The Ideas of the Classical Theorists

Most people believe that the ideas of the classical theorists, especially those of bureaucracy and scientific management, are quite out of date and outmoded and have little application to work and organization. In order to achieve efficiency and corporate objectives, one of the earliest schools of management, known as classical theory, holds that some universal codes may be applied to all businesses, regardless of the circumstances (Mahmood, Basharat, and Bashir 2012, p. 516). The classical school of organization that Max Weber and Fredrick Taylor founded included a number of components, including bureaucratic theory and scientific management. Nonetheless, the theories have been widely criticised to have little or no relevance to the organization and work currently because most firms today have shifted from industrial revolution towards information era as a result quick advance in information technology. Despite the fact that bureaucracy and scientific management have been synonymous with various practices such as red tape and associated with variuos adverse impacts such as “rigidity,” low commitment, and alienation, the traits of bureaucracy such as specialization, impersonality, hierarchy of authority, and rules system, they will remain relevant and noteworthy for some time.

First and foremost, those opposed to relevance of bureaucracy and scientific management practices in today’s work and firms claim that aspects such as advance in technology, social changes, increased competition in business, growing demand for innovation, production globalization, change in customer preferences, and the emergence of new types of information technology are a clear indication that bureaucratic structures are no longer relevant in organizations and work today. This argument is in line with Diefenbach and By’s (2012, p. 1) assertion that there is no longer a business environment where bureaucracy can exist thereby making formal and rigid rules used in bureaucracy obsolete. McKenna (2000, p. 446) holds similar view that mechanistic firms are extinct thereby paving the way for post-bureaucracies (Hodgson 2004, p. 82). Opponents further argue that, with a rising growth in knowledge-intensive sectors such as accounting, law, consultancy, and IT firms, the need for enlarged capacities and flexibility for creative actions has become crucial.

Despite the fact that these are sound sentiments, recent studies indicate that knowledge-intensive firms like those mentioned above are turning more bureaucratic in their daily operations (McKenna 2000, p. 447). For instance, the authority in Beta Consulting Corporation is practised through the hierarchy, standardised work methodology, as well as work processes tuned towards output predictability (McKenna 2000, p. 447). Additionally, there is an apparent movement from “industrial” to a “post-industrial” era and from mass manufacture of standardized products to short productions specifically for particular niche markets (Hodgson 2004, p. 83). Apple Corporation is a good example of a firm currently practising short production rather than mass production in its new version of iPhone being released to market every year.

Opponents further emphasise that post-bureaucracy characterized by various aspects including trust, personal treatment, employee empowerment, as well as shared responsibility is the new organizational model which is more applicable in the contemporary business environment (Hodgson 2004, p. 82). This is an insightful assertion because structures of most of post-bureaucracy firms are flatter. According to Dhillon (2009, p. 160), flatter structures make employees more creative and able to adapt to various new problems companies face in the current competitive environment. Undeniably, bureaucratic vertical structures do not allow employees to gain such characters thus making the companies unable to remain sustainable in today’s competitive environment.

Dhillon (2009, p. 160) emphasizes that organisations which look forward to surviving and growing in the contemporary environment have to encourage creativity and innovation in their workforce. Bureaucratic structures do not promote innovation or creativity thereby making them irrelevant to most organizations and works today. Further research shows that there is a decline in the level of hierarchy in order to enable workers to take greater responsibilities for their tasks (Daft 2006, p. 337). Daft (2006) affirms Dhillon’s (2009) view by adding that firms with hierarchical organisational structures do not encourage employees to take responsibility yet, this increases job satisfaction.

However, recent research shows that a significant proportion of organizations today still use bureaucratic structures. Moreover, it is imperative to understand that greater responsibility can cause stress for workers since they no longer have the protection which bureaucracies can offer (Godwyn and Gittell 2012, p. 121). It is also important to acknowledge that post-bureaucratic organisational structures also impose some challenges to employees such as unfairness, loss of control, and risks (Godwyn and Gittell 2012). In this regard, extinction of bureaucracy and adoption of post-bureaucracy is debatable.

Moreover, there are various cases of firms with bureaucratic structures today. Ritzer’s McDonaldization is a unique model of bureaucracy. The author defines McDonaldization as the process through which principles used in fast-food inns have increasingly dominated many sectors not only in the U.S society but also the entire world (Godwyn and Gittell 2012, p. 122). According to Anon (n.d), the fast-food sector is McDonaldization paradigm and indicates the instrumental rationality which Weber identified several years ago. In this case, McDonald restaurant success is evident even today. Mahmood, Basharat, and Bashir (2012, p.516) attribute the success of the enterprise to the fact that it offers workers, managers, and customer predictability, control, and efficiency. McDonald’s bureaucratic model also offers convenience for consumers in the modern, fast-paced environment. Customers are also ensured similar quality, taste, and quantity in any MacDonald’s restaurant they visit.

MacDonald has also shown evidence of the progressive application of Taylor’s scientific management strategies for timing, measuring, and assessing employee work (Brown, Ashton, and Lauder 2010, p. 11). One of the scientific management elements which McDonald’s have executed in their activities is the Fordist style of management named after Henry Ford in which every employee works based on an assembly line. Ford implemented the Fordist model in Ford Motors, a car-manufacturing company’s culture. For instance, the enterprise designed all its food chain branches in a style which workers take less than two steps to accomplish tasks assigned to them.

Further evidence from Brown, Ashton, and Lauder’s (2010, p. 11) study is that Taylor’s ideas of scientific management are still implemented in many firms to create best workers for particular jobs, specialisation, and division of tasks among workers. For example, McDonald’s uses division of labour to create hamburger. The division of labour, in this case, involves simplifying tasks by first grilling the burger, adding ingredients, sauce, putting them on a bread roll, and wrapping (Anon n.d, P. 56). All the tasks are divided among employees to enhance efficiency. Brown, Ashton, and Lauder (2010) affirm that breakdown of duties and asking each worker to do specific phases enhances efficiency. Therefore, the classical theory of scientific management is still relevant to many workers and organisations today. Indeed, without scientific management, McDonald’s might not have emerged to be one of the top players in the industry.

Nonetheless, McDonaldization system of management has been widely criticised for various shortcomings. Brown, Ashton, and Lauder (2010, p. 13) content that although Taylor’s scientific management implemented in McDonald’s and other organizations has raised productivity by replacing skilled workers with less skilled or unskilled ones, it reduces employees to automation. That is, people with advanced knowledge and skills are limited to simplified tasks as complicated tasks are accomplished using machines thereby restricting individuals from improving their potential (Lewis 2007, p. 233). Scientific management also assumes that employees are satisfied by money. However, that is not the case for many individuals in today’s business where most workers are motivated by personal achievement and career progress rather than money.

Taylor’s scientific management model has further been criticised by Frederick Herzberg in his two-factor theory. Herzberg developed the concept of “job enrichment” where he claims that two factors which motivate individuals include hygiene and motivator as opposed to Taylor’s idea of money (Koontz and Weihrich 2010, p. 10; Herrick 2012). From Herzberg’s understanding, once hygiene factors are met they increase job satisfaction but do not motivate workers. Therefore, the motivator factor should be fulfilled. The argument is contrary to Taylor’s claim that employees are basically motivated by money as Herzberg’s explanation showed that money is not one of the motivator factors.

Similarly, McDonaldization idea of better is contrary to Herzberg’s theory of management. In other words, paying individuals competitively might not motivate them to work enthusiastically (Anon n.d, p. 55). Those opposed to the idea of the continued use of scientific management and bureaucracy underline that such management techniques apparently ignore the psychological and social wants of workers yet, these have a powerful influence on worker conduct.

Other allegations are that increasing specialization and division of labour might lead to employees with low overall knowledge and skills and lack of enthusiasm for their tasks. This point of view was supported and extended by Karl Marx in his description of specialization as alienation (Zastrow, C., 2010, p. 362). He argued that as employees become more specialized and task repetitious, this leads to complete alienation. Marx emphasised that division of labour makes workers depressed physically and spiritually to the machine condition. Notably, the fullness of production is crucial to human liberation. Therefore, the idea of division of labour championed at McDonald’s and other firms should only be a temporary practice and only when necessary. Therefore, Marx differed with Weber’s “ideal” organisation characterised by the division of labour, hierarchical corporate design, and specialization.

Adam Smith also criticised division of labour. Although the philosopher initially supported division of labour and specialisation by claiming that they enhance productivity, he later disapproved its relevance in modern organizations and work (Berry, Paganelli, and Smith 2013, p.1). According to Smith, division of labour leads to “mental mutilation” in employees. That is, they become insular and ignorant since their working lives are confined to one repetitive task (Berry, Paganelli, and Smith 2013). Based on this view, the practice has slowly disappeared in most organisations and work today.

Other people claim that Weber and Taylor overlooked the truth that despite the benefits associated with bureaucracy such as predictability and efficiency, there are irrational aspects beneath the rational system. For example, workers are dehumanised because they are treated like machines. Ciletti (2011, p. 50) observed that most of the organisations currently avoid any treatment that takes advantage of the workers but value people as essential resources to keep the organizations in the market.

Ciletti (2011) also claim that instead of enhancing efficiency, bureaucratic management has become inefficient. For instance, IKEA sells its future unassembled and let customers do it for themselves upon getting on. However, most customers might perceive the furniture as difficult to assemble thus avoid buying them. In this case, the company’s practise is irrational. Indeed, Weber perceives bureaucracy as a cage in that people are trapped in a particular system without their basic humanity (Ciletti 2011). Growth in bureaucracy and rationality might make organisations using the systems nothing more than seamless webs of rationalized structures.

Nonetheless, bureaucratic management style is still practiced in other firms such as call centers (Jemielniak and Kociatkiewicz 2008, p. 1). For example, the staffs in call centers are given scripts to follow when taking customer calls. Supervisors often check regularly the workers by listening to phone conversations thereby keeping them under control. Taylor’s concept of payment strategy is also successfully executed in call centers as call handlers are paid basic salary and a commission and bonuses on top for additional after meeting the daily sales target (Mahmood, Basharat, and Bashir 2012, p. 520). This is a clear indication that bureaucratic management style is still applicable to work in many organizations today.

Advance in technology has also gradually made many firms bureaucratic and rational. Online firms such as Amazon are highly bureaucratic and rational in the contemporary competitive world (Mahmood, Basharat, and Bashir 2012). Steps are set out to guide the staff failure to which the process fails to go through. For example, all the items from Amazon should be scanned before being logged on computers at all stages. In this case, those working for the firm are being controlled by the technology today support manager’s control over employees (Vie 2010, p. 182). The processes in most warehouses are simplified to prevent human error. In others, elements of Taylor’s scientific management approach are still seen in today’s warehouse activities with the help of technology (Ciletti 2011). Based on Weber’s understanding, bureaucracy is one of the most rational types of management.

In conclusion, despite some drawbacks associated with bureaucracy and scientific management practices, the models are still relevant in most organisations and work today. The two management approaches are concerned about qualification and the experience which are essential in improving efficiency and preventing discrimination at work. Notably, bureaucracy like other management approaches has both positive and negative aspects. Most importantly, some of the key aspects of scientific management and bureaucracy are still successfully implemented in works and firms such as McDonald’s. Scientific management practices such as division of labour and bureaucracy practices such as employee control are essential to improve efficiency in today’s competitive business environment (Vie 2010, p. 183).

Notably, bureaucracy is essential in large firms especially the one that requires performance of routine tasks because the success depends on the degree of hierarchy as well as a formalisation of the type of bureaucracy. Moreover, advance in technology help in scientific management in many organisations today. In the contemporary highly competitive business sector, companies should boost their efficiency and effectiveness through employee motivation and innovation through specialization and division of labour. Although innovation and creativity require a reduction of the management structure by shifting from bureaucratic to the post-bureaucratic structure, some elements of bureaucracy such as staff expertise, hierarchy, formalization, and increased responsibility remain essential for a corporation to boost their competitiveness. In this regard, classical theory, mainly bureaucratic and scientific management approaches have withstood a test of time implying that their still relevant to companies and work in the society today.

References

Anon, n.d. The case of McDonald’s. Rationality and Bureaucracy. P. 55-59.

Berry, C. J., Paganelli, M. P., and Smith, C., 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith. Corby, Oxford University Press.

Brown, P., Ashton, D. and Lauder, H., 2010. Skills are not enough: The globalisation of knowledge and the future UK economy.

Ciletti, D., 2011. Marketing yourself. Mason, Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning.

Daft, R. L., 2006. Organization theory and design. Mason, OH, Thompson-South Western.

Dhillon, G., 2009. Information systems - creativity and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: IFIP WG 8.2 international conference; proceedings. Information Systems - Creativity and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Berlin, Springer.

Diefenbach, T., and By, R. T., 2012. Reinventing hierarchy and bureaucracy: from the bureau to network organizations. Bingley, UK, Emerald Group Pub. Ltd.

Godwyn, M., and Gittell, J. H., 2012. Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press.

Herrick, D. F., 2012. Media management in the age of giants: Business dynamics of journalism. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.

Hodgson, D.E., 2004. Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Organization, 11(1), pp.81-100.

Jemielniak, D., and Kociatkiewicz, J., 2008. Management practices in high-tech environments. Hershey, Pa, IGI Global.

Koontz, H., and Weihrich, H., 2010. Essentials of management. New Delhi, McGraw-Hill.

Lewis, P. S., 2007. Management: Challenges for tomorrow's leaders. Mason, OH, Thomson/South-Western.

Mahmood, Z., Basharat, M. and Bashir, Z., 2012. Review of classical management theories. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 2(1), pp. 512-522.

McKenna, E. F., 2000. Business psychology and organisational behaviour: A student's handbook. Canada, Psychology Press.

Vie, O.E., 2010. Have post-bureaucratic changes occurred in managerial work? European Management Journal, 28(3), pp.182-194.

Zastrow, C., 2010. Introduction to social work and social welfare: Empowering people. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole.