workers to create a false sense of happiness and not really concerned with their real
 well being. Like Scientific Management, efforts and research in Human Relations focused
on the lower levels of organisation, rather than on the middle and upper groups, and
hence, lacked the comprehensive scope.

3.2 Social systems school

Chester I. Barnard is considered the father of the ‘Social-Systems School’, which is

sociologically oriented. In looking for and seeking fundamental explanations about how
managerial processes take place, Barnard developed a theory of cooperation based on
the need of the individual to offset personal, biological, physiological and sociological
limitations. It defines cooperation as a system in which people are able to communicate
with one another and willing to coordinate their efforts to a unified end result. According to
G. Edward Evans, this style also recognizes that some interactions are conditioned by the
informal organisations. Leadership and other characteristics of individuals exhibited in
informal situations may not coincide with their leadership role in the formal organisation.
Social–systems adherents also recognize that what happens on the job is strongly
influenced by social activities taking place within the social system, i.e., outside the
organisational system, and by other organizations.

According to Evans, the ‘Social-Systems School’ has made a great many contributions to
management theory. The recognition of the organisation as a social organism, subject to
exactly the same problems and pressures the individual is subject to, has proved to be
very helpful to the practicing manager. With its emphasis on social interaction and
cooperation, this school utilizes a great deal of background material about the non-rational
side of human and organisational behaviour.

The major contributions of Chester Barnard can be presented as under:

i. Concept of Organisations
In the opinion of Barnard, an organisation exists when there are persons able to
communicate with each other; they are willing to contribute to the action; and they
attempt to accomplish a common purpose.
ii. Formal and Informal Organisations
The formal organisation has consciously coordinated interactions, which have a
deliberate and common purpose. On the other hand, the informal organisation
refers to those social interactions which do not have consciously coordinated joint
 purpose. The informal organisations exist to overcome the problems of formal
organisation.
iii. Elements of Organisation
According to Barnard, there are four elements of formal organisation, which are:
(a) a system of functionalization so that people can specialize; (b) a system of
effective and efficient incentives so as to induce people to contribute to group
action; (c) a system of power which will lead group members to accept the
decisions of the executives; and (d) a system of logical decision making.
iv. Authority
Barnard does not agree with the classical theory that the authority transcends from
the top to down. Rather, he gave a new concept of authority called “Bottom–up-
authority”. He says that a person does not obey an order because it has been
given by a superior but he will accept a communication as being authoritative only
when he feels that: (a) he can understand the communication; (b) he believes
that it is not inconsistent with the organisational purpose; (c) he believes it to be
compatible with his personal interests as a whole; and (d) he is mentally and
physically able to comply with it.
v. Functions of the Executive
Three types of functions of an executive have been identified by Barnard, which
are: (a) maintenance of organisational communication through formal interactions;
(b) securing of essential services from individuals in the organisation to achieve
the organizational purpose; and (c) formulation and definition of organizational
purpose.
vi. Motivation
Some of the prominent non–financial techniques for motivating people to work,
as suggested by Barnard are: opportunity of power and distinction; pride of
workmanship; pleasant organisation; participation; mutual supporting personal
attitudes; and feeling of belongingness.
vii. Executive Effectiveness
Leadership is the most strategic factor in securing cooperation from the people. It
demands high caliber, technological competence, and technical as well as social
skills. The executive leadership should not have pre-conceived notions and false
ideologies. It should be personal pre–dilections and prejudices.
viii. Organizational Equilibrium
 It refers to the matching of individual efforts and organisational efforts to satisfy
individuals. The cooperation of individuals with the organisation brings forth new
activities. The organisational equilibrium can be perceived not only through logical
appraisal but through analysis and intuition. Thus, many non–logical factors also
enter into organisational analysis. Therefore, the reasons for an action should not
only be logical but must appeal to those attitudes, pre-dilections, prejudices,
emotions and mental background that cover action.

The above contribution of Barnard shows how he was concerned for the
development of the organisation through social systems. According to L.M. Prasad,
his contributions are regarded quite high in management.

3.3 Decision theory school

Major contribution of this school of thought has come from Simon. Other contributors are:
Cyert, March, Forrester, etc. The emphasis of this school is that decision making is the job
of every manager. In other words, manager is a decision-maker while organisation is a
decision making unit. Rational decisions are required to be made for achieving the goal.
According to L.M. Prasad and G. Edward Evans, ‘Decision- Theory School’ has the
following features:

- Management is essentially for decision making;

- The members of the organisation are decision-makers and problem solvers;
- Organisations can be treated as a combination of various decision centres. The
level and importance of organisational members are determined on the basis of
importance of decision which they have to make;
- Quality of decisions affect the organizational effectiveness; and
- All factors effecting decision-making are the subject matter of study of
management. Besides processes and techniques involved in decision-making,
other factors affecting the decisions are: information system, social and
psychological aspects of decision makers. Thus it covers the entire range of
human activities.

The Decision-Theory School has provided management and the library managers in
particular, with a very useful means for developing techniques to be used to identify and
then attack the problems systematically. This school of thought is applicable in all types of
organisations even today.
3.4 Management science school

It is also known as ‘Mathematical School’ or ‘Quantitative Measurement School’. It is a

system that can be understood by many people who have no particular grasp of the
concepts of management itself, but who can understand the mathematical symbols. It is
easy to communicate in this way as it is logical and consistent.

It is particularly useful in solving complex problems, and in bringing about a more

logical arrangement for information sources and data, in order to make the quantification
process easier to carry out. The primary focus of this approach is the mathematical
model, through which the managerial and other problems can be expressed in basic
relationships and, where a given goal is sought, the model can be expressed in terms
which optimize that goal. According to L.M. Prasad, this school of thought draws many
things from the “Decision Theory School”, and in fact provides many techniques for
rational decision making. The major features of this school of thought are as under:

- Management is regarded as the problem solving mechanism with the help of

mathematical tools and techniques.
- Management problems can be described in terms of mathematical symbols and
data. Thus every managerial activity can be quantified.
- This approach covers decision making, systems analysis and some aspects of
human behaviour.
- Operations research, mathematical tools, simulation, models, etc. are the basic
methodologies to solve managerial problems.

This school of thought is a fast developing one in analyzing and understanding

management. It has contributed significantly in developing orderly thinking in
management, which has provided exactness in management discipline in solving
managerial problems. But it does not provide the answers for the total managerial
problems. Moreover, many managerial activities are not really capable of being quantified
because of the involvement of human beings, who are governed by many irrational factors
also. The researchers in this school have advanced managers’ awareness of how
models and quantitative techniques can be used in the planning , controlling and
decision making processes.

3.5 Human behavior school

This school of management thought is also known as ‘Behavioural Science School’, or
‘Human Resource School’, or ‘Leadership School’ of thought. In contrast to the ‘Human
Relations School’, which assumes that happy workers are productive workers, the
‘Human Behaviour School’ has been goal and efficiency oriented and considers the
understanding of human behaviour to be the major means to that end. This school has
more emphasizes on human resources in an organisation as compared to physical and
financial resources.

As this school studies human behaviour ranging from personality dynamics of individuals
at one extreme to the relations of culture at the other, this can be divided into two
groups: (i) Interpersonal Behaviour School; and (ii) Group Behaviour School. The
writers on the first group are heavily oriented towards individual psychology; while the
writers on the second group rely on social psychology and they emphasize on
organisational behaviour.

Sociologists like Holmans, Bakke, Lewin, Katz and Kahn have studied human behavior in
groups and have emphasized on group behaviour. As summed up by L.M. Prasad, the
major conclusions of the contributions made by behavior a lists are as under:

People do not dislike work. If they have helped to establish objectives, they will want to
achieve them. In fact, job itself is a source of motivation and satisfaction to employees.
Most people can exercise a great deal of self-direction, self-control and creativity than are
required in their current job. Therefore, there remains untapped potential among them.

- The manager’s basic job is to use the untapped human potential in the service of
the organisation.
- The manager should create a healthy environment wherein all subordinates can
contribute to the best of their capacity. The environment should provide a healthy,
safe, comfortable and convenient place to work.
- The manager should provide for self-direction by subordinates and they must be
encouraged to participate fully in all important matters.
- Operating efficiency can be improved by expanding the subordinate influence, self-
direction and self-control.
- Work satisfaction may improve as a ‘by-product’ of subordinates making full use of
their potential.
 Almost all the above listed characteristics put forth by the advocates of ‘Human Behviour
School’ are applicable in the management of libraries and information centres.
4. Modern Theory
The following schools of management thought propounded during 1960s onwards
can be classified as ‘Modern Approach’ or ‘Modern Theory’

4.1 Systems approach or system school

One of the most widely accepted theoretical basis for modern management is called
‘Systems Approach’ or ‘Systems School’. System is defined as ‘a set of elements
standing in interrelation among them and with the environment. The really important
aspects are the interaction among the elements to create a whole and dynamic system.
This system, if it is an open one, interacts with its environment’. The system is influenced
by the environment and in turn influences the environment. If the system is dissected, it
becomes evident that it comprises a number of sub-systems. Similarly, an organization is
also one sub-system of a larger environment.

According to Stueart and Moran, the older schools of management envisioned

organisations as closed system, ones in which the outside environment did not interact
with the system. The systems approach to management differs from these older
classical perspectives because it acknowledges the impact of the outside environment
on everything that happens within an organisation. System theory envisions
organisations as porous entities that are greatly affected by the outside environment. As
computer related technology was introduced into organisations, a new style of approach,
which became known as the ‘System Approach’, began to emerge. This approach likens
an organization to a system similar to that used in computers. The primary approach is to
model the ideal organizational design. According to Toney Dawson, this theory claims that
an organisation consists of a number of sub-systems. The examples of such sub-systems
are:

a. Production/Technical: This sub-system provides the primary function or purpose

of the organisation. The examples would be the production lines of industrial
enterprises or, in the public service context, social service homes or hospitals.
b. Supportive: This sub-system supports the production sub-system. For instance, it
procures inputs and resources (e.g., procurement functions) or disposes of
products (e.g., sales and dispatch functions).
 c. Adaptive: This sub-system ensures that the organization adapts to changing
circumstances. An example would be the research function.

Every system has flow of information, material and energy. These inputs get
converted into outputs of goods, services and satisfaction in the organisation. This
change process is synergistic. Synergy means that the output of a system is
always more than the combined output of its parts. In other words, these inter-
related parts become more productive when they act in cooperation and interaction
rather than in isolation. A system adapts and adjusts to the changing conditions of
its environment and exercises control over its operations through feedback.
Information flows to appropriate people as feed back to carry out this function.
Systems approach possesses the conceptual level of managerial analysis much
higher than other approaches.

Systems school suffers from two limitations, i.e., firstly, it is too abstract to be of
much use to practicing managers. It merely indicates that various parts of the
organisation are inter-related. But it fails to spell out precise relationships among
these; secondly, it lacks universality and its precepts cannot be applied to all
organisations. For example, systems approach provides modern structural forms,
cybernetic system for control and communication. These systems are suitable for
large and complex organisations but are not suitable for smaller organisations.
Looking into these shortcomings, researchers have tried to modify the systems
approach. This attempt has led to the emergence of a separate approach, called
Contingency or Situational approach.

4.2 Contingency approach or contingency school

It is also known as ‘Situational Approach’. The basic idea of Contingency Approach is

that there cannot be a particular management action which will be suitable for all
situations. Rather, an appropriate action is one which is designed on the basis of external
environment and internal states and needs. Contingency theorists suggest that systems
approach does not adequately spell out the precise relationship between organisation and
its environment. The Contingency School tries to fill this gap by suggesting what should be
done in response to an event in the environment.

Beginning in the 1970’s, the Contingency School became one of the most influential ways
of thinking about management. This concept takes the situational approach. It considers
the circumstances of each situation and then decides which response has the greatest
chance of success. According to Chimezie A.B. Osigweh. The Contingency Approach or
Situation Approach asserts that:

- There is no best managerial technique;

- There is no best way to manage;
- No technique or managerial principle is effective all of the time; and
- Should the question be posed as to what works best, the simple response is ‘It all
depends on the situation’.

Tony Dawson illustrates that the organisations faced with a stable environment might find
centralized decision making structures to be more suited to its need; alternatively an
organisation with a varied environment might find decentralized structure more applicable.
Similarly, small organisations might be better organized through strong central control; the
larger organisation might find decentralized structures more suitable. Again, the
organisations with well educated and trained workforce might find that centralized
structures are resisted by its employees; whereas less educated but trained workers
might be more satisfied with centralized management structure. As such, environment,
size and personnel of organisation are the factors which decide as to which structure is
most suitable for a particular organisation.

Thus, it is evident that ‘Contingency School’ is an improvement over the ‘Systems School’.
The shortcomings of the Systems School have been removed or modified in the
Contingency School. But it has not been acknowledged as a unified theory of
management because it suffers from some limitations, which are of the following
nature:

- Research is still being conducted to spell out various types of actions which can be
taken under different situations. Adequate literature is not available on this issue
for the time being.
- It seems simple to say that the managers should do according to the need of the
situation. But practically it is not always possible for the managers to do thorough
analysis to find the best way as they are always short of time. They resort to short
cut and easier ways. Thus the situation can, sometimes, lead to complex problems.
- For empirical testing of a theory, it is necessary that some methodology is
available. But due to changed situations and involvement of too many factors, the
empirical testing became rather more difficult.
 - Contingency approach is basically reactive in nature and it is not proactive. This
sometimes leads to problems for the manager to provide directions and guidance.
Despite some limitations of the Contingency School, it is working very well. The managers
should take action as per situation and using their skills. They have to take into account
the goals of the organisations, the technology used, the people of that work there, the
outside environment, and a number of other factors before taking the final decision how to
manage.

4.3 Learning organisation school

This approach was first put forth by Peter Senge during 1990s. As the name implies, a
‘Learning Organisation’ is one in which all employees are constantly learning. They keep
focusing on identifying and solving the problems within the organisation, at all levels.

According to Stueart and Moran, the learning organisations maintain open

communications and decentralized decision making. The organisation can overcome
limitations, understand the pressures against it and seize opportunities. The basic
principles of the Learning Organisation School are as follows:

- Personal mastery with people identifying what is important in the process;

- Mental models, with the organisation continuously challenging members in order
to improve their mental models;
- Shared vision, requiring an imagining of what the organisation should be;
- Team learning, through cooperation, communication, and compatibility; and
- Systems thinking, recognizing the organisation as a whole.

As the managers have to act as leaders, they assume the role of innovator, director,
coordinator, monitor, facilitator and teacher. The Learning Organisation School seems to
be a good fit as more organisations are making shift from the ‘Command-and-control
organisation’ to ‘Information-based organisation’. The theory of Learning Organisation is
being applied to more and more organisations these days. It is being applied in various
types of libraries and information centres also, now-a-days, in different parts of the world.

Evans has made an attempt to see the development of library management as a parallel
to development of schools of management theories. He found that same pattern in
library management theory as that in business with starting point at a much later time
in library management. Almost all schools of management thought have been and are
being applied in different types of libraries and information centres all over the world.
 Principles of Scientific Management are invariably being applied in the libraries.
Bureaucratic school is being followed in certain libraries even today. In recent times,
Quantitative technique, Systems theory and Behavioural Science approach are being
followed to library and information centre management. Evan suggests the need of unified
theory of library management.

5. Summary

In this module, we have discussed management theories. Management theories address

how managers and supervisors relate to their organizations in the knowledge of its goals,
the implementation of effective means to get the goals accomplished and how to motivate
employees to perform to the highest standard. The evolution of the schools of
management thoughts can be grouped in three categories, viz. Classical, Neo-Classical
and Modern theories of management. Management theories are implemented to help
increase organizational productivity and service quality. Not many managers use a
singular theory or concept when implementing strategies in the workplace. They
commonly use a combination of a number of theories, depending on the workplace,
purpose and workforce. Human Relations School, Contingency theory, Chaos theory and
systems theory are some of the popular management theories.

In libraries and information centres too these theories are applicable. The continued use,
development, and refinement of those thoughts and techniques in library management
results in more efficient and effective library service.

6. References

1. Albers, H. Principles of management: A modern approach. New York: Wiley, 1969.

2. Bryson, Jo. Effective library and information centre management. Aldershot, Hants:
Grower, 1990.

3. Evans, G Edward. Management techniques for librarians. New York: Academic Press,
1976. pp. 17-31 & 34-50

4. Fayol, Henry. General and industrial management. Trans. Constance Storrs. New York:
Pitman, 1949. pp. 22

5. George, Claude S., Jr. The history of management thought. 2n d ed. Englewood cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1972. pp. 12.
6. Hodgetts, Richard M. Management: Theory, process and practice. Philadelphia :
Saunders, 1975. pp. 113.

7. McFardland, Dalton L. Management : Principles and practices. 4th ed. New York :
McMillan Publishing, 1974.

8. Prasad, L.M. Principles and practice of management. 6th ed. New Delhi: Sultan Chand &
Sons, 2006. pp. 39-76

9. Senge, Peter M. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the Learning organisation.
New York : Doubleday, 1990

10. Stueart, Robert D. and Moran Barbara B. Library and Information centre

11. management. 7th ed. Westport: Libraries Unlimited, 2007. pp. 19-40.

12. Terry, G. R. Principles of management. 6th ed. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1972.

13. Tripathi, P. C. and Reddy, P. N. Principles of management. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill, 1991.

14. Weber, Max. The theory of social and economic organisations. Edited & translated by A.
M. Henderson and T. Parsons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947.

15. Worrell, Diane. “The learning organisation: Management theory for the information age or
new age fad?” Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol 21, Sept. 1995. pp. 356.