As Oliver Wendel Holmes quoted, “When we want to know what is going on today or want to make sure what will happen tomorrow, I will look back the past. ” We can find out the process of development from this sphere to nowadays in a deep-going way by reviewing organizational behavior history which has gone through Classical School of Management, Behavioral School of Management and Human Relations School of Management.
Organizations can be viewed as two or more people coordinate and combine in use of their knowledge as well as technique for the purpose of accomplishing common objectives that transform resources into goods and service which are needed by consumers. Organizational behavior refers to the systematic study that primarily access influence of individuals, groups and structure on interior organizational conducts in order that organizational effectiveness can be improved and perceived.
The Classical School of Management was effectively the first coherent set of theoretical perspectives about organization and management covering Scientific Management, Administrative Management and structuralized Management. As we know, F W Taylor, Henri Faylor, and Max Weber are outstanding contributors of Classical School of management thought who made great contribution and laid a foundation for contemporary management.
F W Taylor Taylor is the founding father of Classical School of management thought, who advocates scientific management and attached importance to heighten effectiveness of workers through greatly improving workers’ productivity leading to maximized benefit of workers and employers caused due to scientific management. His works named “The Principles of Scientific Management” was published in the early 1900s.
Taylor Weber Fayol
In the initial stage, Taylor was being affected by some moral principles; therefore, he had a profound respect for the following principles, Brought up scientific working methods for basic formative section of each staff’s job Scientifically selected, trained, fostered and cultivated the workers. Cooperated with staffs enthusiastically so that ensuring jobs done are suitable to scientific theory which has been set forth. Basically actualized equal division of labor between jobs and responsibilities of the managements and the workers.
All work processes should be systematically analyzed and broke down into specialized discrete tasks. Payment depended on piecework basis which taken as an incentive to maximize productivity and produce high wages for the workers. At the same time, his insufficient understanding towards organizational behavior gave rise to the following situations, Changed worker’s role into that was required to strictly abide by methods and procedures of affairs on which they had no discretions. Fragmentation of work due to its emphasis on the analysis and organization of individual tasks and operation,.
His thought over payment that was mainly reliance on output performance rather than giving remuneration to workers in accordance with overall performance of the workers’. His inclination to consider planning and control of workforce activities which were only in the managements’ hands rather than allowing staffs to involve. Every job which was measured, timed, and rated. Occurrence of boredom stemmed from repetitive jobs and tight management control. Poor understanding between grass-roots workers and managements. Henri Fayol Fayol is the representative of Classical School of management thought.
Administrative management is the managerial mode he stood for where it applied essential points to administrative management principles of controllers. His famous works, “ Industrial management and common management“, divided management into five segments.
Therefore, it denoted controllers were to carry out the five segments, i. e. to forecast , to organize, to command, to coordinate, to control. By now, these five segments are still the functional basis and basic process by which controllers research into management. According to his thought over management, therefore, 14 “principles of organization” came into being.
4 universal principals of the organization
Division of work
Professionally increased output through improving effectiveness of the workers.
The managers were required to be good at giving commands as authority conferred them right to do so but responsibility were accompanying authority.
The workers must adhere to and respect organizational rules and regulations. The managers and workers must have clear understanding towards organizational rules and regulations. Organization must enforce effective sanction upon those workers who broke organizational rules and regulations.
Interests of the individual should subordinate to interests of the collective
Interests of Any individuals or groups should not exceed organizational interest as the collective.
It was required to improve the workers’jobs and offer equal wages treatment.
Concentration of power
It refers the level of the workers’ involvement in decision-making. Scalar chain. The establishment of a “ line of authority” by which communication must comply with the chain by levels of authority from the seniors to the subordinate. Order. The workers and substance should be on the corresponding position at appropriate time. Equality.
Managers ought to keep kindness and equality for the workers. Stability of employees’ terms of office as high mobile labor would lead to low effectiveness and efficiency.
When being allowed to participate in formulation and enforcement of planning, employees would complete works with their great efforts. Stability of employees’ terms of office. High mobile labor would lead to low effectiveness. The managers should formulate plans of human affairs in order as to find the right substitute as positions appeared vacant. Espirt de corps. It publicized that esprit de corps would be established and unified harmoniously.
There is no doubt that Fayol did have misunderstanding towards the organizational behavior. This can be discerned from which he hypothesized universal principles that were applicable to all organizational situations; only acknowledged the formal organization and focused on the structure of organizations; took management as critical paternalistic; his ideas was stiff to desires and needs of both individuals and groups; his rational and deterministic approach lacked suitability towards structures and behaviors of people as individuals and groups; the 14 universal principles set forth by him were not will fit into an organic organization;
Max Weber Weber, as a matter of fact, tended to be an academic with an interest in authority structure. His works, “ Theory of Social and Economic Organization”, coined the term “ bureaucracy”, which can be viewed as an attempt to build up a reasonable and legal basis for the authority and an arrangement for the purpose of selecting people and undertaking various sorts of activities. Bureaucratic type of organizational structure defined by Weber is be of the following characteristics,
Works of specialization
It decomposed works into different kinds of simple, daily, and detailed tasks. Hierarchy of authority. Responsibilities and positions were organized by hierarchy. Each low-grade position was monitored and controlled by the high-grade position. Formal selection. All organizational members were selected on the basis of qualification of technique, which certified by training, education, formal examinations.
When applying rules and regulations, it was required to avoid involvement of character and personal preference. Orientation of occupation. Managers were professional leaders. They worked for steady salary and developed their careers within the organization. However, Weber did not fully understand organization behavior as he inherited much common ground of Taylor’s scientific management and Fayol’s administrative management.
Since it is so, his works is relatively regulated and prescribed leading to little sphere left for autonomy and originality; Individuals were constrained in the act of impersonal and rational ways after determining affairs demonstrated in the stressful world; He emphasized organizational efficiency but which would produce expense of flexibility at the request of rapid change; Impersonality might cause inequality of treatment and unfairness in the non-standard case, which reduces personal interaction; he allowed no mechanism for challenging the bureaucracy; rules became constraints to employees rather than an aid to organizational effectiveness and performance. Taylor, Fayol and Weber, anyhow, are considered to omit one point which insists on that people are core of organization. However, theories of Taylor, Fayol, and Weber had disseminated seeks for organizational behaviors. Their thought has great impact on development and demarcation of organizational behavior.