A Comparison of Classical Management Theorists and Contingency Theorists

A Comparison of Classical Management Theorists and Contingency Theorists

The management field is characterised by a wide variety of theories,

schools and directions. This essay examines the classical and

contingency schools of thought -- the approaches to organization that

have had the greatest impact on management today. Firstly the essay

delineates and criticises the important theories propounded by

classical writers. The essay continues with an account of the

contingency school, and finally evaluates its impacts on managerial

thought.

Up until about the late 1950s academic writing about organisational

structure was dominated by the classical management school. This held

that there was a single organisational structure that was effective in

all organisations. (Clegg & Handy, 1999). According to Holt (1999),

the classical school is characterised by ?being highly structured,

with emphasis on the formal organisation with clearly defined

functions and detailed rules, autocratic leadership, a rigid chain of

command and control by superiors? (Holt, 1999, p.137). The three

greatest proponents of classical theory were Taylor, Fayol, and Weber.

Each identifies detailed principles and methods through which this

kind of organisation could be achieved.

Taylor (1947) developed a systematic approach to called ?Scientific

Management?, which focused on efficient production. Through the study

of task movements, or ?time and motion studies? as it was known, he

recognized matching the correct worker to the task was crucial to

increasing work efficiency. Under this so-called Taylorism, emphasis

is placed on power confered to those in control. According to Morgan

(1997), this approach to work design is found in traditional forms of

assembly-line manufacturing and in production processes.

Another major sub-field within the classical perspective is

?Administrative Management,? set forth by Fayol (1949). While

Scientific Management took a micro approach, Fayol saw the macro

concepts, a body of knowledge which emphasised broad administrative

principles applicable to large organizations. In Fayol?s account,

management is conceptualised as consisting of five elements, namely

planning, organizing, command, co-ordination, and control. He also

developed 14 principles of management or organisation, the best-known

being division of work, unit...

... middle of paper ...

...ure. Academy of Management

Journal, 25 (3), 553-566.

Luthans, F. (1973). The Contingency Theory of Management: A path out

of the jungle. Business Horizons, 6, 67-72

Meyer, M.W. (1972). Size and the structure of organizations: A causal

analysis, American Sociological Review, 37, 434-441.

Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, R. & Turner, C. (1969). The context of

organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 14:91-114.

Pugh, D. & Hickson, D. (1996). Writers on organisations. London:

Penguin.

Robbins, S. & Barnwell, N. (2002). Organisation Theory: Concepts and

cases. Victoria, Australia: Pentice Hall.

Taylor, F.W. (1947). Scientific Management, Harper & Row.

Watz, T. (1996). Technology rules OK? A review of technological

determinism and contingency theory. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 5(1) 13-21.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. 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.