The relevance of various management theory schools of thought

The relevance of various focusing hypothesis schools of thoughtThis suffervass will identify the predominant and diverse schools of thought encapsulated within heed theory and their relevance or lack thereof, or appropriateness of fabrication within todays organisations. Four separate methodologies sh either be addressed, the classical school, the school of homophile relations, and both systems and calamity theory.The Classical theory of wariness was born of the scientific age (Wren, 1995, p5). Taking account of this theory in the present age, a classical glide path can offer social systemd management with purpose, impel and travel by, understandable hierarchy (Cole, 2004, p4). Scientific management, with exp cardinalnts such(prenominal) as Owen, Babbage and later Taylor and Gantt (Pindur et al, 1995, pp61-62) were come to with observation and experience to seek greater efficiency for expanding industry believe meshers as cogs in a machine and as a nonher imagery to be organised (Morgan, 1997, p38).General administrative managements focus was on the rivulet of the livelong organisation (Pindur et al, 1995, p62). Fayol looked in more detail at the function of manager and purported five functions planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Fells, 2000, p346). Bureaucracy, with the main advocate weber, took a theoretical view seeking to understand power and authority (Mullins, 1996, p46 Pugh and Hickson, 2007, p5). Weber sought clear hierarchy advocating recruitment and promotion due to merit. With standardisation across the organisation no matter who was in post (Hpfl, 2006, pp10-11).Although gloss over relevant today as a tool to offer clear direction, (Lamond, 2005, p1279) classical theory has been heavily criticized for being too prescriptive, limiting soulfulness thought, creativity and flexibility of the organisation (Morgan, 1997, pp30-33 Mullins, 1996, pp41-46). It was thought not to look beyond the individual or ganisation to its wider context. (Mullins, 1996, p52).Contrastingly, the human relations (HR) theory of management sometimes referred to as human behaviour school, leadership or behavioural sciences cuddle, considers and prioritises tidy sum as part of the management role. The exponents of this school lean heavily towards psychological science and social studies believing plenty should understand people (Koontz, 1961, p178).In the mid-twenties an awareness of the impact of social factors within the workplace grew and behaviour and mental process of employees became a focus for study (Mullins, 1996). Mary Parker Follett wrote about individual and convocation behaviour within organisations (Wolfgang et al, 1995). She contentiously believed that authority was rooted in a view and not with a person, causing much dispute and debate (Clegg et al, 2005 Mandeville, 1960).arguably HR theory originated with the Hawthorne Studies conducted from 1920s and 1930s (Grey, 2005). Ironically the origins of the studies can be linked to the scientific approach however they became inextricably linked with Elton mayonnaise and showed productivity increased often when not expected. Mayo identified ,when people felt valued fruit could rise (Clegg et al, 2005). Whilst methods used and accuracy of information is disputed the results opened minds and encouraged debate on topics such as leadership, motivation and informal groups within organisations and so the neo-human relations approach veritable with Maslow and his understanding of peoples needs entering the arena of theories (Mullins, 1996).The HR approach can help provide solutions to problems such as absenteeism, staff turnover and production quality brought about by strict scientific approaches. However some may view the approach as an unwelcome intrusion loss no demarcation between private and work life (Grey, 2005). commonwealth are the blusher ingredient to the HR theory but we should not set aside that, structur e and rules are undoubtedly required in the mix.Accepting that Systems theory attempts to reconcile the classical and human relations approaches, this may then potentially provide the ideal management theory. But does such an ideal really exist? Exploring further, Systems theory focuses on the elements of organization, in hurt of their interaction with external environment. Attention is focused on the total work organisation and the interrelationships of structure and behaviour, and the range of variables within the organisation (Mullins, 2000). The belief is that all employees work harmoniously through sharing common goals.The Systems approach to management began in 19th century, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy made great contributions in developing it. thither are two basic types of systems closed and open and one of the key concepts of von Bertalanffys theory mentioned that open systems responded to their environments through exchanged information, energy or bodily (Kast and Rosenwe ig, 1972). The open systems model contains human relations as well as organisation evolution (Pindur et al, 1995).Closed systems on the opposite hand are self-contained and do not interact with their environment (Cole, 2004). Some classical theories, like Taylors scientific management, Webers bureaucratic theory and Gulicks administrative management can be sort out to the closed system model (Pindur et al, 1995).Limitations within the Systems theory did exist though, and whilst the approach fostered both technical and social variables viewing organisations as a whole alterations to one aspect directly affected the other part.The changing personality of the work environment, the increasing demands for flexibility and concerns with the contextual factors influencing structure pretend pinched attention to the chance approach to organisational design (Mullins, 2000, p564). Diversity is no endless just the right thing to do it has become a chore imperative and perhaps the single most important factor of the twenty-first century for organization performance (Wheeler, 2005, s1-s7 Daft, 2008, p420).Observed as a development of the Systems approach, the contingency theory goes a stage further in relating the environment, and other variables, to specific structures of organisation. It takes the view that there is no one best, universal structure (Mullins, 2000, p564), or universal principles that can be used for every situation, but kind of it seeks to explain how one attribute or characteristic depends upon another (Vecchio, 2000,p338).The contingency approach can be seen as a form of if-then intercellular substance relationship (Luthans, 1985) it draws attention to the situational factors emphasising the need for flexibility (Mullins, 2000, p564). There is a army of possibilities and the best or preferred choice will be detail on the situation being analysed (Hunt, 1992, p170).Criticisms or doubts about the contingency approach and its practical value to m anagement have been voiced. According to Robey (1982, p59), modern contingency theory provides an increasing amount of empirical research defining variables ignored in earlier work. However, the contingency approach runs the risk of concluding that it all depends on everything. Indeed, Vecchio (2000, pp.11-12) simply summarises the contingency approach in two words. It depends.Whatever the criticisms and limitations of contingency models, the application of modern contingency theory can help conduce to more effective performance(Mullins, 2002, p578) so can we deduce that whilst possibly as well flexible in its make-up, the contingency approach is however within practice, a suitably acceptable management theory?ConclusionIn closing it would appear that it is not only management theory that is disparate the numerosity of variables affecting the everyday running of organisations, also provides immense organisational diversity. Management theory and practice in implementation are ine xtricably linked which ensures that no holistic theory of management can be developed.Many paradigms have been created within an historical context where necessity for change has been encountered. Theoretical management and its functions are therefore viewed as evolutionary.Classical theory, whilst used today appears limited in application. Human Relations theory is still useful when use in terms of an organisations social dimension. A unitarist Systems theory whilst initially democratic was overtaken by a more necessary flexible approach to management, gleaned from incident theory. This perspective took a pluralist view of organisations.Organisations vary in terms of groups of individuals, industry type, structure, culture and objectives, making management differ within each entity. The escape of management theory, as time has progressed has added to the management debate and provided structure in which there is near agreement within groupings of schools who disagree vehemently as to the thinking of their adversaries. Because of managements diversity we are of the thinking that there is no one solution that will remedy or enhance all situations.(Word sum up 1319 words)