Classical, Human Relations and Systems Approaches to Organization - Essay Example

?Introduction One of the most important and central part of the study of management and organization is based upon how the overall management thinking has evolved over the period of time. Managers therefore must be able to keep themselves updated with the changes in the way management thinking has evolved over the period of time. This allows managers to actually get an insight into how the management has actually changed while facing different issues and challenges. The more managers know about management and organizational methods and operations, better they will be at making critical and important decisions. This knowledge also allows managers to make effective decisions and contribute positively towards the overall development of the organization. It is therefore critical that the overall developments made in the field of management and organizational thinking should be traced. Over the period of time, four important approaches towards organization and management have evolved. These include classical, human relations, systems and contingency approaches towards management and organization. All these approaches evolved as a result of different changes taking place within the domain of organizational development. Issues like leadership, employee motivation, performance, compensation etc dominated the way these approaches gradually evolved and matured over the period of time. Based on these approaches a comprehensive framework evolved regarding theory about management. This paper will make an effort to compare and contrast first three approaches as mentioned above and will outline as to how these approaches have evolved and what are their basic elements which distinguish them from each other. Classical One of the key themes adapted by classical writers was based upon the formal structure of a purpose driven organization. They view organizations having formal structures having technical requirements based on extensive planning of work. Classical approach towards management and organizations view purpose of the organization as an essential element to understand as to how organization work and what methods can actually be adapted in order to improve the efficiency and work. Identification of purpose of the organization was also based upon crystallizing the roles and responsibilities within the organization. Since classical approach viewed organization having formal structures therefore it was important that clear roles and responsibilities should be identified first. These roles and responsibilities however, based upon first identifying and refining the purpose of the organization. Scientific management and bureaucracy are the two sub-groups of the classical approach and both the sub-groups have their own merits and de-merits. One of the key arguments of the writers on classical approach was based upon the notion that improving the management will actually improve the performance and the organization. F.W. Taylor was one of the key writers during that era outlining different principles which governed the scientific management approach within classical school of management. He advocated the implementation of scientific methods for selection and hiring of the workers while at the same time also suggested same approach for training and development of workers also. (Crainer, 1998) Classical approach however, visualized organizations and management as entities which can control the behavior of their workers. One of the key criticisms of this approach was therefore based upon the notion that labor workers may react strongly against the management principles of control. The creation of multiple layers of management in order to oversee and supervise the work was considered as essential in order to generate more efficiency and make workers productive. In nutshell, it can be argued that the classical approach was largely based upon the use of scientific methods of management with focus on improving efficiency and productivity by using scientific methods. The Human Relations Approach The main emphasis of classical approach was on structure and purpose of the organization however, with the great depression focus changed. The human relations approach therefore focused on human relations and considered social factors at work and the overall behavior of employees towards work. Unlike classical approach, human relations approach focused on decentralization of work wherein individual workers as well as functional units within the organization were given more power to decide. The decentralization of decision making therefore allowed workers to decide about their own work and reduce the management layers. The overall concept was to reduce the management supervision and to make workers more accountable for their work. Decentralization also required communication through informal channels and discouraged the use of formal and hierarchical communication. The focus on lateral communication therefore was considered as one of the key elements of overall work de-centralization and companies were encouraged to adapt such practices to bring in more efficiency. (McClelland, 1988) Another important element of human relations approach was the participatory nature of decision making. Unlike classical approach wherein decisions came from top of the layer of the management, this approach advocated for a more participation from different stakeholders of the organization. The overall idea was to actually ensure that more and more input is gathered from different persons involved in order to improve the overall decision making process. The greater autonomy in decision making process therefore was meant to increase the ability and efficiency of the managers to decide on their own and without any influence from the supervisors. This not only was meant to increase the efficiency of the managers but also allow workers an opportunity to become part of the organization and contribute towards the overall progress of the organization. (McGregor,1987) The Human Relations Approach was also tailored in a manner to show greater concern for the development of self-motivated employees. The basic principles of this approach therefore suggested that management should focus on developing such policies and procedures which can help employees to develop as self-motivated. This was radically different from classical approach which emphasized upon the use of scientific methods to improve the efficiency of the employees rather than helping them to learn on their own. The Human Relations approach is different from classical approach in the sense that it focused on cultivating human relations. By improving social factors at work, organizations can actually improve the efficiency of their workers and can produce more motivated employees. The Systems Approach The systems approach is considered as a more recent approach which views organization as a whole system with different inter-related sub-systems. Systems approach is also viewed as a synthesis of classical as well as human relations approach as it attempts to combine both of them together. The overall focus is on the organization as a whole and the different inter-related behaviors and actions wherein organization and individuals are seen as part of the same whole system. (Watson, 2002) The basis of this approach is the Systems Theory which has been extensively used in other sciences such as physical sciences. However, from organizational and management perspectives, this theory has been applied in a unique manner and within a social setting. Accordingly, business organizations are viewed as open systems with continuous interaction with different players within the organization. Further, the open nature of the organization required a continuous and multiple channels of communication within an organization. As such, this approach focuses on allowing employees working within the organization at different organizational levels. Such openness of the system means management and employees must continue to interact with each other in order to achieve desired results. What is also important to note that the systems approach view organization as a whole with both technical and social elements as sub-groups. Changes in one sub-system will bring changes in other systems and hence the organization as a whole will suffer. In order to manage efficiency and balance between the systems it is therefore important that organization must cater to both the elements. (Stewart, 1999) Organization is also viewed as a socio-technical system which is concerned with the psychological and social factors and also advocates that the organizations must strive to balance the social and technological factors. The systems approach therefore is a combination of classical as well as human relations approach suggesting that organizations should bring in scientific methods of doing things while also catering to the social needs of their employees. Conclusion The above mentioned approaches to management and organizations present a systematic analysis of how management theory has evolved over the period of time. The earlier attempts made to understand management and set its theory was based upon classical approach. Classical approach advocated for the use of scientific methods in managing the organization whereas later approaches however, provided some other alternatives too. The human relations approach therefore suggested that the organizations should focus on improving social factors. A focus on improving social factors can allow organizations to develop self motivated employees. The human relations approach also suggested for the development of de-centralized organizational structure while at the same time advocating for participatory decision making process. The human relations approach therefore was relatively different from classical approach because it brought in human element into the organizational management. The systems approach however, attempted to combine both the approaches and view organizations as a whole system with different sub-systems. This approach focuses on social as well as technical factors and suggests that the organizations must develop its expertise to balance both. References Crainer, S. (1998) Key Management Ideas: Thinkers That Changed the Management World, third edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall McClelland, D. C. (1988) Human Motivation, New York, Cambridge University Press McGregor, D.(1987) The Human Side of Enterprise, London, Penguin Stewart, R. (1999) The Reality of Management. 3rd ed. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann. Watson, T. J. (2002) Organising and Managing Work, New York, Financial Times Prentice Hall Read More