Q.N.2. Critically analyze the Classical Organizational Theory.

Ans: Classical Organization Theory The term classical in English language means something traditionally accepted or long established. The classical theory is the beginning of the systematic study of the organizations. The classical writers have viewed organization as a machine and human being as different components of that machine. Their approach has focused on input-output mediators and has given less attention to facilitating and constraining factors in the external environment. The writers have dwelt on human behavior only in rudimentary manner. Haire has identified the chief characteristics of classical organization theory as follows: a) Classical organization theory is built on an accounting model. b) It maximizes neatness and control, c) It puts special emphasis on the detection of errors and their correction after they have happened. d) This approach to the organization is the classical embodiment of the extra pair of hands concept. e) In designing the jobs and in picking these extra pair of hands, classical theory assumes man to 'be relatively homogeneous and relatively un-modifiable. f) Stability of the employees stability in the sense of minimizing change within the employees is a goal in the organization. g) Classical theory is in its essential character centralized, and the integration of the system is achieved through the authority and control of the central mechanism. It may be quite interesting to note how these propositions have been developed. Among classical writers, few have emphasized the technological aspect of the organization and have concentrated on how each individual in the organization can be made more efficient. On the other hand, many writers have emphasized the structural aspects of the organization so that individuals' collectivity can be made more efficient. Thus classical organization theory presents two distinct streams: a) scientific management stream and b) administrative management stream. a) SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT: The scientific management group has been most concerned with the kind of tasks that are performed on the production floor or at the operative levels. These tasks are quite different from other tasks in the organizations. First, they are largely repetitive so that the daily activity of an individual worker can be divided into a large number of cyclical repetitions of essentially the same, or closely related, activities. Secondly, the tasks do not require complex problem-solving activity by those workers who handle them. Thus more attention is required towards the standardization of working methods. This is what scientific management group has done. Taylor has given various principles of scientific management as follows: a) Separation of planning from doing; b) Functional foremanship of supervision, having eight different supervisors to give instructions in their respective fields; c) Job analysis, based on time, motion, and fatigue studies to determine fair amount of work; d) Standardization of tools, period of work, working conditions, and cost of production. e) Scientific selection and training of workmen; and

b) ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT THEORY: Scientific management group was primarily concerned with problems at the operative level and did not emphasize managerial organization and process. The administrative theorists Weber, Fayol,Gulick. Sheldon, Mooney and Reiley, and Urwick have viewed the central problem as being one where there must be identification of tasks necessary for achieving the general purpose of the organization and of the grouping or departmentation to take place to fulfill those functions most effectively. As such, this approach is referred to as departmentalization. Criticisms of Classical Organizational Theory According to the present requirements of the organizations, classical theory suffers from many limitations. These limitations have been summarized by March and Simon as follows: (i) The motivational assumptions underlying the theories are incomplete and consequently inaccurate, (ii) There is little appreciation of the role of intra-organizational conflict of interest in defining limits of organizational behavior (iii) The constraints placed on the human beings by his limitations as a complex information-processing system are given little consideration, (iv) Little attention is given to the role of cognition in identification and classification as well as in decision. (v) The phenomenon of programme elaboration receives little emphasis. Similar criticisms have been offered by others too. For example, Bennis suggests that the focus of classical theory is on 'organization without people'. Katz and Kahn feet that this theory is inadequate in dealing with the complexities of organization structure and functioning. These criticisms are based on the inadequacy of the theory in explaining the organizational behavior fully. If we integrate the various criticisms of classical organization theory the following conclusions emerge: 1. Close System Assumptions: Classical theorists have viewed an organization as a closed system. A closed system is one that has no environment and hence no interaction with outside world. However, this close system assumption about the organization is unrealistic. Thus the model fails to consider many of the environmental influences upon the organization as well as many important internal aspects. Simplifying assumptions have been made in order to reduce uncertainty, a process which often leads to an incomplete view of actual organizational situations. 2. Static View of Organizatio: Classical theory takes a rigid and static view of the organization, although it is a dynamic phenomenon which suggests that organizational patterns are determined through constant adjustments. The adjustments are necessary keeping in view the requirements of organizational environment and its various internal parts. Thus, the best organizational pattern is one which meets its external and internal requirements, and these requirements are dynamic. 3. Unrealistic Assumptions about Human Behavior: A major criticism of the classical theory concerns with its unrealistic assumption about human behavior. Classical theorists lack sensitivity to the behavioral dimensions of an organization and make oversimplified and mechanistic assumptions for the smooth running of organizations ignoring the extreme complexity of human behavior. They take human being in the organization as an inert instrument performing the tasks assigned to them. Further, there is a tendency to view personnel as given rather than as a variable in the organization. Thus, they have ignored the socio-psychological and motivational aspects of human behavior. Accordingly the treatment of human beings in the organization on the pattern of classical assumptions may lead to frustration, conflict, and failure.