Is the Classical Approach to Management Obsolete? Essay

This taste argues the validity of the unstained approach to precaution today. We keisternot deny that businesses and organisations lead evolved and changed a lot since the classical theorists, which run across from the early twentieth century, but yet the main ideas most management that they gave to society are mum sustainable today. The classical organisation theory represents the merger of scientific management, bureaucratic theory, and administrative theory. (Walonick,1993). Classical theorists suggested a one best way to organise and manage, which is called structural universalism (Organisational Behaviour). These theorists were authentically concerned about the formal processes wrong the business, they put emphasis on rationality and on the lack of consideration for human aspects. This doesnt guess that the classics were heartless, but they cared more about the organisation as a whole than on the employers themselves. (Boland, 2012).By classical theorists in this hea r we are going to base in one of the most significant representatives, Henri Fayol, who state that there were five main elements of management planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Fayol, 1949). Thus, these functions are commonly known as the elements or processes that the classical theorists say that management is about. Another classical perspective useful in this essay would be the Taylors one, who can be defined as the father of the scientific management (F.W. Taylor, 1917), which was about finding the one best way to perform each task, carefully matching each proletarian to each task, closely supervise workers, using reward and punishment as motivators, and, finally, he referred to the task of management as planning and controlling.Even though this classical perspective has been very criticised by many authors (Mintzberg, Kotter, Stewart, etc.), the reasons that they have given to invalidate that classical perspective arent really coherent because th ey dont certainly provide a different idea of how to manage or how do the managers act. It is true that in his clause (Mintzberg, 1975), Mintzberg categorises managerial activities into three different groups interpersonal, informational and decisional- but at the end he doesnt really contradicts what Fayol said. In fact, as M.J. Fells argued in his member (Fayol stands the test of time) Mintzberg tends to confirm rather than deny the classical views.Therefore, having explained the classics and the contemporaneous views of management, we can confirm that the real and basic statements are the ones given by the first ones. Furthermore, if this idea doesnt really convince the reader, Fayol said that there was no limit on the number of management principles and that they should be negotiable and adaptable to any need (Fells, 2000), so that makes his definition even more general and suitable as time goes by.Thus, to sum up and in accordance to everything explained above, the reflexion m ade by Fells in his article Fayol stands the test of life fits quite well to conclude this essayFayols principles may indeed be relevant today and should not be ignored until they have been superseded or refutedSo as they harbort actually been superseded nor even refuted we can continue trusting them.ReferencesBoland, A. (2012, October). Introduction to Management and Organisations. Lecture 3 The classical theorists.Brooks, I., (2009), Organisational Behaviour Individuals, Groups and the Organisation 4th Edition. London, FT Prentice-Hall.Fayol, H, (1949) General and industrial management. (C. Storrs, Trans,), London, England PitmanFells, M.J (2000). Fayol stands the test of time, diary of Management History, vol. 6, No.8, pp. 345-360Mintzberg, H. (1975). The Managers Job Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review , pp. 49-61.Taylor, F. W. 1917. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York Harper.Walonick, D.S., (1993), Organizational possibility and Behaviour.