Critical Evaluation of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Classical and Human Relations Theories
Critically evaluate the classical and human relations approaches of management theory. Your essay must clearly define the term ’’ management theory’’ and include industry examples to illustrate your answers.
The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the classical and human relations theories of management giving some industry examples which supports their applicability and importance or otherwise.
“‘Critical evaluation is the skill of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of work, and of understanding the importance of its contribution to the subject’. Hulme, J.A. (2004).
For the benefits of in-depth analysis we will look at the classical scientific of F. W. Taylor (and not the classical administrative approach of say Weber), identifying expert supported strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Equally, we will look at Herzberg’s human relations theory of motivation.
Classical management was rooted on the belief that employees have only economical and physical needs, and that social needs and need for job-satisfaction either don't exist or are unimportant. Accordingly, this school advocates high specialization of labor, centralized decision making, and profit maximization. The humanistic (or human relations) school recognized people as a special sort of resource. They not only work for the organization – they are the organization.
Mary Parker Follett succinctly defined management as '...the art of getting things done through people.'
Management theory can be defined as a body of general principles on how best to manage a business or organization to achieve its goals and how to motivate employees to achieve highest possible performance.
F. W. Taylor (the father of scientific management) was the intellectual leader of the efficiency or classical movement. According to him the main object of management ‘should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum
The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the classical and human relations theories of management giving some industry examples which supports their applicability and importance or otherwise.
“‘Critical evaluation is the skill of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of work, and of understanding the importance of its contribution to the subject’. Hulme, J.A. (2004).
For the benefits of in-depth analysis we will look at the classical scientific of F. W. Taylor (and not the classical administrative approach of say Weber), identifying expert supported strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Equally, we will look at Herzberg’s human relations theory of motivation.
Classical management was rooted on the belief that employees have only economical and physical needs, and that social needs and need for job-satisfaction either don't exist or are unimportant. Accordingly, this school advocates high specialization of labor, centralized decision making, and profit maximization. The humanistic (or human relations) school recognized people as a special sort of resource. They not only work for the organization – they are the organization.
Mary Parker Follett succinctly defined management as '...the art of getting things done through people.'
Management theory can be defined as a body of general principles on how best to manage a business or organization to achieve its goals and how to motivate employees to achieve highest possible performance.
F. W. Taylor (the father of scientific management) was the intellectual leader of the efficiency or classical movement. According to him the main object of management ‘should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum
References: Hulme, J.A. (2004). Critical Evaluation: A Student Guide. Psychology Review, 10, 6-8. Pugh & Hickson, (1996) Writers on Organizations, (5thed) George, Claude S.1968. The History of management thought (1sted). Englewood Cliffs: N.J. Prentice-hall Herzberg, F. (1959) Mausner, B; Snyderman, B. the motivation to work, NY Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the nature of man, world publ. Herzberg, F. (1976) Managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human, Dow Jones, Irwin Owen, Jo, (2012) Management stripped bare, 3rd ed.