The Classical/Modernist Approach Was Appropriate to the Time in Which It Was Developed but It Is No Longer Suitable to the Needs of Contemporary Organisations and Change
The Classical/Modernist approach was appropriate to the time in which it was developed but it is no longer suitable to the needs of contemporary organisations and change
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to understand if the classical and modernist approach has a place within modern organisations. First, an understanding of both approaches will be carried out, identifying key ideologies and theories these approaches may contain. Then, a discussion on the literature surrounding the suitability of these approaches with modern day organisations. To finish, a conclusion will take place summarising the main points and understanding the possible limitations.
The classical approach
The classical approach was born in a time where the western world experienced a high level of industrial growth, where business was synonymous with trade (Hester and Gerrie, 2008).It was a time where business competitiveness by America was growing, but Europe struggled to stay ahead with the changes seen in the business world’s size and complexity (Burnes, 2009). A widely accepted management approach was needed by the turn of the twentieth century, in order to replace an inconsistent ‘rule’ approach previously seen (Burnes, 2009). A heavy theme that occurs with the organisational classical approach theory is that power and control comes from a sense of knowledge. Therefore, managers should only have this control (Burnes, Cooper and West, 2003). Key academics who underpin the classical approach and who have developed the theory into a management control system are F.W Taylor, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Henri Fayol. An understanding of their key ideas and influences are described below.
F.W. Taylor, an academic in the classical approach school of thought was an influential figure in the scientific management approach (Parker and Ritson, 2011). Britain and Europe was struggling to stay ahead of competition, because of ineffective management, government and businesses activity
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to understand if the classical and modernist approach has a place within modern organisations. First, an understanding of both approaches will be carried out, identifying key ideologies and theories these approaches may contain. Then, a discussion on the literature surrounding the suitability of these approaches with modern day organisations. To finish, a conclusion will take place summarising the main points and understanding the possible limitations.
The classical approach
The classical approach was born in a time where the western world experienced a high level of industrial growth, where business was synonymous with trade (Hester and Gerrie, 2008).It was a time where business competitiveness by America was growing, but Europe struggled to stay ahead with the changes seen in the business world’s size and complexity (Burnes, 2009). A widely accepted management approach was needed by the turn of the twentieth century, in order to replace an inconsistent ‘rule’ approach previously seen (Burnes, 2009). A heavy theme that occurs with the organisational classical approach theory is that power and control comes from a sense of knowledge. Therefore, managers should only have this control (Burnes, Cooper and West, 2003). Key academics who underpin the classical approach and who have developed the theory into a management control system are F.W Taylor, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Henri Fayol. An understanding of their key ideas and influences are described below.
F.W. Taylor, an academic in the classical approach school of thought was an influential figure in the scientific management approach (Parker and Ritson, 2011). Britain and Europe was struggling to stay ahead of competition, because of ineffective management, government and businesses activity
References: Baloglou, C. (2010). On technological change and stage evolution in the works of Seneca and Adam Smith. The Journal of Philosophical Economics. 3 (2), p153-163. Burnes, B (2009). Managing Change. 5th ed. Harlow: Pitman Imprint. p31-51. Burnes, B; Cooper, C; West, P. (2003). Organisational learning: The new management paradigm?. Management Decision. 5 (6), p452-464. Cadez, S. (2007). A Configuration Form of fit in Management Accounting Contingency Theory: An Empirical Investigation. The Business Review, Cambridge. 7 (2), p220-227. Caldwell, M. (2001). Applying general living systems theory to learn consumers ' sense making in attending performing arts. Psychology & Marketing. 18 (5), p497-511. Capps, C; Hazen, S. (2002). Applying General Systems Theory to the Strategic Scanning of the Environment from 2015 to 2050. International Journal of Management. 19 (2), p308-314. Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies. 16 (4), p580. Clem, A; Mujtaba, B. (2010). Infusing value: application of historical management concepts at a modern organization. Journal of Management and Marketing Research. 4 (1), p1-15. Evangelopoulos, N. (2011). Citing Taylor: Tracing Taylorism 's Technical and Sociotechnical Duality through Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of Business and Management. 17 (1), p57-74. Fells, M. (2000). Fayol stands the test of time. Journal of Management History. 6 (8), p345-360. Finkelstein, S; D Aveni, R. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal. 37 (5), p1079. Grieves, J (2010). Organisation Change. New York: Oxford University Press. p7-8. Hartley, N. (2006). Management history: an umbrella model. Journal of Management History. 12 (3), p278-292. Hatch, M; Cunliffe, A (2006). Organisation Theory . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. p36-47. Hester, N; Gerrie, R. (2008). Management and leadership: buccaneering or science?. European Business Review . 20 (1), p36-50. Moss, D; Green, R. (2001). Re-examining the manager 's role in public relations: What management and public relations research teaches us. Journal of Communication Management. 6 (2), p118-132. Mulej, M; Potocan, V; Zenko, Z; Kajzer, S; Ursic, D; Knez-Riedl, J; Lynn, M; Ovsenik, J. (2004). How to restore Bertalanffian systems thinking. Kybernetes. 33 (1), p48-61. Parker, L; Ritson, P. (2011). Rage, rage against the dying of the light: Lyndall Urwick 's scientific management. Journal of Management History. 17 (4), p379-398. Payne, S; Youngcourt, S; Watrous, K. (2006). Portrayals of F.W. Taylor across textbooks. Journal of Management History. 12 (4), p385-407. Searle, G. (2009). THE SPATIAL DIVISION OF LABOUR IN THE SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES1. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies. 15 (1), p115-129. Taneja, S; Pryor, M; Toombs, L. (2011). Frederick W. Taylor 's Scientific Management Principles: Relevance and Validity. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 16 (3), p60-78. Teasley, R; Robinson, R. (2005). UNDERSTANDING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EFFECTIVENESS IN JAPANESE ORGANIZATIONS: A TEST OF CONTINGENCY THEORY. Academy of Strategic Management Journal. 1 (4), p77-97. Yoo, J; Lemak, D; Choi, Y. (2006). Principles of management and competitive strategies: using Fayol to implement Porter. Journal of Management History. 12 (4), p352-368.. French, S. (2009). Cogito ergo sum: exploring epistemological options for strategic management. The Journal of Management Development. 28 (1), p18-37.