Is the Classical Approach to Management Obsolete? Essay

This turn up argues the validity of the serious music approach to perplexity today. We cannot deny that businesses and organisations have evolved and changed a lot since the simple theorists, which date from the early twentieth century, merely still the main ideas about management that they gave to society are still 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 geomorphological universalism (Organisational Behaviour). These theorists were really concerned about the formal processes inside the business, they put violence on rationality and on the lack of consideration for human aspects. This doesnt mean 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 essay we are going to base in one of the most significant representatives, Henri Fayol, who tell 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 persuasion 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 come each undertaking, carefully matching each worker to each task, well 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 presumption to invalidate that classical perspective arent really coherent because they dont surely provide a different idea of how to manage or how do the managers act. It is true that in his obligate (Mintzberg, 1975), Mintzberg categorises managerial activities into three different groups interpersonal, informational and decisional- but at the end he doesnt really contradicts what Fayol utter. In fact, as M.J. Fells argued in hisarticle (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 flexible and adaptable to any need (Fells, 2000), so that makes his definition regular more general and suitable as time goes by.Thus, to sum up and in accordance to everything explained above, the refle xion made 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 havent actually been superseded nor even refuted we can continue trusting them.ReferencesBoland, A. (2012, October). Introduction to counsel 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, Journal of Management History, vol. 6, No.8, pp. 345-360Mintzberg, H. (1975). The carriages 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), organisational Theory and Behaviour.