Amongst means putting in rigid framework by

Amongstall the different subtypes of Management there are two main classical theoristsHenry Fayol and Frederick Taylor.One of the earliest Theories was developed bya theorist called Henry Fayol in the early 19th Century. Today Fayolis known as the Father of modern management. He was the Director of a miningcompany in France that employed more than one thousand people. The high demandfor leadership and organisation of this large workforce stimulated Fayol’s mindto develop his theory, “The Five functions of Management” which highlights thekey qualities and functions that a manager should possess. “His is a normativeand pre-scriptive model: it indicates how managers should conduct theiractivities in order to achieve efficiency” (Brooks,I 2009). This essay will include the view of classical and human relationtheorists and how they impact management today.TheFive Functions theory reflect Henry Fayol’s mindset that is echoed in these twofamous quotes of his, “Planning means both to assess the future and makeprovision for it.

“, and “Its object is to point out mistakes in order that theymay be rectified and prevented from recurring.” The two quotes highlight HenryFayol’s motivations and personality as a manager who is very proactive,prepares for the future by setting objectives and looks to critique hisemployees in order to improve communication and the quality of work completed. (17 ASTONISHING HENRI FAYOL QUOTES -BRANDONGAILLE.COM)  Theseare the Five Fundamental Functions that he believed make a good manager: Planand forecast: Preparing the steps and a series of actions that needs to betaken in order for an Organisation to meet its Financial and Non- financial targetsin the future.                                                                                                                                 Organise: To achieve the principleslaid out by Henry Fayol, and so each person in the Organisation understandstheir role. This also means putting in rigid framework by which each personpartakes in fulfilling the administrative principles embraced by Fayol.

                                                                              Co-ordination: “To ensure resourcesactions and outputs are co-ordinated to achieve desired outcomes”.                                                                                                  Command: Top providedirection for employees to guide the about their duties and to provide thenecessary supervision and instructions to motivate the workers so that theyperform each activity effectively to maximise productivity.                                                                                                                                  Control: “ensuring that activities arein accordance with the plan that orders are followed and principles areapplied. (Brooks, I 2009).According to Fayol the ideal manager is somebody that pre-plans the directionof the Organisation and takes control the employees actions by providing strictinstructions to make sure the ultimate goal is achieved. He portrays the idealmanager as a conductor/ instructor that gives feedback monitors the employeesto eliminate mistakes and inefficiencies.

According to Fayol a manager commandsand controls the actions of his subordinates, and interferes when he believesan employee has strayed of the path of the common goal. These were the fundamentalqualities that Henry Fayol felt were imperative to be a successful manager. However,”The five functions” Produced by Fayol has several Limitations. An example isthat it does not fully reflect the full complexities that Managers may face inthe present-day workplace, especially since new regulations and technologieshave been implemented, meaning managers in the 21st Century work in a differentenvironment to Fayol. (Businessmate.org,line 30 2017). Especially in the 21st Century where employeerights and freedoms have progressed significantly and become more just, incomparison to the 1800’s.

Another difference is the development of technologywhich makes communication instant amongst large organizations. ThereforeFayol’s 5 functions seem a little out-dated and more specific for managinglarge labour forces.Dueto the limitations presented by “the five functions of management”, and hisexperience in the mines of France when he was still a young man you can inferthat the pressures and demands of the job helped him expand his theory throughtrial and error to formulate, “The 14 principles of management”, theory that isin accordance with his original views. It consists of 14 principles ofmanagement that are divided into two groups namely, primarily structuralprinciples and Other principles as tabulated below.”Divisionof Labour”, still a common practice in agricultural industry or Factories bywhich longer complex tasks are separated into smaller simpler ones and togetheras a collective each member of the workforce is responsible for a segment(fraction) of the process. This allows each employee to focus solely on onetask and practice doing it consistently enabling them to perform it with speedand accuracy, as it becomes second nature. This seamless integration of workersbuilding the product in organized stages, reduces production time, thusincreasing the rate of manufacturing generating greater yields of productivity creatingmore profit.

A modern-day example of how division of labour is still used inthe 21st Century is seen in this article. BBC Oneplusone smartphoneFactory in Shenzhen, China. Each worker performs a specific task and at theend of the line you have a fully functioning smartphone. This Factory portrays the coherence of of Fayolsprinciples  in the present day.TheSmartphone Factory in China also conveys the principle of unity of direction asthese individuals are wearing the same uniform and treated equally. Inaddition, they have to obey the task orders issued by the manager avoidingunnecessary disorder and confusion.

The labour force is also workingcollectively to achieve a joint target, i.e. the production of smartphone units.At this particular factory 90 smartphones were produced per hour. Despiteperforming each task individually, they are contributing to the bigger pictureand each worker has contributed equally to the final product enabling them totake pride in the product they have manufactured, linking into the idea of”espirit de corps”- which states Organizations should aim to promote team spirit andunity. FastFood Restaurants such as KFC and McDonalds, are a good representation of how “remuneration”and “initiative”, two of Fayol’s Principles are not carried out fairly intoday’s society. The Principle States that employee satisfaction depends onfair remuneration for all workers, including Financial Remuneration implying thatemployees are paid almost equally and that wealth is more equally distributed,synonymous of socialist views that say wealth should be distributed equally The eater artcile 2007Thearticle addresses the large pay gap between workers and CEO’S of Fast-foodcompanies.

McDonalds and KFC CEO’S earned a staggering 74 and 72 US Dollarsmore respectively per US dollar that a worker made. This Contradicts Fayol’sideals that Remuneration should be fairer for workers financially as well asnon-financially. From this we can gather further evidence about modernsocieties capitalist approach to management, contradicting Fayol’s principles. Demonstratinghow in theory providing the workers with a sense of fulfilment and satisfactionis important, but may be considered as too costly and time consuming. Indicatingthat in a Capitalist society with high demand and competition.Aprominent figure in the mid-20th Century that challenged Henry Fayol’sTheories was a Canadian academic called Henry Mintzberg who criticized HenryFayol’s Theories and labelled them as folklore in an article he wrote “TheManager’s Job: Folklore and Fact”Inthis article he opposes Fayol’s view that managers plan all components andoversee every detail of a project but claimed managers today work following aschedule that is quite emphatic and disorderly, which he described as “brevityand discontinuity” in his article, suggesting managers want to tackle presentissues in and organisation, such as replying to hundreds of emails or speakingon the telephone to numerous people.

These numerous short bursts of work thatlast only a few minutes is what Mintzberg classified as the useful activitiesof managers. Conversely to Fayol’s principle which says managers should be organisedand need to plan in advance, Mintzberg claimed managers dislike reflectivetasks and work at a really fast pace meaning they touch on hundreds of tasksbut rarely delve into a task in detail, portraying managers as opportunists whoperform many tasks and abandon tasks that require prolonged hours of work andan ordeal of focus. Mintzberg’sset out his own managerial roles summed up below: Mintzbergfelt managers were more effective when they split their work into 3 sectionsand across a broad scope of tasks that deal with the present issues. Hebelieved managers should monitor employeesAnotherclassical theorists was Frederick Taylor, which presented his theory ofscientific management Taylor’s theory was a response to a motivational problem,called “soldiering -the attempt among workers to do the least amount of work inthe longest amount of time”, as highlighted in the article this problem deeplyaffected the United States of America, as productivity was severely decreaseddue to this lazy approach to work (The economist-2009) . Taylor’s theory brokethe work process down into the smallest possible units, or sub-tasks, in aneffort to determine the most efficient method possible for completing aparticular job. Taylorset out these principles of scientific management that would yieldstandardisation and discipline. He essentially standardised the entire system,to minimise excuses for performing a task.

In contrast to Fayol who was moreconcerned about the emotional state the workers and focused on boosting theirmoral. Taylor was a disciplinarian. Fayol’s idea of a successful manager andcatering to their needs so that this positive effect would lift their spiritsand infiltrate through the hierarchal layers to produce a positive effect tomaximise profits. Fayol used principles of unity and team spirit to help theemployees work together and build a healthy relationship between the managersand employees. Fayol felt a worker’s and manager’s relationship should be Onthe contrary Taylor opted for standardisation of the manufacturing method andaimed to treat his employees as machines by which they performed tasks. Taylorswiftly “Replaced rule-of-thumb”, which means to eradicate old habits and oldmethods with new methods based on scientific study of how the tasks to becarried out more effectively.

Furthermore, he was a strong believer in scientificallyselecting the correct person to do a specific task. By producing a specialised workforce,he would eliminate the inefficient employees and optimize productivity. Jobswere standardised and simplified preferably to only one action.

Taylor was anadvocate for providing individuals with clear-cut instructions on what theyhave to do, to prevent confusion and wastage of time, due to his obsession withachieving perfect efficiency.  Then he supervisesthem while they performed these manufacturing labour tasks.  Taylor introduced “A Piece-Rate System”, wherehe timed the amount of work employees did using a stopwatch and used a notebookto record how much each employee would be paid based on their efficiency. Thiscontrasted with Fayol’s idea of “equity”, because only the hardest workers willget the most money according to Taylor’s model, this pay difference can lead todisputes diminishing Fayol’s principle “espirit de corps”. Taylor and Fayol haddissimilar views on remuneration Taylor’srationale based on remuneration differed significantly to Fayol’s as hebelieved that workers should be paid based the amount of work they do. However,Fayol believed employees were not solely motivated financially, and he careddeeply for the creativity of employees.

Whereas Taylor treated worker like robots;dehumanising them and perhaps depriving them of a sense of fulfilment which contradictswhat Fayol highlights as an important one in his 14 principles “initiative”.Instead Taylor enforced repetition, simplicity, and a more uniform approach. (The economist 2009)Onthe opposite end of the spectrum the Human relations school is in favour of anemphasis on people. Elton Mayo was a human relations theorist. The Australianprofessor of Philosophy, began his involvement in the Hawthorne studies in1928. The Hawthorne study began in 1924, which involvedisolating two groups of workers in order to experiment on the impact of theirproductivity with different incentives. Well in actual fact the results showedthat it was non-financial incentives that actually impacted productivity adrastic change to the classical management theories of TaylorTheOutcomes of the experiment were in fact a lot more complex reflecting how humannecessity should be prioritised. Mayo placed this shocking discover down to thefollowing factors: Social pressures may have controlled or affected levels ofoutput- meaning that concerns were dominated by social issues as opposed tomanagerial concerns.

This raised the belief that social non -financial motivationis the key aspect to improve performance. These Findings Contradict FrederickTaylor’s Principle of remuneration challenging the ideals of ClassicalManagement that portray a more ration approach. The new Human relationsapproach is centred around communication and teambuilding inducing transparencyamongst modern organisation to maximise the espirit de corps effect that Fayolhighly valued.

Inconclusion, I believe that the Classical theories provided by Theorists ofClassical management gave us the foundations for management today as theyprovided us it the basic principle to boost productivity and manage largeworkforces especially during the industrial revolution. The classical gave us a(chain of command) a hierarchy system that we implement across all frameworksin the modern wold. However, with the turn of the century in 2000, thedigitalisation of industry became more apparent and technology advanced causingthe environmental setting of managers to change.

Additionally, with the rise ofunions and employee right, it was clear that management needed to develop in asocial aspect and respect the rights and freedoms of employees.