Fayol Weber and Taylor

Classical organization theories were developed in the late 1940’s by the likes of Taylor in 1947, Weber in 1947, and Fayol in 1949 (Rahim, 2017. These theories were created to help deal with ideas and the formal organization to enhance management efficiency. There contributions together help form what is known as classical organization theory today (Rahim, 2017). Taylor helped present scientific management concepts. Weber’s contribution was the bureaucratic approach. Fayol formed the administrative theory of organization (Rahim, 2017). These efforts contributed majorly to the understanding anf study of classical organization theory.
Taylor developed what is known as the scientific management approach. This method has its root thanks to the desire to accomplish specialization, efficiency, simplification, and standardization with concept of planning of work. Back then workers were seen as tools rather than contributors to industry and as such formation of theory in this regard was going up against an undercurrent of lack of appreciation for the employee. “Early management theory, in this sense, originated before workers began to enjoy even limited rights. Times were harsh, and workers were seen merely as interchangeable parts in a highly personal ‘industrial machine’” (Ashford, LeCroy, & Lortie, 2010, p. 164).
Still, Taylor developed his approach and acknowledged the need for mutual trust between workers and management for the approach to increase productivity to come to fruition. Therefore, although the way workers were seen was negative, Taylor was able to develop interest in improving the way management saw workers and improve the relationship between them. How Taylor said to achieve this was through:
1. elimination of the traditional ‘boss’ concept,
2. elimination of anxiety and physical stress,
3. development of worker capabilities via training, and
4. workers should receive the advantages of productivity improvement (Ashford, LeCroy, & Lortie, 2010).
By improving the trust between worker and management through sensible steps, Taylor sought to improve and increase overall productivity. This made a lot of sense because if the desire for a business is to increase profits, the best way to do that is to acquire skilled laborers and maintain them working for the company for a prolonged period of time. At least that is what seems like the best way of achieving high profits and high productivity. This for example, is seen in Google Inc., where the try to remove stress from their employees’ lives by maintaining a fun workplace with healthy lunch options.
With the idea of limited worker rights, a popular practice during Taylor’s time, such an approach most likely was met with resistance. Such a mentality can be seen in China were the workforce still face limited rights and low motivation, high anxiety. What Taylor offered was a means to remove the anxiety and increase the motivation. By building trust, the management and the worker benefit.
Weber had a bureaucratic approach to organization, considering it as a part of a broader society. “Weber's ideal bureaucracy is characterized by a hierarchy of authority and a system of rules and procedures designed to promote structure and rationality” (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014, p. 431). Weber aimed to formulate principles that further conceptualized formal organization. They are:
· Rationality which is impartiality in recruitment and selection
· Democracy which is authority and how it is recognized. Not by persons, but by designations.
· Specialization which is tasks must be clear on a functional basis. Then, split per specialization, having a separate chain of command.
· Structure which is the structuring of positions via a hierarchy with each position have an specific quantity of authority and responsibility.
· Predictability and stability which is the organization’s operations must follow a system of procedures that consist of formal regulations as well as rules (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014).
By having a set structure for the way an organization function, Weber provided the foundation from which an organization or business can thrive. Without such a formal structure, business may be lost in how they function, especially where it pertains to predictability and stability. By following specific and formal rules and regulations, organizations and the employees and management that exist in these organizations can avoid the pitfalls of wrongful behavior. In a way, Weber helped establish within classical organization theory, the ethics of how to exist and work within an organization.
Weber’s work could fall into the contingency approach. “A contingency approach suggests that organizational efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved in several ways. In a contingency design, specific conditions such as the environment, technology, and the organizations, workforce determine the structure” (Griffin & Moorhead, 2014, p. 460). This is a great way to see how Weber’s approach goes into the contingency approach because workers and management must follow a set structure in order to achieve specific outcomes. For example, if a manager is aware of her or his responsibility and authority, that manager then act accordingly by coming in each day and making sure to delegate tasks to capable employees.
The next and last contributor for discussion is Fayol. Fayol helped create administrative theory. Sometimes seen as the ‘Father of Modern Management’, he was a pioneer when it came to functions and principle of management. He was one of the first to make a clear distinction among managerial and operating activities. Fayol’s efforts led to the identification of five significant functions of management. “planning, coordinating, organizing, controlling, and commanding…also developed 14 principles still used today. Most principles of management textbooks are organized on the basis of functions of management (Lussier, 2009, p. 40).
Fayol formulated specialization or division of work that helps increase productivity in managerial and technical work. Another element of his administrative theory is responsibility and authority, similar to Weber, where it was an imperative to accomplish organizational goals as an organizational member (Lussier, 2009). Another element, disciple, meant members of an organization must honor the organizations goals. They must also remain compliant regarding the organizations regulations and rules. This falls into the bureaucratic approach as following the rules is important for any organization. Without doing so the employees, management, and organization could be negatively impacted in a major way. Fayol says that for every manager, the object of Command is to get the optimum return from all employees of his unit in the interest of the while concern. Fayol says that to coordinate is to harmonize all the activities of a concern so as to facilitate its working and its success (Nanda, 2006, p. 57).
If one derives the basic components of each theorist discussed, one can gather than order and trust is an integral aspect to the success of an organization. Weber and Fayol in particular, emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure and adherence to rules and regulations. Weber specifically stated that there is a need for impartiality when it comes to the selection and recruitment of candidates. This lends to the order expected within the organization. When candidates are selected in an impartial manner, it can lead to the other steps both Weber and Fayol require for an organization, which is designating appropriate authority and responsibility to an employee or manager and then making sure those within the organization aim for accomplishing organization goals.
To put this within context of today’s companies, Google recruits people in an impartial manner through a selection and interview process. This can mean recruiters speaking to candidates and collecting their resumes. Once they are hired, they are given rules and regulations to follow while working for Google Inc. This may take the form of a book or brochure or through various meetings. After orientation, the employee is assigned tasks and responsibility.
It is up to the management to help guide the employee towards what is expected for the organization in terms of accomplishing organization goals. The employee does his or her tasks and is paid accordingly. All of this functions as an ordered system where actions and processes lead to a specific outcome. This is what classical organization theory represents.
In conclusion, classical organization theory has had its share of major theorists to help it form into what it is today. There is a need within the concepts shared by Taylor, Weber, and Fayol that there must be structure within management and organization. There must be order in relation to employees following an organization’s rules and regulations. But there also must be consideration for the employee. While it is important for employees to follow rules, and exist in an organization that has structure, there must also be structure in how an employee is treated.
Taylor’ work shows this best with the need to develop trust within the employee-management relationship. Today’s world, especially in developing countries, fails to see this come to fruition. This can lead to problems for both the organization and the employees. It may take effort to shift to a more structure organization, but it is important to adopt some of the core concepts of these theorists. Trust should be developed to allow for improvement in productivity and rules and regulations must be followed.
References
Ashford, J. B., LeCroy, C. W., & Lortie, K. L. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: A multidimensional perspective. Australia: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2014). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Lussier, R. N. (2009). Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, skill development. Australia: South-Westerm/Cengage learning.
Nanda, J. K. (2006). Management thought. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing Conflict in Organizations (4th ed.). Routledge.