I will present theories that agree with the question, the classical approach is not appropriate today. In the second part I will examine some sectors where some elements of the classical approach are still in use, and I will give organizational examples. The third part of my assignment will focus on the Japanese management style, and will highlight the differences in the two approaches. Being a travel and tourism student I will focus my attention on travel and tourism sector.
The classical management was formed in the 19’th century.As being an authoritarian society the accepted idea was that if management acted on their own ideas, than work was satisfactory and profitable for all participants. (Mullins. 2007.
) Taylor formed his managerial approach based on rational/ economic needs as motivators. In his aspect money was the only motivator for the employees. He based management on three principles, first the scientific selection, which meant the training and development of workers. The second principle was the division of work, and the third, monitoring workers to ensure work is carried out in prescribed way.
Taylor 2006) The fact that Taylor took as basis for his theory, that is employees are only motivated by financial benefits was proven untrue.The first experiments that resulted in an opposing conclusion were the Hawthorne studies, launched by the Western Electric company at their Hawthorne plant from 1927 to 1932. Initially, the study focused on increasing productivity with lighting. Two things emerged from the original studies: the experiment effect, and a social effect. The experiment effect showed that the changes that were made were interpreted by workers as a sign that management cared for them specially.
It has provided a psychological stimulation that was good for group and individual morale and productivity. The social effect was that it seemed that by being separated from the rest and being given special treatment, the subjects developed a special bond between each other and a comradeship that also had a positive effect on productivity. Elton Mayo, the leader of this experiment published his ideals in his first book in 1933 called The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. In this he claimed that it was the social aspects that were the problem with the way things were going in industries.The classical management had not taken human aspects into account at all. As Charles Handy said „ The way we are doing things is not the best way.
The micro-division of labour has fostered a basic distrust of human beings. People weren’t allowed to put the whole puzzle together… Human assets shouldn’t be misused…” (L. Thurley and H. Wirdenius 1989). As Mary Parker Follett said, in a democratic society the primary task of management is to create circumstances in which the people are ready for contribution on their own accord.
The task of management is leading rather than commanding (2003).Classical thinkers had a very definite position in approaching the organisational design as well. They believed that the most efficient and effective organizations had a hierarchical structure in which members of the organization are guided in their actions by a sense of commitment and duty to the organization, following a set of rational rules and regulations (Burnes. 2009).
The ideal of the linear organizational structure as being the best was soon proven untrue. Charles Handy for example introduced a Shamrock shaped structure.In this layout, the essential executives and workers (the core staff), the contractual fringe, who supply services, and the professional consultants are placed on the leaves of the shamrock, symbolizing cooperation. (Mullins.
2007. ) If we take a look at modern day’s organisational designs, we will find that several different structures are in application (Functional structure, Matrix structure, Team structure etc. ), and that the decision on which to follow is influenced by the very nature and the field of business the organization is doing.Scientific management was considered to be the one `best way` for optimizing organisational performance. Opposing this ideal, Joan Woodward had linked differences in organization to firm performance and suggested that certain organizational forms were appropriate for certain types of work technologies.
(Joan Woodward, 1980) We have to keep in mind as well, that in those times when Taylor, Fayol and Weber set the roots for classical management, a lot of organisational activity, that is in operation today, had not existed, tourism for example.Taking into consideration the diversity of business that different organizations are engaging in, it is not possible to find a single design that would be applicable uniformly. The question of organizational design is ever since a topic of debate. “To what degree does an organization need to formally specify units and linkages, roles and authority lines, tasks and responsibilities to deal with complexity? Modern organizations require structures that grant them flexibility they require to reconfigure roles, communication lines, processes, and learning patterns on the go.
(Luciana Silvestri. 2012).Criticism and confliction about the classical management had not been limited to written debates and theoretical collisions. Scientific Management was implemented at the Watertown Arsenal (America, Massachusetts) between 1908 and 1915.
It was considered by the War Department as successful in reducing production costs over the alternatives, but the resistance of workers against this management style eventually resulted in a riot in 1911, that led to the termination of appliance of classical management in the arsenal. Hugh Aitkens, 1960).It also has to be noted, that though the classical management as a style is not appropriate, there are elements of it that are still in use and adequate for some special organization or job role. One of the examples is processes, during which large number of identical products are produced. For example the food preparation process in conference and banqueting departments of a hotel.
In this case the linear organizational structure and the division of job are both useful.As a large quantity of food has to be produced, pre-plated and served in the same way, defining everybody’s specific task, and reporting to the head of operation is essential. At the top of the organizational structure in this case is the chef, who controls everything. The sou-chefs are each responsible for one kind of food- dessert, meat, fish, vegetable, and are responsible to report to the chef. The kitchen staff is told exactly how to prepare and cook the ingredients, and how to place them on the plates.The division of job is also a characteristic of the classical management style that is still in operation.
One of the areas I could mention as an example is the housekeeping department of large hotels. The reason is the very high turnover rates in staff. I have consulted with Gyozo Dajka, housekeeping supervisor in Regents Park Marriott Hotel, where I work as a front desk associate. Mr Dajka told me, that there is a specific training for new housekeeping associates, which only include the standard processes for cleaning the rooms, products used, methods to follow.The reason for this he said, is that people in housekeeping department usually take employment for only a short period of time, and their job description doesn’t include involving with any other departments, or processes in the hotel. Because of this, their further training and involvement in other operations is not just unnecessary, but would also require unreasonably high funds from part of the employer.
When speaking of classical management style in nowadays business, it is necessary to mention China, the production there and the managerial styles rooted in that different cultural environment.In 21’th century mass production, China is the biggest exporter, multinational companies (such as Coca Cola, Volkswagen, Microsoft, General Motors, Proctor and Gamble etc. ) had transferred their manufacturing departments there due to lower production costs and more effective capital consumption allowance reduction. In China manufacturing, not just the first two examples are adequate- large quantity production of identical products and high turnover jobs- but also the authoritarian role of management is still in usage, and accepted.
The roots of this management style can be found in the Confucian philosophy that has a major impact on the social and corporate values and perception in China. The teachings of Confucius ( 551- 479. BC) say that all relationships are deemed to be unequal. According to this subordinates should automatically give respect to their senior, without questioning of authority.
But not like in the classical management style, in the Confucian philosophy, the management is expected to take holistic interest in the well being of subordinates and hould not take advantage of the power originating from their position. (T. Cleary 1992. )The complexity of this structure makes it possible for the authoritarian system to be accepted and operate successfully.
In the followings I would like to introduce the Japanese management as an alternative management style. The Japanese management was developed after the II. World War, in order to restore mass production. To recreate Japan as a country and to improve the lifestyle of the people, the cooperative system between employers and employees was reinforced.The basic characteristics of this management style were the lifetime employment, the forming of trade unions within the corporation, and the seniority system in promotions and salary.
An employment contract was not made for a specific job. In the contract the employees promised to give their best knowledge and skill in order to make the company successful. (J. C. Abegglen, & Jr. G.
Stalk 1985). Due to the change in the economical environment, the industrial structure and the employee’s perception of work, these characteristics have changed during the years.However these values are still embedded in the Japanese management style. When Japan started businesses overseas in the 1970`s this specific management style had a great impact on western management style. Due to the unique cultural, philosophical and historical background that had a major role in forming the Japanese management, the system as a whole cannot be applied completely in Western managerial practices.
But there are elements of it, which were implemented and had brought a central change in the relation and the appreciation of the employees.One of these elements is the financial security. In the last 25 years most of the employees has achieved income maintenance, which may often exceed that of the `lifetime employment`. In the US a Supplementary Employment Compensation system was introduced, which guarantees the unionized worker in the mass production industry most of his income even during lengthy layoffs. (P. F.
Drucker. 1971). Another reason for the success of Japanese management lies in the training methods they use, the so called `continuous training`.This means that every employee, including managers as well, take part in trainings as a part of their job, until they retire. This practice was introduced in order to improve work quality and procedures.
(P. F. Drucker. 1971) The approach to this training style is not related only to individuals, but also whole organizations.
A very good example for the implementation of this specific training method in the Western culture is the Nissan case study.When Nissan opened its manufacturing factory in Sunderland in 1984, it had to face the difficulty of some serious quality difference in the suppliers product compared to that what was accepted in Japan. To resolve this problem they decided to set up a Supplier Development Team. The aim of the team was to help suppliers to develop their business and manufacturing processes to a level that is acceptable by Nissan. This approach to the training resulted in the expected outcomes, and the Sunderland assembly plant is the most productive in Europe (B.
Burnes. 2009. ), proving the usefulness of Japanese management style. When analyzing management style it is important to understand that each culture and era has its leading management ideals that are influenced by several complex relations of the philosophy, religion, the historical heritage and the economic environment. Each organization should evaluate the external and internal environment in which it is operating, and establish a management system which is best suitable for both employees and the company.
