Classical and Behavioral Management Theories Compared

Introduction to Management Theory Evolution

Many studies have been carried out to establish appropriate management theories and styles that organizations can adopt in order to succeed. Research from scholars with diverse backgrounds has been useful in improving previous leadership models and theories, which have been advancing and evolving constantly. This paper offers a concise comparison of various leadership theories and styles while elucidating the basic facets that characterize them (Mahadevan, 2009, p. 26).

Various management theories were postulated in the twentieth century, defining the perspective we hold on management in the current business environment. Managers have been able to implement and appreciate new ways of managing people and organizations through emerging theories and new thinking patterns. The key management viewpoints — contingency approaches, behavioral approaches, and classical approaches — have played a major role in the development of contemporary management techniques and theories in the twenty-first century. Although significant varieties of these approaches exist, they tend to support a common effort of improving organizational efficiency through proper management of human resources. The observable differences among these approaches arise because organizations change constantly, and the environment demands that new management techniques and practices be applied for an organization's efficiency to be sustained (Mahadevan, 2009, p. 78).

Classical Management Approaches

The classical theory of management was the outcome of efforts to develop a body of management knowledge; the theorists who participated in that effort are regarded as pioneers in the study of management. The classical viewpoint stresses work and organizational efficiency in order to increase production output. This approach may be classified into three fields: bureaucratic, administrative, and scientific management (Mahadevan, 2009, p. 37).

In the early 1900s, Max Weber described the outline of an ideal organization. Weber's theory was based on divisions separated by impersonal relations, rules and regulations, a clear hierarchy, and a defined division of labor and authority within an organization. He argued that this structure would guarantee accountability, promote employees based on merit rather than superficial factors, and create a consistent model. Weber's theory still holds its ground today as a primary management structure. In most workplaces, there are various authority levels, governing rules and regulations, and established procedures for handling different situations — all of which promote consistent results and clear accountability (Sapru, 2008, p. 89).

Scientific Management and Labor Efficiency

Some years later, a new frontier in labor management emerged, encompassing the incentive system introduced by Henry Gantt and Frederick Taylor's scientific management. Gantt's incentive system relied on persistent consequences to reinforce certain behaviors — for example, providing a bonus for all tasks completed on time or assigning tardiness points that accumulate into penalties. This idea remains in use today to promote strong customer service, quality output, and efficient production. When a desirable reward exists, employees will work toward achieving it. Scientific management, by contrast, involved breaking a large task into smaller components in order to maximize production efficiency, conserve time, and simplify the process (Cole, 2008, p. 73).

Credit is often given to Ford for the first assembly line, though some believe it was Frederick Taylor who first articulated and outlined its positive attributes. In the years that followed, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth contributed another dimension to scientific management through their studies of body motion in working individuals. They discovered that by reducing the number of motions required in a given task, they could decrease wasted time and energy. Many individuals today recognize that workers naturally develop their own styles of performing tasks and find ways to shorten the time spent on a process as they grow more comfortable with it (Yeatts & Hyten, 2010, p. 72).