In 150 words answer both questions

Classical School of Administration The writings of Gulick (1937), Gulick and Urwick (1937), and Fayol (1949) took many of the concepts developed by Weber and Taylor and formulated them into general principles of management—essentially continuing Taylor’s view of “one best way” to manage. These principles included unity of command (i.e., one boss), unity of direction (one objective, one plan, one boss), subordination of individual interest to general interest, centralization, authority, span of control (optimal number of people to supervise), and departmentalization (Fayol, 1949). Such principles directed managerial practice for much of the twentieth century.

Departmentalization has been one of the most enduring principles articulated by this school. These writers identified two principal models for the firm’s division of labor: process departmentalization and purpose departmentalization. These have since been relabeled functional and divisional organization: organizing by functional area versus organizing by product line, customer, or geographic area. Alfred Chandler (1962) depicted the large-scale shift in the organization of American enterprise from the former to the latter. Twenty years later, Goldsmith (1981) described a similar transformation taking place among U.S. hospitals. Efforts to commingle the two forms of management gave rise to matrix structures utilized both in industry and in health care (Burns, 1989; Galbraith, 1973). Alternative forms of departmentalization comprise the core of thinking on organization design and coordination, the topic of Chapter 3.

Human Relations School The human relations school developed a model of worker motivation that sharply differed from the Taylorist approach, and thus suggested a different way of management. Work conducted by Elton Mayo (1945) and Roethlisberger and Dickson (1947) at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company ironically began as a Taylorism project to assess the impact of lighting changes on worker productivity. In contrast to Taylor’s focus on individual workers and their jobs, their research anticipated Kurt Lewin’s (1951) insight about the primacy of the group in structuring individual behavior. 1617The findings implied that to improve productivity, management must attend to a new set of considerations beyond monetary incentives and top-down control of work. Managers must instead understand the informal organization of workers (groups, group sentiments, team work), the need of workers to be listened to and participate in the design of their work (participation, self-governance), and the importance of morale and satisfaction as motivators of worker effort. Group structure and process are considered in Chapter 5; communication skills are discussed in Chapter 6.

Mayo’s work suggested that workers are less rational than Taylor believed, guided less by financial incentives and more by human sentiments. Workers were also motivated to be accepted by their peer groups and achieve social solidarity. Finally, workers had an array of goals and needs that did not necessarily coincide with, or were subordinated to, the firm’s interests. This insight led to an entirely new managerial approach called “organization development,” which recognized the interdependence of the organization and groups of employees, and sought ways to simultaneously achieve both the firm’s goals and those of its workers. By extension, this school paved the way for later recognition of the employee as the firm’s key asset.

Subsequent research and writing expanded the human relations school’s approach. Douglas McGregor (1960) contrasted this school and its emphasis on managing human resources (Theory Y) with scientific management and its emphasis on control and coercion (Theory X). For McGregor, human relations management sought ways to integrate the firm and the worker, as well as ways to harness the worker’s creativity and imagination. Taking account of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, McGregor argued that satisfying the worker’s higher-order needs of belongingness, esteem and self-actualization was critical. Herzberg refined Maslow’s approach and suggested that such intrinsic motivation was inherently satisfying, while extrinsic factors were merely dissatisfying if not met. These approaches led to the entire field of job-redesign (Hackman, 1981) and self-managing work teams. The topics of motivating people and developing teams are considered in Chapters 4 and 5.

Contingency Theory of Leadership

By the mid-twentieth century, two schools of management thought had been established. One argued for greater structure, control, top-down decision making, and reliance on extrinsic rewards (Theory X); the other argued for more participative management, self-governance, bottom-up decision making, and reliance on intrinsic rewards (Theory Y). For decades these schools were often (but erroneously) viewed as polar opposites. Subsequent research conducted during the 1960s and 1970s (summarized in Bass, 1981) suggested the choice of leadership style is not either-or. Instead, the effectiveness of specific management approaches depends on key situational factors (see Chapter 2).

Decision-Making School The decision-making school of management—also labeled the “Neo-Weberian” model (Perrow, 1986)—developed during the 1950s and 1960s, spearheaded by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (Cyert and March, 1963; March and Simon, 1958; Simon, 1947). This school focused as much on how decisions were made and goals were set as on the structure of the firm—but all within a context with which Weber and scientific managers were comfortable: control of the work process and the worker.

In contrast to both scientific management and human relations, the decision-making school focused neither on top executives or lower-level workers, but rather on the large cadre of middle managers that had developed inside the large firms of the mid-twentieth century. Such managers and their decisions needed to be controlled. Because of limits on managers’ cognition—known as bounded rationality—decision making needed to be guided by “satisficing” behavior (limited search among alternative options, and selection of first acceptable solution) and the use of “programs” and “routines” (e.g., solutions or problem-solving paths used before) (cf. Simon, 1947; March and Simon, 1958). Such approaches served as points of stability and biases against innovation by narrowing the strategic choices available to managers. Decision making was also organized and controlled through means-ends hierarchies, in which the goal (ends) of one layer of management (e.g., increase profits) became translated into sub-goals (means) pursued by the subordinate layer of management (e.g., raise revenues, decrease costs). They also presaged the “garbage can model” of decision making, in which solutions have a life of their own distinct from the problems they are called on to solve, and may behave as answers looking for questions to solve (March, 1994).

The decision-making school had entirely different views of worker motivation as well. Rather than viewing workers as 1718extrinsically or intrinsically motivated, or having goals that were shared or divergent from the firm, researchers described “inducements-contributions contracts” through which the firm and the worker engaged in exchange (Barnard, 1938). This had implications for the goals pursued by the firm. There was no necessary harmony or consistency in the goals pursued. Instead, firms could have multiple coalitions, each in pursuit of their own sub-goals. Conflict could thus exist internally, and conflict resolution was never complete. Agreement on firm goals was thus accomplished through bargaining and negotiation. This school of thought thus presaged more political theories of the firm, which viewed organizations not as unified hierarchies but as competing coalitions pursuing self-interests (see Chapter 7).

Finally, the decision-making school introduced several new themes in organization theory and analysis. Rather than overt supervision and control espoused in Taylorism and scientific management, this school emphasized more unobtrusive controls over managerial decisions and behaviors. These controls included: standard operating procedures (SOPs), decision-making routines, socialization and training, organizational vocabularies and communication, and uncertainty absorption strategies (e.g., techniques to filter, process, edit, classify, and restrict the flow of information inside the firm).