Classic_School_of_Management

The Claasical Schools of Management includes Scientific Management of Taylor, Administrative Management of Fayol, Bureaucratic Organization of Weber. The Human Relations Movement of Mayo along with Reothsilberger and Dickson and also Behavioral Schools of Maslow, McGregor, Herzberg, Argyris relates to the Neo-Classical Theory. In general, the goals of the both Classical and Human Relations theories are the same, namely: economy, efficiency and the implementation of the scientific methods in management. However, the main difference between these two schools is that the concept of the first one concentrates on the so called “social man” who is emotional and the concept of the second one – on the “economic man” who is rational and logical. The perception of the organizational change of the Scientific School implies the formal structure while in the case of the Human Relations Movement the organizational change is based on the informal structure. The Classical Theory played a significant role in rationalizing and stimulating the quality and quantity of production. The emphasis of the Human Relations Theory is on the leadership, morale, motivation, informal groups and the external as well as the internal environment of organization in relation to the personality of workers. This theory considered the organization as a system of the interrelated parts (groups, teams of the employees) which functioning in the dynamic environment. Thus, the informal organization puts in the center the “social worker” who is not acting in the vacuum and is lead only by mechanical or economical considerations. It states that there are many behavioral influences (employee’s emotions, sense of the satisfaction and recognition) towards the decisions which are made by the worker. The formal organization is the planned structure which corresponds to the formal design. The main difference between the formal and informal organizations is the difference between authority and influence. Thus, authority is the implementation of power over others (in this case power of managers over the employees) while the influence is the informal capacity to communicate with others in that way so that the tasks would be performed. However, in the reality these two approaches are overlapping since the organizations have both formal and informal characteristics.