A Comparison of Classical Management Theorists and Contingency Theorist

A Comparison of Classical focus Theorists and Contingency TheoristsThe management field is characterised by a wide variety of theories,schools and directions. This essay examines the innocent and chance schools of intellection -- the set aboutes to organization thathave had the greatest impact on management today. for the first time the essaydelineates and criticises the important theories propounded byclassical writers. The essay continues with an account of thecontingency school, and finally evaluates its impacts on managerialthought.Up until about the late fifties academic writing about organisationalstructure was dominated by the classical management school. This heldthat there was a single organisational structure that was effective inall organisations. (Clegg & Handy, 1999). According to Holt (1999),the classical school is characterised by ?being extremely structured,with emphasis on the formal organisation with clearly definedfunctions and detailed rules, autocratic lea dership, a rigid chain ofcommand and control by superiors? (Holt, 1999, p.137). The threegreatest proponents of classical theory were Taylor, Fayol, and Weber.Each identifies detailed principles and methods done which thiskind of organisation could be achieved.Taylor (1947) real a systematic approach to called ?ScientificManagement?, which focused on efficient production. Through the flying fieldof task movements, or ?time and motion studies? as it was known, he accept matching the correct locker to the task was crucial toincreasing work efficiency. Under this so-called Taylorism, emphasisis placed on power confered to those in control. According to Morgan(1997), this approach to work design is found in tralatitious forms ofassembly-line manufacturing and in production processes.Another major sub-field within the classical prospect is?Administrative Management,? set forth by Fayol (1949). WhileScientific Management took a micro approach, Fayol saw the macroconcepts, a body of friendship which emphasised broad administrativeprinciples applicable to large organizations. In Fayol?s account,management is conceptualised as consisting of five elements, namelyplanning, organizing, command, co-ordination, and control. He alsodeveloped 14 principles of management or organisation, the best-knownbeing division of work, unit... ...ure. academy of ManagementJournal, 25 (3), 553-566.Luthans, F. (1973). The Contingency Theory of Management A means outof the jungle. Business Horizons, 6, 67-72Meyer, M.W. (1972). Size and the structure of organizations A causalanalysis, American Sociological Review, 37, 434-441.Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, R. & Turner, C. (1969). The context oforganization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 1491-114.Pugh, D. & Hickson, D. (1996). Writers on organisations. LondonPenguin.Robbins, S. & Barnwell, N. (2002). Organisation Theory Concepts andcases. Victoria, Australia Pentice Hall.Taylor, F.W. (1947). Scientific Management, Har per & Row.Watz, T. (1996). engine room rules OK? A review of technologicaldeterminism and contingency theory. Creativity and inventionManagement, 5(1) 13-21.Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic ecesis. A.H.Henderson and Talcott Parsons (eds.). Glencoe, IL Free Press.Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial Organization Theory and Practice,second edition. New York Oxford University Press---------------------------------------------------------------------1 Pugh et al.