The Classical Approach

The classical approach to management was the product of the first concentrated effort to develop a body of management thought. In fact, the management writers who participated in this effort are considered the pioneers of management study. The classical approach recommends that managers continually strive to increase organizational efficiency to increase production. Although the fundamentals of this approach were developed some time ago, contemporary managers are just as concerned as their predecessors were with finding the “one best way” to get the job done. As an illustration of this continuing concern, notable management theorists see striking similarities between the concepts of scientific management developed many years ago and the more current management philosophy of incorporating quality into all aspects of organizational operations.3

For discussion purposes, the classical approach to management can be broken down into two distinct areas. The first area, lower-level management analysis, consists primarily of the work of Frederick W. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry L. Gantt. These individuals studied mainly the jobs of workers at lower levels of an organization. The second area, comprehensive analysis of management, concerns the management function as a whole. The primary contributor to this area was Henri Fayol. Figure A1.1 illustrates the two distinct areas in the classical approach.

Figure A1.1 Division of the classical approach to management into two areas and the major contributors to each area

Lower-Level Management Analysis

Lower-level management analysis concentrates on the “one best way” to perform a task; that is, it investigates how a task situation can be structured to get the highest production from workers. The process of finding this “one best way” has become known as the scientific method of management, or simply scientific management. Although the techniques of scientific managers could conceivably be applied to management at all levels, the research, research applications, and illustrations relate mostly to lower-level managers. The work of Frederick W. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, and Henry L. Gantt is summarized in the sections that follow.

Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915)

Because of the significance of his contributions, Frederick W. Taylor is commonly called the “father of scientific management.” His primary goal was to increase worker efficiency by scientifically designing jobs. His basic premise was that every job has one best way to be done and that this way should be discovered and put into operation.4

Work at Bethlehem Steel Co.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate Taylor’s scientific method and his management philosophy is to describe how he modified the job of employees whose sole responsibility was shoveling materials at Bethlehem Steel Company.5 During the modification process, Taylor made the assumption that any worker’s job could be reduced to a science. To construct the “science of shoveling,” he obtained answers—through observation and experimentation—to the following questions:

  1. Will a first-class worker do more work per day with a shovelful of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 pounds?

  2. What kinds of shovels work best with which materials?

  3. How quickly can a shovel be pushed into a pile of materials and pulled out properly loaded?

  4. How much time is required to swing a shovel backward and throw the load a given horizontal distance at a given height?

As Taylor formulated answers to these questions, he developed insights on how to increase the total amount of materials shoveled per day. He increased worker efficiency by matching shovel size with such factors as the size of the worker, the weight of the materials, and the height and distance the materials were to be thrown. By the end of the third year after Taylor’s shoveling efficiency plan had been implemented, records at Bethlehem Steel showed that the total number of shovelers needed was reduced from about 600 to 140, the average number of tons shoveled per worker per day rose from 16 to 59, the average earnings per worker per day increased from $1.15 to $1.88, and the average cost of handling a long ton (2,240 pounds) dropped from $0.072 to $0.033—all in all, an impressive demonstration of the applicability of scientific management to the task of shoveling.6

Although Taylor’s approach had a significant impact on productivity, his ideas were unpopular with unions and their workers, who feared that the reengineering of their jobs would ultimately lead to fewer workers being needed. In addition, the heightened emphasis on productivity led to a lessening of quality.7

However, managers continue to seek ways to improve organizational efficiency and productivity. For example, consulting firm Pace Productivity uses Taylor-like efficiency studies within its own organization. Using a Timecorder, the company’s proprietary handheld electronic device, employees track their own time by pushing buttons associated with precoded work activities. When an employee presses a new button, time for the previous activity stops being recorded and time for the new activity begins being recorded. The Timecorder tracks how many times each activity occurs as well as how much time is cumulatively spent on each activity. Managers receive summary reports showing how many times work activities are performed and the time spent on the work activities and suggesting, based on the results, ways to improve worker efficiency.

Frank Gilbreth (1868–1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878–1972)

The Gilbreths were also significant contributors to the scientific method. As a point of interest, the Gilbreths focused on handicapped as well as nonhandicapped workers.8 Like other contributors to the scientific method, the Gilbreths subscribed to the idea of finding and then using the one best way to perform a job. The primary investigative tool in the Gilbreths’ research was motion study, which consists of reducing each job to the most basic movements possible. Motion analysis is used today primarily to establish job performance standards. Each movement, or motion, that is used to do a job is studied to determine how much time the movement takes and how necessary it is to performing the job. Inefficient or unnecessary motions are pinpointed and eliminated.10 In performing a motion study, the Gilbreths considered the work environment, the motion itself, and behavior variables concerning the worker. Table A1.1 shows many factors from each of the categories the Gilbreths analyzed.

Table A1.1 Sample Variables Considered in Analyzing Motions

Worker Variables
1. Anatomy
2. Brawn
3. Contentment
4. Habits
5. Health
Environmental Variables
1. Work clothes
2. Heat
3. Materials quality
4. Tools
5. Lighting
Work Motion Requirements of Job
1. Acceleration requirements
2. Automation available
3. Inertia to overcome
4. Speed necessary
5. Combinations of motions required

Table A1.2 Partial Results for One of Frank Gilbreth’s Bricklaying Motion Studies

Alternate View
Operation No. The Wrong Way The Right Way Pick and Dip Method: The Exterior 4 Inches (Laying to the Line)
1 Step for mortar Omit On the scaffold, the inside edge of the mortar box should be plumb with the inside edge of the stock platform. On the floor, the inside edge of the mortar box should be 21 inches from the wall. Mortar boxes should never be more than 4 feet apart.
2 Reach for mortar Reach for mortar Do not bend any more than absolutely necessary to reach mortar with a straight arm.
3 Work up mortar Omit Provide mortar of the right consistency. Examine sand screen and keep it in repair so that no pebbles can get through. Keep tender on scaffold to temper up and keep mortar worked upright.
4 Step for brick Omit If tubs are kept 4 feet apart, no stepping for brick will be necessary on scaffold. On the floor, keep brick in a pile not nearer than 1 foot or more than 4 feet 6 inches from wall.
5 Reach for brick Included in 2 Brick must be reached for at the same time the mortar is reached for, and picked up at exactly the same time the mortar is picked up. If it is not picked up at the same time, allowance must be made for operation.

Frank Gilbreth was born in Maine in 1868. After high school graduation, he qualified to enroll at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology but decided to work for a construction business in Boston instead.11 He started as a bricklayer’s apprentice and advanced to general superintendent. His experience as an apprentice bricklayer led him to do motion studies of bricklaying. He found that bricklayers could increase their output significantly by concentrating on performing some motions and eliminating others. Table A1.2 shows a simplified portion of the results of one of Gilbreth’s bricklaying motion studies. For each bricklaying motion, Gilbreth indicated whether it should be omitted for the sake of efficiency and why. He reduced the five motions per brick listed under “The Wrong Way” to the one motion per brick listed under “The Right Way.” Overall, Gilbreth’s bricklaying motion studies resulted in reducing the number of motions necessary to lay a brick by approximately 70 percent, consequently tripling bricklaying production.

Lillian Gilbreth, who began as her husband’s collaborator, earned two doctorates and was awarded numerous honorary degrees. After Frank’s death, she continued his research while raising their 12 children and becoming the first woman professor at Purdue University. Lillian Gilbreth’s work extended to applying the scientific method to the role of the homemaker and to the handicapped.12

Much of the Gilbreths’ work has broad application for how to design jobs today. However, the Gilbreths were also among the first to consider the employee as a productivity factor. For example, Frank Gilbreth recognized that for motion studies to best impact jobs, managers need to communicate with employees about their jobs and develop their job-related skills.13

Henry L. Gantt (1861–1919)

The third major contributor to the scientific management approach was Henry L. Gantt. He, too, was interested in increasing worker efficiency. Gantt attributed unsatisfactory or ineffective tasks and piece rates (incentive pay for each product piece an individual produces) primarily to the fact that these tasks and rates were set according to what had been done by workers in the past or to someone’s opinion of what workers could do. According to Gantt, exact scientific knowledge of what a worker could do should be substituted for opinion. He considered task measurement and determination to be the role of scientific management.

Gantt’s management philosophy is encapsulated in his statement that “the essential differences between the best system of today and those of the past are the manner in which tasks are ‘scheduled’ and the manner in which their performance is rewarded.”14 Using this rationale, he sought to improve systems or organizations through task-scheduling innovation and rewarding innovation.

Scheduling Innovation

The Gantt chart, the primary scheduling device that Gantt developed, is still the scheduling tool most commonly used by modern managers.15 Basically, this chart provides managers with an easily understood summary of what work was scheduled for specific time periods, how much of this work has been completed, and by whom it was done.16

Special computer software such as MacSchedule has been developed to help today’s managers more efficiently and effectively apply the concept of the Gantt chart.17 MacSchedule allows managers to easily monitor complicated and detailed scheduling issues such as the number of units planned for production during a specified period, when work is to begin and be completed, and the percentage of work that was actually completed during a specific period. (The Gantt chart is covered in much more detail in Chapter 7.)

Rewarding Innovation

Gantt was more aware of the human side of production than either Taylor or the Gilbreths were. He wrote that “the taskmaster (manager) of the past was practically a slave driver, whose principal function was to force workmen to do that which they had no desire to do, or interest in doing. The task setter of today under any reputable system of management is not a driver. When he asks the workmen to perform tasks, he makes it to their interest to accomplish them, and is careful not to ask what is impossible or unreasonable.”18

In contrast to Taylor, who pioneered a piece-rate system under which workers were paid according to the amount they produced and who advocated the use of wage-incentive plans, Gantt developed a system wherein workers could earn a bonus in addition to the piece rate if they exceeded their daily production quota. Gantt, then, believed in worker compensation that corresponds not only to production (through the piece-rate system) but also to overproduction (through the bonus system).

Comprehensive Analysis of Management

Whereas scientific managers emphasize job design when approaching the study of management, managers who embrace the comprehensive view—the second area of the classical approach—are concerned with the entire range of managerial performance.

Among the well-known contributors to the comprehensive view are Chester Barnard,19 Alvin Brown, Henry Dennison, Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, J. D. Mooney and A. C. Reiley, and Oliver Sheldon.20 Perhaps the most notable contributor, however, was Henri Fayol. His book General and Industrial Management presents a management philosophy that still guides many managers today.21

Henri Fayol (1841–1925)

Because of his writings on the elements and general principles of management, Henri Fayol is usually regarded as the pioneer of administrative theory. The elements of management he outlined—planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and control—are still considered worthwhile divisions under which to study, analyze, and effect the management process.22 (Note the close correspondence between Fayol’s elements of management and the management functions discussed in Chapter 1—planning, organizing, influencing, controlling.)

The general principles of management suggested by Fayol, still considered useful in contemporary management practice, are presented here in the order developed by Fayol and are accompanied by corresponding defining themes:23

  1. Division of work—Work should be divided among individuals and groups to ensure that effort and attention are focused on specific portions of the task. Fayol presented work specialization as the best way to use the human resources of an organization.

  2. Authority—The concepts of authority and responsibility are closely related. Fayol defined authority as the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. Responsibility involves being accountable and is therefore naturally associated with authority. Therefore, whoever assumes authority also assumes responsibility.

  3. Discipline—A successful organization requires the common effort of all workers. Penalties should be applied judiciously to encourage this common effort.

  4. Unity of command—Workers should receive orders from only one manager.

  5. Unity of direction—The entire organization should be moving toward a common objective and in a common direction.

  6. Subordination of individual interests to the general interests—The interests of one person should not take priority over the interests of the organization as a whole.

  7. Remuneration—Many variables, such as cost of living, supply of qualified personnel, general business conditions, and success of the business, should be considered when determining a worker’s rate of pay.

  8. Centralization—Fayol defined centralization as lowering the importance of the subordinate role. Decentralization is increasing that importance. The degree to which centralization or decentralization should be adopted depends on the specific organization in which a manager is working.

  9. Scalar chain—Managers in hierarchies are part of a chainlike authority scale. Each manager, from the first-line supervisor to the president, possesses certain amounts of authority. The president possesses the most authority; the first-line supervisor, the least. Lower-level managers should always keep upper-level managers informed of their work activities. The existence of a scalar chain and the adherence to it are necessary if an organization is to be successful.

    These firefighters are working toward a common objective to safely rescue the people from inside this car at an accident site.

    TFoxFoto/Shutterstock

  10. Order—For the sake of efficiency and coordination, all materials and people related to a specific kind of work should be assigned to the same general location in the organization.

  11. Equity—All employees should be treated as equally as possible.

  12. Stability of tenure of personnel—Retaining productive employees should always be a high priority of management. Recruitment and selection costs, as well as increased product-reject rates, are usually associated with hiring new workers.

  13. Initiative—Management should take steps to encourage worker initiative, which is defined as new or additional work activity undertaken through self-direction.

  14. Esprit de corps—Management should encourage harmony and general good feelings among employees.24

Fayol’s general principles of management cover a broad range of topics, but organizational efficiency, the correct handling of people, and appropriate management actions are the three general themes he stressed. With the writings of Fayol, the study of management as an immense, comprehensive activity began to receive more attention. Some modern management researchers seem to believe, however, that Fayol’s work has not received as much acclaim as it deserves.25

Limitations of the Classical Approach

Contributors to the classical approach felt encouraged to write about their managerial experiences largely because of the success they enjoyed. Structuring work to be more efficient and defining the manager’s role more precisely yielded significant improvements in productivity, which individuals such as Taylor and Fayol were quick to document.

The classical approach, however, does not adequately incorporate human variables. People today do not seem to be as influenced by bonuses as people were in the nineteenth century. It is generally agreed that critical interpersonal areas, such as conflict, communication, leadership, and motivation, are shortchanged in the classical approach.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.216.42.251