gvishiani chap 3 classical

8/7/2019 gvishiani chap 3 classical

1/21

I l l

The "Classic" Theory

of Organisation and Management

Formation of "Scientific Management"

The emergence of modern "scientific management" in theUSA relates, as we have noted above, to the beginning of

this century and is generally acknowledged as being con-nected with the name of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915).*

His main works were Shop Management (1903), ThePrinciples of Scientific Management (1911), The TestimonyBefore the Special House Committee (1912). Taylo r alsoconducted a number of researches into concrete questions oftechnology and engineering.

It will be remembered that Lenin made a deep appraisalof the extremely contradictor y r ole of Taylo rism in thedevelopment of the scientific organisation of management.

* Amo ng his main prede cessors was the English mathematicianCharles Babbage (1792-1871), the inve ntor of one of_ the worl d's firstcalculating machines. Babbage spent many years visiting factories in

England and on the continent. This led to the writing of his On theEconomy of Machinery and Manufactures (1832), in which he made anattempt to apply some general principles to the organisation of indus-try. Babbage also investigated the economics of production, analysed theamounts of labour needed for separate parts of a production process,etc. [1; 121]

Another predecessor was H enry R. Towne, an American indus-trialist and engineer, who was one of the first to promulgate the ideathat "the matter of shop management is of equal importance with thatof engineering". He was also an originator of one of the pieceworkplans which Taylor criticised.

Formation of "Scientific Management" 175

In the first years of the Soviet power he set us the task ofcarrying out on a socialist basis what "is scientific and pro-gressive in the Taylor system" (2; 316], which, "like allcapitalist progress, is a combination of the refined brutality

of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatestscientific achievements in the field of analysing mechanicalmotions during work, the elimination of superfluous andawkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods ofwork, the introduction of the best system of accounting andcontrol, etc. The Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt allthat is valuable in the achievements of science and technol-ogy in this field. The possibility of building socialism de-pends exactly upon our success in combin ing the Sovietpower and the Soviet organisation of administration withthe up-to-date achievements of capitalism. We must organisein Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system andsystematically try it out and adapt it to our own ends."[2; 259]

The contradictions in the Taylor system are not simplytheoretical contradictions but are a reflection (naturally anunconscious one) of the antagonistic nature of the capitalistrelations of production. Taylor himself said that the mainaim of his conception was to ensure maximum profit for theentrepreneur. This means that the Taylor method is anattempt to perfect the capitalist method of exploitation, i.e.,the predatory consumption of labour power. At the sametime, however, Taylorism also advances some progressiveideas and propositions, reflecting the requirements of thedevelopm ent of large- scale scientifically organised socialproduction.

In characterising Taylor's contribution to the organisationof production it is often said that he was the first to propose

the piecework system. However, piecework existed long be-fore Taylor and, moreover, he sharply criticised the formand principles it had adopted in his day. In Taylor's view,the stimulating action of higher wages, if they are not basedon well-founded criteria, is undesirable since it transfersthe initiative to the workmen themselves, while the entre-preneurs have no idea what amount of work can really bedone during the given period of time. At the beginning ofthe 20th century, the "management of initiative and incen-


2/21

176 III. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and, Management

tive" could no longer secure a further major increase inlabour productivity: it could only, as Taylor said, slowly"drift" in the direction of that aim.

"Th e development of a science, on the other hand,"Taylor wrote, "involves the establishment of many rules,laws, and formulae, which replace the judgement of the in-dividual workman and which can be effectively used onlyafter having been systematically recorded, indexed, etc."[3; 37-38)

Since the worker is lazy, Taylo r asserts, a growth oflabour productivity and an increase in the rate of productioncan be achieved only through coercion, through an enforcedstandardisation of the instruments, conditions and methodsof work. Since the workman cannot understand the com-plex mechanism of modern production, cannot rationallyorganise his work himself, this function rests with the man-agement alone; having attained a maximum centralisation ofinitiative, it alone must ensure a maximum standardisationof the whole of the workman's activity at the enterprise.As regards the piecework system, Taylor suggested that itshould be used only after thorough research had establishedthe best methods for carrying out every single element ofthe production process. After that the leaders of productionwould be able to judge for themselves what volume of workcould and should be fulfilled in the course of any given partof the working day. This heightened considerably the roleof management in the selection of workers and the organisa-tion of their training, and also in the system of control overtheir work. Only this, Taylor believed, would lead to amore effective functioning of the system of material rewardsfor higher individual output.

Taylor consistently defended the view that questions oflabour productivity could not be resolved effectively if theleaders of production took into account only the mos! generalstimulating factors and relied essentially on the workmen's"stimulated initiative". The leadership alone, he emphasised,could and should bear the responsibility for the introductionof a scientific system securing a constant growth of labourproductivity. Well aware that the imposition from above ofnew work methods might encounter resistance from theworkmen, Taylor spoke of the necessity of securing their


co-operation. However , this was to be an "enf orced co-operation" during which the administration was to take theentire "reasoning" component of the workman's activityupon itself, and the workman would only have to follow the

orders of his "better developed leader"."It is only through enforced standardisation of methods,

enforced adoption of the best implements and workingconditions, and enforced co-operation that this faster workcan be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption ofstandards and of enforcing this co-operation rests with themanagement alone." [3; 83]

Essentially, what is called Taylorism, in the strictest senseof that term, can be reduced to the following:

1. The setting up of a scientific basis, replacing the old,traditional, practically evolved methods of work, and ascientific examination of its every single element.

2. Selection of workers on the basis of scientific criteria,their training and instruction.

3. Co-operat ion between the administration and theworkers in the matter of the practical introduction of ascientifically evolved system of labour organisation.

4. A uniform distribution of work and responsibility be-tween the administration and the workers.

Summing up the essence of his system of "scientific man-agement" Taylor wrote: "Science, not rule of thumb. Har-mony, not discord. Co-operation, not individualism. Maxi-mum output, in place of restricted output. The developmentof each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity." [3;140] This definition of the tasks of scientific management,like all other bourgeois theories of management, follows asingle pattern in that ideas about a more rational labourorganisation are mixed with hypocritical assurances about

the possibility of attaining the "greatest prosperity" for theproletarians. Actually, however, Taylor regarded the workeras a deeply irrational being, moved predominantly by in-stincts and able to act purposefully only under the influenceof elementary stimuli, notably of money, since his desireswere supposed to be essentially physiological.

Taylor interpreted the social organisation in productionconditions from mechanistic positions, regarding it as astrictly formal one, an organisation that does not include,

121325


3/21


indeed, rejects on principle, all relations not evolving from

its functional content.

As regards the notorious "co-operation", in his efforts tofind an antidote to the constantly in tensifyi ng class c on-

flicts he shifted the emphasis to the functional relations be-tween the worker and his "leader", endeavouring to provethat they, as the two essential participants in the productionprocess, are linked by a common fate and vitally interestedin the success of their common cause.

Taking increased labour productivity as the main aim,Taylor proposed concrete measures for a rational utilisationof the workman's labour and the means of production, in-sisted on strict regimentation in the utilisation of materialsand instruments, standardisation of implements and opera-tions, the strict accounting of labour time, the study of workprocesses by dividing them into their component elementsand measuring each with a stopwatch ("time study" ), theestablishment of control over every operation, the introduc-

tion of "differential wages", and so on.An important place in the Taylor system is accorded to aset of measures, which he called "work study". In his at-tempt to place management on a sound scientific foundation,which was to oust traditional, empirically evolved methods,Taylor was compelled to turn to the workers, notably skilledworkers, who knew the work methods in detail. This knowl-edge, he said, was their "most valuable property", theirlife-long fixed "capital". Small wonder, therefore, that oneof the first things Taylor did was to demand that the vastknow-how of the workers should be collected and system-atised, that it should be registered, classified, codified, tabu-lated, that their work methods should be analysed, thatexperiments should be made and the sum total of knowledge

about work methods expressed as "laws, rules and evenmathematical formulae".

Thoroug hly analysing the movements of individualworkers, closely observing how they carried out their workoperations, Taylor endeavoured to break down every opera-tion into its elementary components and to create (with thehelp of time studies) "ideal working methods", based on animprovement of the best elements in the labour process ofdifferent workers. By discarding all "false", "slow" and

Formation of "Scientific Management"178

"useless" movements, Taylor worked out a set of optimalwork methods, the aggregate of which is, naturally, not pos-sessed by any really existing worker. The minimum of timerequired to remove tiredness and that needed for unavoidabledelays was also computed mathematically. Taylor thus at-

tempted to establish scientifically the "best method" for thecarrying out of every job with the least expenditure of time.

The results obtained by the application of Taylor's ap-proach were impressive. At the engineering works whereTaylor was conducting his experiments, the average labourproductivity doubled in three years.

Taylor linked the problem of introducing perfect methodswith the standardisation of implements, with taking intoaccount the specific features of concrete jobs. Typical in thisrespect was his experiment at the Bethlehem Steel Works,where he studied the shovelling of coal. His research showedthat the average weight of the coal scooped up by a shovelranged from 16 to 38 pounds. Experiments established thata good worker was able to load twice as much coal in a shift

if he used a shovel holding 21-22 pounds. It also turned outthat it was expedient to utilise 15 different types of shovelsfor the loading of different types of materials. As a result ofthe introduction of rational methods, set out in detail inwritten instructions (what materials should be loaded withwhat type of shovel) three and a half years later 140 peoplewere doing the amount of work it had formerly taken 400to 600 people to do.

Taylor attached major importance to the correct selectionand training of workers: he considered it extremely impor-tant to choose the right man for the right job. Taylor's con-ception, however, interprets this self-evident principle in afalse and clearly reactionary manner because he ignoresthe social and ethical aspects of labour and regards the

worker essentially as a work horse. He does not even attemptto conceal the fact. Illustrating his principle of choosing theright man for the right job, Taylor writes: "Now one of thevery first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pigiron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupidand so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in hismental make-up the ox than any other type." "No one wouldthink of using a fine trotter to draw a grocery wagon, nor a12*


4/21


Percheron to do the work of a little mule." [3; 59, 27]. How-ever, even when the right person for the given job is found,he must not be left to himself. The leadership must givehim the necessary minimum of training and concrete instruc-tions stipulating all work movements, the order and method by

which standardised implements and materials are to be used.The introduction of Taylor's method posed a number of

new problems and notably the problem of organising thework of foremen and superintendents, whose duties had be-come much more complicated in connection with the emer-gence of new functions. This made Taylor doubtful as tothe effectiveness of the existing "linear" system of organi-sation, under which every worker was subordinated to onlyone direct superior. Believing that the "military type of or-ganisation", as he called it, should be abandoned, Taylorproposed that the "functional type" should be substitutedin its place. His system divided the work of the foreman andsuperintendent into eight component parts. According to hissystem, every worker received daily instructions and the

necessary assistance from eight narrowly-specialised directsuperiors.

Of the eight executive "functional" bosses only four wereto be used in the active work of the shop: (1) the gangbosses, (2) speed bosses, (3) inspectors, and (4) repair bosses.The other four functional bosses were to be located in aspecially provided "planning room". These four representa-tives of the planning department were to be (1) the orderof work and route clerk, (2) instruction card clerk, (3) timeand cost clerk, and (4) shop disciplinarian.

Thus, Taylor asserted that a division of labour was es-sential also in the sphere of management. He attached partic-ular importance to the separation of the planning function,considering that in the ideal "the shop, and indeed the wholeworks, should be managed, not by the manager, superinten-dent, or foreman, but by the planning department. Thedaily routine of running the entire works should be carriedon by the various functional elements of this department, sothat, in theory at least, the works could run smoothly evenif the manager, superintendent and their assistants outsidethe planning room were all to be away for a month at atime." [3; 110]


In expressing the view that it was necessary to make plan-ning an independent function of management, Taylor de-manded that work methods and the production activity ofthe enterprises should be planned in advance. Despite hisone-sided, class-limited approach to the problem, as a result

of which he ignored the contradiction between planning atevery individual enterprise and the anarchy ruling in capi-talist production on a social scale, Taylor should be creditedwith advancing the idea of making planning an independentfunction.

As we noted above, the working out of different systemsof piecework in accordance with scientifically based methodsof rate fixing holds an important place in the Taylor system.Before Taylor the piecework principle was generally confinedto the payment of additional wages to workers who fulfilledor overfulfilled fixed quotas or "standard norms", and theoptimal size of the latter was determined, as a rule, by theamount of time required by an able and well-trained workerto carry out a given work operation. A definite reserve was

added to the basic time for unavoidable stoppages and for rest.Taylor proceeded from the assumption that the individual

was isolated fro m the social environment. He, therefo re,rejected co-operated labour and insisted that every work-man should be paid in accordance with his individual output,and not in accordance with the output of the gang ofworkers to which he belon ged. "A ca reful analysis haddemonstrated the fact that when workmen are herded to-gether in gangs, each man in the gang becomes far lessefficient than when his personal ambition is stimulated; thatwhen men work in gangs, their individual efficiency fallsalmost invariably down to or below the level of the worstman in the gang." [3; 72-73] It will be shown further on inthis book that this proposition of Taylor's became the subject

of sharp, and to a high degree justified, criticism by laterrepresentatives of the American theory of management,notably those of the "human relations" school.

Taylor's system spread rapidly in the first three decadesof the 20th century. It was bitterly resisted by the US labourand trade union organisations, who regarded it as a newmeans of intensifying the exploitation of the working peopleand even, as one of the resolutions of the American Feder-


5/21


ation of Labor called it, "a diabolical scheme for thereduction of the human being to the condition of a meremachine". [4; 5] It is noteworthy that the big industrialists*and Wall Street too at first attacked Taylorism. One of thereasons was the "Eastern Rights" case which evoked much

discussion in the press about the significance of the principlesof "scientific management"**.

In 1912 the House of Representatives of the US Congressset up a special commission for the study of the Taylorsystem. In 1915 an amendment was adopted to the law onthe allocation of funds to the Army, prohibiting time studiesand the payment of bonuses or awards in military arsenals.The law remained in force right up to the Second WorldWar.

The Taylo r system also became the subject of specialinvestigation carried out by Professor Robert Franklin Hoxie,special investigator of scientific management for the UnitedStates Commission on Industrial Relations. Hoxie's reportemphasised that the system concentrated attention only on

the mechanical, and not on the human aspects of the labourprocess, while time studies, the system of assignments, etc.entailed various mistakes, which were unavoidab le in allcases when decisions were made by concrete individualstimers, foremen, etc. [5] Yet, as time went by, Taylorismgained widespread recognition and gave a start to a broad"movement for scientific management", which assumed aninternational scale.

Taylor maintained that "management is also destined tobecome more of an art, and that many of the elements which

* Because of friction with the company manager, Taylor was evencompe lled to quit his job at the Midwale Steel Wo rks, whe re he firstbegan to test his conceptions experimentally. Later the same reasonsprompted him to leave the Bethlehem Steel Works, where he carriedout his most important experiments.

** In 1910 the US Interstate Commerce Commission investigated aconflict that had arisen between a group of forwarding firms and therailway companies, who attempted to raise tariffs on the pretext ofhaving to pay high wages. H. Emerson, one of the leaders of the move-ment for scientific management, who was called in as an expert, provedthat the application of scientific management methods could cut the costof rail shipment by one million dollars a day. As a result the railwaycompanies were defeated.

Formation of "Scientific Management"182

are now believed to be outside the field of exact knowledgewill soon be standardised, tabulated, accepted and used, asare now many of the elements of engineering. Managementwill be studied as an art and will rest upon well recognised,clearly defined, and fixed principles instead of depending

upon more or less hazy ideas received from a limited obser-vation of the few organisations with which the individualmay have come in contact". [3; 63)

Initially Taylor himself did not call his system "scientificmanagement", and merely described the set of administra-tive methods he had created as "task management" or "man-agement by means of tasks".

The concept "scientific management" was first introducedby Louis Brandeis, who in 1910 represented the Americanfreight companies in the above-mentioned "Eastern Rights"case. From that time onwards Taylor himself frequently usedthe term "scientific management", evolving a broad con-ception according to which "management is a true science,resting upon clearly defined laws, rules and principles, as a

foundation". Taylor proceeds from the premise that man-agement, as a specific function, consists of a number of prin-ciples which are implemented in the most varied types oforganisations: " . . .the same principles can be applied withequal force to all social activities: to the management of ourhomes; the management of our farms; the management ofthe business of our tradesmen, large and small; of our chur-ches, our philanthropic institutions, our universities, and ourgovernmental departments". [4; 8]

In the '20s and '30s Henry Gantt, Frank B. Gilbreth, LillianGilbreth, Horace Hathway, Sanford Thompson and Harring-ton Emerson* became prominent investigators of the Taylorsystem and active propagandists of the ideas of "scientificmanagement". The new professions of "management consul-

tants" or "experts on labour productivity" came into beingand spread fast. Schools, colleges and seminars on man-agement began to spring up like mushrooms. Regular courseson "factory management", "industrial management" wereintroduced in higher educational establishments. An increas-

* Emerson's "twelve principles of productivity" gained wide renown.

See also [7].


6/21

190 111. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and, Management

ing number of scientists showed an interest in researches intothe problems of the management of organisations, andpublications on questions of "scientific management", etc.,multiplied literally in a geometrical progression.

Characterising the "scientific management" movement,

Bertram M. Gross, a US researcher, wrote: "In brief, scien-tific management became something of a 'movement'. Inan age of growing achievement in the physical sciences, itoffered the hope of resolving industrial problems also throughthe use of objective principles. For young and imaginativeengineers it provided an ethos and a mission in life. Themovements soon became replete with popularisers, tradition-alists and dissidents. After the initial period of resistanceit conquered the citadels of old-fashioned industrial man-agement in the United States, and had a tremendous effecton industrial practice. It had a majo r influence on thegrowing reform and economy movements in public adminis-tration. It even began to win support among some tradeunion leaders, albeit conditioned upon trade union partici-

pation in the setting of norms." [1; 127-28)The "scientific management" movement extended far be-

yond the borders of the USA, and gained widespread rec-ognition in Germany, England, France, Sweden and otherEuropean countries. Initially attention was focussed exclu-sively on production and business problems, but later shiftedto "scientific principles" of the organisation of managementthat would be equally applicable in all spheres of humanactivity.

Principles Underlying the Organisationof Administrative Activity

The elaboration of principles for the organisation of ad-ministrative activity was a new important trend in the re-search of management problems. In other words, alongsidewith questions of organising management of the enterpriseat the shop level, research was launched also into the moregeneral principles of organisation. These problems are linkeddirectly with the name of the French researcher Henri Fayol(1841-1925). He is generally considered the most outstand-

Principles of Organisation of Administrative Activity184

ing European contributor to the "sci entific manag ement "movement during the first half of this century, and a correctidea of the relevant American theories cannot be obtainedwithout studying his works as well.

Like Taylor, Fayol was an engineer, and an extremely

creative one at that. He was a man of varied interests andgreat erudition. He published a number of works, includingone on methods of fighting fires in coal mines, and on analy-sis of the geological formations of the French coalfields. Itwas his administrative activity, however, that brought himthe greatest fame. For thirty years he was the head ofComambault, a big French mining and metallurgical com-pany, which was facing bankruptcy when he was appointedits general manager (1888), but had by the time of hisretirement (1918) become one of the most powerful Frenchconcerns, justly famed for the merits of its administrative,technical and scientific personnel. Fayol always ascribed allthe successes of his company to the consistent and systematicutilisation in management of a series of simple but, in his

view, extremely effective and universally applicable prin-ciples.

Fayol deserves great credit for insisting that administra-tive activity should become a specific research subject. Itshould be noted that Fayol's research, the results of whichhe believed to be applicable to all forms of organisations,was based not so much on theoretical principles (the needfor which was constantly emphasised by Taylor), as on therich personal experience he had gained in the course of manyyears of administrative activity.

The generalisations made by Fayo l have bee n fur therdeveloped not only in the "classic theory of the managementof organisations", but also in the modern "empirical" schoolsof Drucker, Dale and others.

Fayol's views were stated in a number of reports he readat engineers' conferences between 1900 and 1908. His mainworkGeneral and Industrial Administrationwas pub-lished in 1916.* Upon his retirement Fayol dedicated the last

* This book was intended to be the first part of a major work sum-

ming up Fayol's personal observations and experience, and also review-ing the "administrative lessons" of the First World War. The second


7/21


years of his life to the organisation of the Comite Nationalde l'Organisation Franfaise and endeavoured to apply someof his ideas in the reorganisation of France's public admin-istration.

Modern researchers draw attention to the fact that Fayol,as a top executive himself, looked at administration "from

the top down", and therefore gained a broader perspectivethan Taylor, who was mainly a technical specialist and hadto observe the top administration from the "bottom of theladder".

Regarding "organisation" both as a specific kind of activ-ity and as a no less specific administrative system, Fayolwas one of the first to develop what might be called a "gen-eral approach " to administration and to fo rmulate somestrictly essential principles of administrative theory. Inparticular, he defined the administrative function in termsof the following basic elements: forecasting, planning, or-ganisation, command, co-ordination, control. Fayol was thefirst to regard administration not as an "exclusive privilege",or a "particular responsibility" of the head or senior execu-

tives. As distinct from Taylor, he insisted that administrativefunctions are spread throughout an organisation, and evenworkers may participate to some degree in administrativeactivities. Therefore, he believed that as one goes up the"scalar chain" of an organisation's hierarchy, the relativeimportance of administrative responsibility increases, andvice versa.

At this point we must briefl y consider Fayol's initialmethodological principles. To him, a convinced rationalistof a positivist trend, the organising process consists of thedefinition and creation of the general structure of an enter-prise in accordance with its concrete aims; it consists, there-fore, of the need to lend a form to the entire structure and

half of this extensive study was never compl eted, however. Anothermajor work of Fayol's was "The Administrative Theory of the State"(his report at the Second International Conference on administrativescience held in Brussels in 1923). Let us also note that Fayol alwaysused the French word "administration", but unfortunately some trans-lators have translated it as "management". The subsequent quotationsfrom Fayol will all use the word "administration" instead of "manage-ment". The mistake has been rectified in recent American translations.

Principles of Organisation of Administrative Activity 187

strictly define the place and function of each of its com-ponents. Fayol calls this whole the "social organism". He isconvinced that this "organism" can be designed (organised)in different ways. Fayol looks into all possible variants. Hebegins with the simplest enterprise, with a one-man concernin which both administration and execution are concentrated

in the person of the owner. He then passes on to the studyof a small enterprise with several workers. They receiveorders from its head, who is now relieved of a large part ofhis executive functions. The number of workers rises to 10,20, 30. On that level, "the foreman, an intermediate person,emerges between the head of the enterprise and the aggre-gate of the workers or part of it". [8; 66]

A certain regularity can be traced here: every new groupof workers compels the boss to appoint an additional fore-man; the presence of several foremen makes him establishthe position of shop foreman; the presence of several shopforementhe position of section chief, etc., until a situationemerges when the head of the enterprise loses all his execu-tive functions (in their traditional sense, of course). At the

same time we observe a growth in the role of the hierarchybelow him, with every new section chief generally havingno more than four or five direct subordinates. Since it be-comes ever more difficult for a single person to fulfil the roleof the head, new positions, unusual in former industrial or-ganisations, begin to emergesecretaries, consultants, etc.Fayol takes a general view of the organisation of admini-stration, that is, he says that his conclusions are valid notonly in the sphere of production, but that they are univer-sally applicable. "The social organism of any enterprise," hewrites, "forms precisely in the same way as the social or-ganism of industrial enterprises, so that all social organismsresemble one another on identical stages of development."[8; 67] That is why "...the number of hierarchic stages is

limited even in the biggest enterprises. If every stage in thehierarchy were to be marked by a stripe, the number wornby the biggest administrator in industry would not exceedeight or nine, while the biggest political or religious leaderswould wear from ten to twelve." [8; 67]

All this is extremely logical from Fayol's point of view.He compares the social organism with a mechanism, and


8/21


even with the vegetable kingdom. The administrative hier-archy, he says, resembles a tree with spreading branches,and "trees do not grow sky-high". The social organism hasits limits; the sap of the tree brings life to the branches, justas some "superior order" lends activity to all the elements of

the "social organisation",* etc.Fayol also draws a parallel between the social organisa-

tion and the animal organism, a method widely applied inthe sociology of his time: he compares the role of man inthe social structure with the function of a cell, the admin-istrative service with the nervous system, etc.

Returning to the concrete propositions in Fayol's concep-tion, let us note that administration, in Fayol's view, is onlypart of "government", which is a much broader sphere. Togovern is to conduct the undertaking towards its objectiveby seeking to derive optimum advantage from all availableresources. This calls for the smooth working of six essentialfunctions, of which administration is only one: (1) technical(or technological) activities; (2) commercial activities (buying,

selling and exchange); (3) financial activities (search for andoptimum use of capital); (4) security activities (protectionof property and persons); (5) accounting activities (stocktak-ing, balance sheet, costs, statistics) and (6) administration

* Whil e Fayol frequently compares "administration" to variousmechanical structures, he is very far from being primitive. It could beassumed, he writes, that ". . .the soc ial mechanism, li ke an actualmechanical structure with gear wheels, can transmit motion only bylosing part of its force". But this is not necessarily so, he maintains,although these processes too are probably governed by definite laws.Yet, as disti nct from a gear mechanism, in the social mechanism therecan and must (!) be a different and essentially reverse process.

The administrative "gear s", i.e., all the intermed iate heads, areobliged to be "producers of motion and ideas". In every one of thesegears, in every one of the intermediate chiefs, there is a "force of ini-

tiative" which, when usefully applied, is able considerably to intensifythe "force of the action" of the enterprise's head.

One should not seek "the limit of the action by the administrativemechanism simply in the loss of the initial force as it passes throughthe multitude of transmission links," Fayol says, "but rather in theinsufficiency of superior authority: when the central force grows weak,this initial force is quickly reduced to nought by centrifugal forces."(8; 70] Yet, the influence of positivist methodology with its mechanicism,limitations and naivety had its effect on Fayol, who, it must be admitted,never really claimed to be the creator of a metatheory.


(which operates only on personnel and not directly oneither materials or machinery).

Although Fayol draws a distinction between government(management) and administration, restricting the concept"administration" to a much narrower sense, he at times

departs from his initial categorisation and uses that termmuch more broadly, that is, includes all the above six func-tions and thus identifies it with management. [8; 3-13) Be-cause of his specific general approach, which singles out thegeneral structure in the social organisation, Fayol did notmake a special study of the worker's role. He is far moreconcerned with the image of the "worker" in general, espe-cially the leader, in whom he insistently emphasises thequalities of will-power. The importance of personal qualities,Fayol believes, decreases noticeably down the hierarchicladder, and is replaced by functional qualities. However,the latter are not distributed uniformly among various cate-gories of workers.*

Fayol decisively opposed the traditional system for the

training of leading personnel for industry, insisted that ad-ministrative ability could not be devel oped by technicaltraining alone, and criticised civil engineering colleges inFrance for not including administration in their syllabi. Hemaintained, and it is impossible not to agree with him, thatadministrative training should not be limited to engineers,but that everyone needs some concepts of administrationwhich should therefore be taught at all levels of the generaleducational system. A sign of "good administration", hesaid, was the steady, methodical training of "all employeesrequired and at all levels". Fayol's plea for administrativetraining at all levels covers everything except the highestlevel. The top executives are seen as teachers, not students.He does not suggest for a moment that additional training

of the administrator-teachers would also be extremely use-ful. Fayol is convinced that the shortcomings in the organi-sation of administration, the absence of a well-conceived

* For example, of the six "functional abilities" generally possessedby the leadership, only four are ascribed to the worker, and even amongthem "tec hnica l" abilities are predo minant (85 per cent), while his"administrative" functions are reduced to a minimum (to only 5 percent of his activity).


9/21


and harmonious system for the training of administrativepersonnel is largely due to the absence of "administrativetheory", "administrative science" {la science administrative).Yet, his own approach to the elaboration of this theory isextremely inconsistent. On the one hand, he points out that

theorising, based on personal experience alone, leads to "themost contradi ctory practices under the aegis of the sameprinciples". He even emphasises that no personal experiencein administrative work can replace "a collection of principles,rules, methods, procedures, tried and checked by generalexperience". However, alongside statement in defence ofa strictly scientific basis for the principles of administration,against subjectivism and limited empiricism, Fayol at-tempts to prove that the creation of an administrativescience should be not so much the concern of professionalscientists as "the personal theorising" of top administrators.In this connecti on he expresses regret that most hi ghermanagers with vast experience have "neither time nor in-clination for writing and most often depart without leaving

either doctrine or disciples". [8; 14-16] While Fayol's at-tempts to belittle the role of scholars in the elaboration ofadministrative science naturally evoke objections, his ideathat it is morally incumbent on higher managers, with vastpractical experience, to try to understand and generalisetheir experience is very rational indeed.

Fourteen principles, which in Fayol's view can be appliedin all spheres of administration without exception, formthe basis of his "administrative theory". They are: (1) divi-sion of l abour, (2) authority, (3) d iscipline , (4) unity ofcommand, (5) unity of direction, (6) subordination of in-dividual interests to the general interest, (7) remuneration,(8) centralisation, (9) scalar chain (line of authority), (10)order, (11) equity, (12) stability of tenure of personnel, (13)

initiative, and (14) esprit de corps. Fayol also formulated aset of principl es in connec tion with the analysis of thepreviously mentioned elements of the administrative process(forecasting, planning, command, organisation, co-ordina-tion, control).

In stating his principles Fayol is at pains to avoid anysuggestion of rigidity, since "there is nothing ri gid orabsolute in administrative affair s". On the contrary, all


principles of administration should be flexible, their properadaptation to specific circumstances is, in fact, the art ofadministration. This system of principles can never be com-pleted, on the contrary, it is always open for further addi-tions, amendments, changes, based on ever new experience,its analysis, understanding and generalisation.

Fayol lays special emphasis on the principles "unity ofcommand" and "unity of direction". This means that anemploye e should recei ve orders from one superior only,that there should be ". . . one head and one pl an .. ." for agroup of operations having the same objective. "This is anessential condition for unity of action, for co-ordination offorces , for concerted efforts. A body with t wo heads is inthe social as in the animal sphere a monster and has difficultyin surviving...." [8; 27] "Dual command", he believes, canemerge only as a result of an intermeshing of functions andan imperfect demarcation of departments. It is not only un-necessary, but extremely harmful. The social organism cannever adapt itself to a dualism in command. [8; 25]

Herein we clearly see the difference between the views ofFayol and Taylor as regards the expedience of workersreceiving instructions from a large number of "functionalforemen". Fayol believes that it is necessary to have morefunctional specialists in administration and management ingeneral. Moreove r, he maintains that such specialisationstems from the essence of the matter and, notably, from theincreasing complexity of the administrative process.However, he asserts, such specialisation should be reconciledwith the unity of command. Thus, "functional foremen "should be regarded as members of the commander-in-chief'sstaff, for no single top leader is able to cope with all hisadministrative tasks without assistants. One-man manage-ment, hence, presupposes a skilled s election and all-o ututilisation of assistants, who in aggregate c omprise thestaff, a group of people having authority, competence andtime. Naturally, this does not in any way limit the authorityof the head, since the "staff experts" can fulfil their func-tions effectively only if they "serve as an adjunct, reinforce-ment and sort of extension of the manager's personality".[8; 76-77]

Fayol attaches exceptional importance to "sta ff" work,


10/21

190 111. "Classic" Th eory of Organisation and, Management

and maintains that in addition to helping the top adminis-trator in correspondence and other current affairs, carry-ing out liaison and control, these "staff experts" should alsoengage in the draft ing of plans and the development ofimprovements in all spheres of activity. The "staff" membersshould be freed of all responsibility for running the busi-ness, since they stand aside fro m the l inear system ofadministration. The "staff" should be an organ of thinking,studying and observation, whose chief function shouldconsist, under administrative impetus, in preparing for thefuture and seeking out all possible improvements.

Thus, Fayol regards the staffan organ of the head,securing the execution of his ordersas an essential organi-sational expression of the principle of authority. Alongsidewith the linear hierarchy of subordination, he introducesfunctional, "staff" activity, which is something of anexperiment for the top administrative level and which worksout the essential recommendations and proposals.

As we see, Fayol places great emphasis on formal org ani-sation, formal structure, determining the responsibility ofdifferent links and the whole system of mutual subordina-tion in the administrative hierarchy. But this experiencedmanager and subtle psycholog ist is quick to point to thedangers of excessive formalism. It is an error to depart nee-dlessly from the "line of authority", but it is an even greaterone to keep it when detriment to the business ensues.

If the rules of formal organisation are strictly observed,the process of getting questions answered may becomeabsurdly long and complex. Fayol illustrates this problemby a typical example. Thus, if communication is requiredbetween two subordinates in different departments, they canformally contact each other only by sending a message up along ladder of command and waiting until it then descends

to its destination. He illustrates this problem with the ac-companying figure:A

B LC M

D NE O

F PG Q

Principles of Organisation of Administrative Activity192

It is much more rational for F and P to make use of a"gangplank" between them than to use A and all the otherintervening layers as intermediaries . This can be don ewithout violati ng the l ine of authority, if the immediatesuperiors, namely E and O, authorise such a relationshipand are kept informed on what may be agreed upon. If a

disagreement develops between F and P, they must thenturn the matter o ver to their superiors. Fayol gives tworeasons for the refusal to use the "gangplank": either the"vagueness" of the organisation's general aim, as a resultof which each section tends to regard itself as its own endand neglects its relationships with other sections, awareonly of the l ine of authority, or else, that the supremeauthority himself, the A at the top of the pyramid, fails toencoura ge his o wn direct subordinates to use the "g ang-plank" themselves. [1; 133-34]

Organisation planning holds an important place in Fayol'sviews. In fact, he is undoubtedly a pioneer in the concreteelaboration of the problems of planning business and pro-duction activity. He considers planning an elementary con-dition for the successful organisation of administration.Referring to the difficulties of planning in the presence ofa constantly changing capitalist market, Fayol emphasisesthat it is precisely this comp lex and extremely dynamicsituation that makes detailed prevision essential, notably inorder to obviate or mitigate fluctuations. "The best ofplans ," he writes, " cannot anticipate all unex pected oc-currences that may arise, but it does include a place for theseevents and prepares the weapons which may be needed atthe moment of being surprised." [1; 134] This characteristicof the plan, which must foresee not only the usual course ofevents, but also contingencies, the rapid change of prospects,conditions, possibilities, is undoubtedly of major scientificinterest. A plan should really provide not a constant rep-etition of past events, but should envisage also legitimateand accidental changes. However, Fayol poses the problemof planning and the conditional anticipation of contingencieswithout taking into account the specific features of capitalistrelations of production and the limits set by them to plan-ning even f rom a purel y administrative point of view.Fayol frequently refers to the planning practices in his own

131325


11/21

194 111. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and Management

company, where the general plan consisted of "a series ofseparate plans, called forecasts, monthly, weekly, dailyforecasts, long-term forecasts; and there were also yearlyforecasts, ten -year ly forecasts, special forecasts, and allmerged into a single program which operated as a guidefor the whole concern". (8; 134] Fayol uses the word "plan"and "forecast" interchangeably, and thus inevitably detractsfro m the meaning of planning, which is a comprehe nsiveactivity and cannot be reduced to a prevision of resultsalone. At times, however, he does point out the importantdifference between planning and forecasting, emphasisingthat although an organisation's plan must be continuouslyadjusted, it is "the law to which one bows".

Fayol's development of planning problems is, naturally,limited, and this is due to the specifics of the capitalistsystem, especially at the i mperialist stage. Characteristi-cally, neither Fayol's immediate successors, nor even modernbourgeois authors have taken the problem any further thanhe did. It is quite obvious that Fayol, who had no genuinely

scientific understanding of the specific relations of produc-tion in capitalist society, places the main accent on strictlyabstract categories, speaks of society in general, of produc-tion in general, sees society merely as a purposeful organisa-tion of people and interprets production non-historically asan organisational activity directed at the achievement of adefinite purpose. At the same time he draws a remarkablefinal conclus ion, in which he expresses the convictio n thatthe needs of society, the needs of production, especially ofmodern production, call for planning on a national scale.Thus, even this bourgeois researcher, a convinced opponentof any radical social transformations, has to admit, at leastby implication, that capitalism fashions the prerequisites fora transition to a higher, planned system of social relations.

The "scientific management" movement has continued todevelop in two basic directions. On the one hand, productionis being rationalised on the technical level. Taylor's manyfollowers elaborate more perfect methods for the study andorganisation of work processes, producti on manage ment,the training and instruction of workers, etc. At the same timegreater attention is given to research into general manage-ment problems. Fayol's conception has become one of the

Systematisation of "Classic" Management Theory 195

foundati ons of theoretical constructions, formula ting all-

embracing principles of the management of organisations

and forming the bedrock for standard conceptions of the

formal structure of management.

Systematisation of the "Classic"Management Theory. Gulick-Urwick's

Organisational Principles

The most prominent systematisers and popularisers of the

"cla ssic " theory of the management of organisations are

Luther Gulick and Lindall Urwick, whose works are more

frequently used to introduce the subject than those of the

founders of the trend/'"'In working out the basic principles of management Gulick

relied on Fayol's "basic elements of administration", butdeveloped them in many respects. Unlike Fayol, he separates

forecasting from planning and emphasises the importance ofplanning in modern production.

Regarding the chief administrator's sphere of activity asmuch wider and much more complex than it appeared toFayol, Gulick supplements Fayol's scheme. In his interpreta-tion administrative activity includes:

(1) planning, that is, working out in broad outline thethings that need to be done and the methods for doing themto accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise;

(2) organising, that is, the establishment of the formalstructure of authority through which work subdivisions arearranged, defined and co-ordinated for the defined objective;

* In 1937 Gulick and Urwick jointly edited the collection Notes on

the Theory of Organizations. Of the eleven sections in that collectiontwo"Notes on the Theory of Organization" and "Science, Values and

Public Administrati on"were written by Gulick, and other two

"Organization As a Technical Problem" and "The Function of Admin-

istration, with Special Reference to the Wor k of Henri F ayol" by

Urwick. Among other works by the authors particular mention should

be made of Administrative Reflections on World War 11 by Gulick and

Elements of Administration by Urwick. Gulick participated in the work

of the US President's Committee on Administrative Management, set up

by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

13*


12/21


(3) staffing, that is, the wh ole personnel function ofbringing in and training the staff and maintaining favourableconditions of work;

(4) directing, that is, the continuous task of making deci-sions and embodying them in specific and general ordersand instructions;

(5) co-ordinating, that is, the all-important duty of inter-relating the various parts of the work;

(6) reporting, that is, keeping those to whom the executiveis responsible informed as to what is going on, which thusincludes keeping himself and his subordinates info rmedthrough records, research and inspection;

(7) budgeting, with all that goes with budgeting in theform of fiscal planning, accounting and control. [1; 144]

In this list of seven activities threeplanning, organisingand co-ordinati ngare taken over bodily from Fayol.Fayol's command appears under the heading of directing.His control is covered in part by budgeting and reporting,which serve as instruments of both planning and control.In staffing, Gulick separates out for special mention an

activity which Fayol largely included as part of organi-sation.

Gulick unites all the seven elements under the name ofPOSDCORB*.

Although considerably amended by the many Americanwriters who have used it, this system has been the startingpoint for numerous studies.

Gulick and Urwick emphasise that their approach toquestions of organisation is based on the need to regardmanagement as a single whole, built on a broad foundationand not confined only to the formal aspects of management.At various points they speak of the importance of informalfactors in the management of organisations and warn againsta belittling of "human relations". Yet, the organisational

principles** drawn up by them deal mainly with the archi-tectonics of formal organisation.

* POSDCORBp lanning, organising, staffing, directing, co-ord ina-ting, reporting, budgeting.

** A detailed description of the "classic" or "universal" principles oforganisation is contained in Gulick's "Notes on the Theory of Organi-zation". [9] They are listed as follows: (1) division of labour or special-

Systematisation of "Classic" Management Theory195

"Fitting people to structure" is regarded as one of thebasic principles of the " classic " theory. Urwick definesorganisation as "determining what activities are necessaryto any purpose (or 'plan') and arranging them in groupswhich may be assigned to individuals". Urwick warns thatorganisation should be undertaken "in a cold-blooded, de-

tached spirit", like the preparation of an engineering design,without reference to any individuals who may now be inthe organisation. The corresponding organisation structuremust be worked out without bias and only then are steps tobe taken "to find or fit people to the structure". [1; 145]

The "classic" theory categorically proclaims the principleof "one top executive" or, in other words, the "one-manmanagement principle" and, hence, the administrativeresponsibility of one person. Insisting on this rule, Urwickand Gulick warn against the use of committees for purposesof administration. Gulick was one of the authors of the"Report of the US President's Committee on AdministrativeManagement", which stated the following: "For purposes ofmanagement boards and commissions have turned out to be

failures, their mechanism is inevitably s low, cumbersome,wasteful and ineffective and does not lend itself readily toco-operation with other agencies. .. . The conspicuously well-managed administrative units in the Government are almostwithout exception headed by single administrators." [1; 145]

Gulick and Urwick's "unity of command" principle fullycoincides with Fayol's maxim that a man cannot serve twomasters. Aware that a rigid adherence to this principle mayhave its absurdities, Gulick nevertheless maintains that thesecases are "unimportant in comparison with the certainty ofconfusion, inefficiency and irresponsibility, which arise fromthe violation of this principle". [1; 145]

Another principle, called "staff: special and general", isalso of major importance.

Whi le insisting on the "one top e xecutive" principle,Gulick and Urwick are conscious of the fact that as the

isation; (2) departmentalisation on the basis of purpose, process, clien-tele or place; (3) co-ordination by hierarchy; (4) co-ordination by ideas;

(5) co-ordination by committees; (6) decentralisation or the "holdingcompany" idea; (7) unity of command; (8) staff and line; (9) delega-tion; (10) span of control.


13/21


volume and scale of organisational activity grows, higherexecutives need the help of an ever increasing number ofexperts and specialists. The y theref ore stand for thestrengthening and development of "functional" or "staff"services. This immediately raises the question of the rela-

tion between these "staff experts" and regular "lineofficials".

The multiplication of staff experts confronts higherexecutives with difficult problems of co-ordination. Drawingnot only upon Fayol but also upon military experience,Gulick makes a detailed analysis of each of these prob-lems.

Describing the functions of experts on specific questionswho form part of the "special staff", he regards them mainlyas consultants of the top management, who must not begiven administrative authority but are to get results onlyby persuasion, by the "authority of ideas". [1; 146]

The top executive is ever more insistently faced with theproblem of how to control effectively the activity of a large

number of subordinates, not only of the "line officials", butalso that of the "spec ial s taff". As a result most topexecutives are overwhelmed with everyday work, and haveno time to read, think or meet their subordinates. It isnoteworthy that the President's Committee on Administra-tion Management came to a similar conclusion after havinganalysed the vast duties heaped on the shoulders of thePresident, and reported that the President needs help in thefulfilment of some of his functions.

In order to improve the organisation of the activity oftop administrators Gulick and Urwick consider it necessaryto have in addition to the "special staff", also a "generalstaff", which is to assist the executive in the central tasks ofcommand, control and co-ordination. As distinguished from

special staff officials, the general staff officials are notlimited to proffering advice, but must draw up and transmitorders, follow up on operations and help co-ordinate thework of "staff specialists" without themselves taking on anyspecialised functions.

However, despite the wide range of questions handled bythe "gene ral staff ", and the fact that these officia ls areconstantly busy with co-ordination and general leadership,


it is important to remember that they act not on their own,but only as direct agents or representatives of their superiorand within the confines of decisions made by him. Essential-ly, the "general staff", Gulick and Urwick emphasise, onlyrelieves the top executive from the burden of some details

of administration, allowing him to exercise a larger span ofcontrol and to concentrate upon the most important matters.

The question of the criteria on which a distribution offunctions between administrative units should be based ac-quires particular importance in this connection. Gulickdistinguishes four forms of the specialisation of adminis-trative subdivisions.

First, specialisation should be based on the aim ofadministration, i.e., the tasks within the institution can berationally distributed, the various activities can be groupedso as to promote the achievement of a single aim or theimplementation of a common task. When it becomesnecessary to establish the ultimate aim of an institution'sactivity, it is comparatively easy to divide it into several

sub-aims.Secondly, specialisation can be carried out in accordance

with such an indicator as the operation. In this case care istaken to concentrate in a single administrative sub-unit allactivities involving the execution of identical operations orthe use of identical equipment (thus, such operations asdocumentation, statistics, personnel files, etc., can be groupedin a single administrative section). The form of specialisa-tion according to types of technical operations (or, to useGulick's term"according to processes") corresponds to theidea of the division of labour.*

Thi rdly , specialisation is often carried out in keepingwith the category of the population served and, fourthly, itmay be carried out on the basis of geographical criteria

* "Looking at any concrete administration," the French researcherBernard Gournay notes, "the observer sometimes finds it difficult todetermine the division of tasks he has to deal with in the particularcase. In practice, the criteria in question [the components of Gulick'sschemeD.G) can be and are e ffecti vely combin ed. Sometimes thecriteria are not there at all. Administrative structures rarely conformto rational schemes. They are all a product of history, habit and con-tingencies. A major role is also played by the personality of the indi-viduals holding executive positions." [10; 111-12)


14/21


(Gulick calls this zonal specialisation), in wh ich case allquestions linked with the concrete geographical zone areconsidered by a single structural subdivision.

However, "ideal cases" in which all criteria coincide areextremely rare. In most cases only the preferred criteria arechosen. When units are established on different principles,Urwick says, they are woven together to form the "tangledfabric" of larger organisations. [11; 147]

Thus, Gulick and Urwick confine themselves, on thewhole, to a descriptive analysis of the problem of manage-ment, and do not propose any standard methods for thecreation of subdivisions in an organisation.

Both authors give much attention to the "delegation prin-cipl e", that is, to the ability of the leader to delegateresponsibility to subordinate persons. Urwick declares, notwithout reason, that the ". . . lack of the courage to delegateproperly and of knowledge how to do it, is one of the mostgeneral causes of failure in organisation". [11; 51]

The maximum possible "delegation of responsibility" is,in Urwick's opinion, the most important condition for theefficient work of top executives. Characterising the concretefunctions of the latter, he particularly stresses the need toproceed from Taylor's "exception principle", namely, toconsider only considerable exceptions from the establishedstandards. [11; 110, 123, 126)

The principle of the "correspondence of responsibility andauthority" holds a major place among the Gulick-Ur wickprinciples. As distinct from Fayol, who accentuated the needto imbue a feeling of responsibility into all categories ofadministrators, Urwick looks at the problem in a muchbroader sense, and studies the question of responsibility ininterrelation with the question of authority. He says that itis not enough to place the responsibility for some activityupon the administrative staff, but that it is also essential todelegate to it "the necessary authority to discharge thatresponsibility". [11; 45, 46] Urwick further points out thatthe responsibility of persons in whom definite authority isvested should be "absolute within the defined terms of thatauthority. They should be personally accountable for allaction taken by subordinates." [11; 125). As distinct fromFayol, who considered the question of responsibility in

Systematisation of "Classic" Management Theory195

isolation from other problems, Urwick maintains that at alllevels "authority and responsibility must be co-terminous,co-equal and defined". [11; 124)

Next comes the "span of control" principle.The gist of this principle is that the number of people

directly subordinated to one executive should be limited.Urwick says: "No superior can supervise directly the workof more than five or, at the most, six subordinates whosework interlocks." [11; 126] This statement somewhatresembles the "span of attention" conception in psychology.If, as Urwick maintains, the number of subordinates in-creases in arithmetical progression, there is a simultaneousgeometrical growth in the permutations and combinations ofthe relationships requiring the attention of the superior.[11; 53]

It should be noted that Guli ck is less categori cal aboutthe maximum number of subordinates. He attempts todetermine the various factors affecting the optimal range,notably stresses the personal qualities of the executive

himself, his territorial proxi mity to the subordinates hecontrols, the nature of the work being carried out by them,the stability of the organisation, etc. At the same time, Gulickinsists on the general validity of the principle. [1; 148] Itshould be noted here that in organising management theproblem of control remains to this day one of the principalblank spots in the theory of organisation. Graicunas evenintroduce d a special mathematical formula to define thefactors determining the span of control. According to hiscomputations the introduction of every new official in thesphere of a given superior's subordination roughly doublesthe number of potential relationships. If a head has foursubordinates, the introduction of a fifth will increase thenumber of the head's potential relationships by twenty, the

number of the potential relationships of every subordinateby nine and the total number of possible relationships willgro w from 44 to 100. If a head has 18 subordinates, thenumber of potential relationships will reach the astronomicfigure of 2,359,602. Obvious ly, the co mputed number ofpotential relationships can be used as a criterion for deter-mining the "span of control".

Some specialists beli eve that the use of Graicunas' s


15/21


form ula is effect ive if it is presupposed that (1) the headgives attention to the potential interrelations of his subor-dinates; (2) the relations of two subordinates in the presenceof a third differ from the interrelations between them in hisabsence; (3) equivalent relations are considered and no ac-count is taken of their frequency and duration. On the otherhand, it should be remembered that Graicunas speaks ofpossible relationships, and not of those the executive reallyhas to deal with. The fact that no empirical tests have beenmade of his formula (as also of similar computations by otherresearchers, notably Gulick) makes it impossible to give acategorical appraisal. Let us also emphasise that in definingthe span of control, the "classic" theory presupposed thatthe head controls the activity of the subordinates, gives themorders and co-ordinates their action within a formal schemeof organisation. Later research took into account data on thereal possibilities and abilities to be found in people."'

The "classic" school of the management of organisationsplayed an important role because it paved the way for a

deeper understanding of the specifics of administration itselfand of its difference from purely engineering and technicalfunctions. Urwick's views are of interest in this respect too.

Examining the functions of the engineer charged withthe organisation of produc tion at an enterprise, Urwick(following in Fayol's footsteps) emphasises two requirements:"on the one hand, basic training essential to a generalknowledge of an industry to which management competenceis added as a further component, and, on the other, knowl-edge of management per se. Some engineers fail to makethis distinction and imagine that their basic training asengineers equips them automatically with the knowledge ofmanagement. They, therefore, fail in the latter capacity."[4; 8]

Urwick insists that purely engineering functions must be

* It was foun d that the number of peo ple a manager can giv eattention to is limited. Initially that figure was determined "by ruleof thumb" (5-6 people), later more accurate criteria were found. Davissets the number of subordinates in the field of physical labour at 30,in the field of intellectual labourfrom 3 to 8. Dale investigated 100 bigAmerican firms and found that 8-9 people are generally directly sub-ordinated to the top executive.


strictly defined and points out that the engineering profes-sion should "abandon its claims to special competence inthose fields to which the epithet engineering has been at-tached as a synonym for scientific." [4; 6] The fact that thefunctions and nature of the activities of production manage-

ment are still often identified with engineering is regardedby Urwick as a sign of "immature thinking about businessmanagement in general and about suitable forms of educa-tion for this function". [4; 7]

Rapid technological progress, the application of electronicand other devices for the mechanisation of management,undoubtedly requires definite engineering knowledge on thepart of the administrative staff. However, a modern ac-countant, financist, or any other administrative workershould, first and foremost, master the methods and skills ofhis own profession. "Engineering tends to permeate moreand more all other functions of management," Urwickwrites. "But to say this is not to imply that a completeengineering training is a prerequisite to, or by any means

the most fundamental discipline necessary for, the properdischarge of all those functions." [4; 6]

Urwick considers it essential that there should be a ra-tional specialisation of all engineering functions and that acorresponding "departmentalisation" should be securedseparately in questions of management, transcending thelimit of engineering activity.

Despite the rapid growth of research, the statement ofnew problems and the revision of some obsolescent proposi-tions, the basic conceptions of the "classic" theory oforganisation and management have not changed fundamen-tally, and Taylor, Fayol, Gulick and Urwick remain itsmain representatives to this day. The "classic" school has

exerted a considerable influence on the formation of all theother trends of the American theory of management. Thisinfluence has naturally evoked different responses. In somecases it has led to a further substantiation, development,concretisation of the "classic" principles, in others, on thecontrary, new trends have criticised some of the proposi-tions advanced by the "classics" and formed their own con-ceptions. It is, however, incontestable that only a study of


16/21


the main conceptions of the "classic" school will enable usto gain a full understanding of the develo pment of theAmer ican theory of organisation and management ingeneral, and of the specific features of its individual trends.

The question of what attitude should be taken towards the

"classic" theory and its various representatives is still aconstant topic of discussion. Attempts to show the positiveelements of the "classic" theory, notably of Taylor's system,have becom e more frequent, but the predominant view isthat the modern America n theories of scientific manage -ment, even though they emerged historically from Taylor-ism, differ from it in many respects and are developing newconceptions which are often alien to Taylorism.

The Taylor system is criticised for its limitations, forignoring the human factor and for considering organisationonly in its "ideal form". The "classic" school of managementis often referred to as the "mechanistic" tradition. It may bestated without going into an analysis of the positions fromwhich Taylorism is criticised, that this criticism is often well-

founded.Let us therefore return once more to Taylor. Taylor is

concerned with the individual participant in production onlyinsofar as he seeks to ensure the greatest possible specialisa-tion of labour, to confine the interests of the worker to theexecution of extremely simple, routine operations, toguarantee him a definite minimum wage, but to debar himcomplete ly fro m all partic ipation in the organisation ofproduction and decisions concerning its aims. The worker isthus debarred from planning his own activity, which is fullyand wholly prescribed to him from above, on the basis ofstrictly computed rates; all he has to do is to carry out hisassignments. In the planning of tasks and the working outof rates the Taylor system seeks to divide and simplify work

operations to the utmost. Obviously, then, such "scientific"organisation lowers the skills of the workers and transformstheir work into monotonous routine operations. This depriveslabour of all interest and intensifies alienation, but at thesame time enables the capitalists to substitute workers withlittle skill for high-s killed workers. Wo rk i s co mpletelydeprived of its intellectual aspect and the antithesis betweensimple and complex work deepens, for the ideal of Taylorism


is to reduce all complex work to simple, and to transformthe worker into a direct appendage of the system ofautomats and semi-automats. It is easy to see that the basicconceptions of the "class ic" theory of organisation andmanagement are based on a v ery definite view of human

nature and of the motivations of individual behaviour. Itis maintained that for a reward to have the desired effect,for a worker to show maximum zeal in his work, the rewardmust be granted very soon after the work has been completed."There are very few people able to look further ahead thanfor a week or, perhaps, in extreme cases, for a month, andto strain themselves to the utmost in expectation of a rewardthey may receive at the end of that time." [3; 79] Tayl or' ssimplified understanding of man, the worker, has beenstrongly criticised by theoreticians of the "human relations"school. They also reject Taylor's idea that "personal ambi-tion " always was and always will be the most powe rfulstimulus of all effort.

The consistent adherents o f the "cla ssic " school do all

they can to defend Taylor. Thus, in a report published in1955 under the title of "Mana gemen t As a System ofThought" Urwick decisively opposes the view that Taylor's"scientific management" was "inhuman", and indignantlyrejects attempts to picture Tay lor as a "co ld, calculati ng,detached scientist, indifferent alike to human hopes andhuman fears...". [6; 7]

Urwick emphasises that one should not fully identify theworks and world outlook of Taylor himself with that of thewhole "classic" school. With a view to "exonerating" Taylorhe quotes passages in his works where he recognises the im-portance of the human factor. It is, however, undeniablytrue that on the whole the "classic" school approached therole of people in an organisation strictly mechanically and

maintained that pe ople's behaviour was determinedexclusively by economic motives, that it interpreted the in-dividual not as a subject, but simply as a factor of produc-tion, and that it completely ignored or distorted his socialnature. The homo oeconomicus conception reflected the reallyexisting alienation of the worker in the capitalist system,but it clearly did not take into account the proletariat'sstruggle against that alienation. To some degree this has


17/21

20G 111. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and Management

been taken into account by Taylor's critics who realise thatthe attempt to transform the worker into a live machinewaiting upon metal machines is unrealistic.

Max Weber's Theory of the Ideal BureaucraticOrganisation of Management

Proceeding from the above interpretation of man's natureand motivations the champions of the "classic" theory ofmanagement concentrate their attention on the admin-istrative aspects of organisation. Gulick, Fayol, Moone y,Urwick and others correctly stress that the German sociol-ogist Max Weber, who evolved the "ideal type" ofadministrative organisation and used for it the term"bureaucracy"* [12; 3], made an enormous contribution toresearch into the principles of organisation. AlthoughWeber's conception is mainly based on European methodsof organisation (chiefly on Prussian experience), his "idealtype" is generally identical with the models created by theAmerican "classic" theory of management.

The main features in the "ideal type" proposed by Weberare the following:

1. The entire activity needed for the achievement of theaims set by an organisation is d ivided into elementary,simple operations, which, in its turn, presupposes a strict,formal definition of the tasks and duties of every link of theorganisation. A maximum possible division of labour makesit possible to utilise in all links of the organisation expertswho are fully responsible for the effective fulfilment of theirduties.

2. "The organisation of offices follows the principle of

* Amer ican writers tend to use the term "bure aucra cy" fo r threedifferent concepts: (1) the first and the most traditional usage, corre-sponding to a concept of political science: bureaucracy is governmentby bureaus without the participation of the governed; (2) in Weber'ssense, as a sociologi cal concept of the rationalisat ion of c ollect iveactivities; (3) in the "vulgar" sense, as a term describing the ineffective-ness of organisational functions, the slowness, the ponde rousness, theroutine, the procedural obstacles to normal activity, etc.

Max Weber's Theory of Ideal Organisation of Management 207

hierarchy" [13; 331], i.e., each lower official is under thecontrol and supervision of a higher one. Every subordinatein the administrative hierarchy is accountable to his superiornot only for his own decisions and actions, but also for thoseof the people subordinate to him. In order to be able tobear the responsibility for the work of the latter, he musthave authority and power over them and issue orders whichthe latter must obey. This power is strictly confined to thefield of the organisation's official activity; its extension con-tradicts the principle of "bureaucratic authority".

3. The activity of the organisation is regulated by a"consistent system of abstract rules" and consists "in theapplication of these rules to particular cases [13; 330]

A system of standards and general rules must be workedout in order to ensure the identical implementation of everytask, irrespective of the number of people engaged in itsfulfilment. Clear-cut rules and instructions define the respon-sibility of every member of the organisation and the formsof the co-ordination of their individual activities. This doesnot mean, Web er warns, that bureaucratic duties areinevitably simple and routine. According to Weber, a strictadherence to general standards in the solution of specificquestions eliminates possible deviations in the fulfilment oftasks evoked by individual differences.*

4. The ideal administrator manages his apparatus in aspirit of formalistic impersonality. "Sine ira et studio,without hatred or passion, and hence without affection orenthusiasm." [13; 340]

The normal functioning of the organisation in accordancewith rational standards excludes the intervention of personalconsiderations and emotions. An unbiassed approach mustpredominate both within the organisation and in its rela-tions with its clients. If the head forms a definite, clearly

* This conclusion is now generally recognised. Gournay, for instance,whom we have alre ady quoted above, write s: ". .. the value of a deci-sion depends on its correspondence to the general policy of the insti-tution. No organisation, be it a public or a private one, can functioncorrectl y without a definite minimum of unity, continuity and evenrigidity. It is therefore desirable that all more or less important deci-sions adopted in the institution should be based on a common doctrine."[10; 115)


18/21

20G 111. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and Management

expressed attitude (negative or positive, it doesn't matterwhich) to some subordinate or client, this will inevitablyaffect his official decisions and, generally, harm the business.Without realising it himself, the administrator may showindulgence in appraising the work of some subordinates andbe prejudiced with respect to others, may grant unjustified

preferences to one client and be unjust to another, etc., etc.Hence, the exclusion of all personal considerations in officialmatters is an essential pre conditi on for both impartialityand effi ci enc y/T he factors that make the bureaucrat un-popular among his clients, that is, the attitude of an impartialobserver and the absence of any emotional concern for theirproblems, are actually favo urabl e factors promoting thetrue interests of the clients/A lack of interest bordering onindiffe rence goes hand in hand with an absence of bias,which would only interfere with an objective approach/Theadministrator who does not preserve the requisite "socialdistance" and is personally interested in the affairs of hisclients or subordinates, becomes biassed with respect tothem, shows favouritism and thus sets up the interests of /

some against those of others. Impersonal impartiality pro-motes an equally just attitude towards all and, hence, alsothe development of democratic principles in administraVtion. '

5. Service in a bureaucratic organisation is based oncorrespondence between the technical qualification and theposition held, and employees must be protected fro marbitrary dismissal. Service constitutes a career. There is asystem of promot ion according to seniority, or to achieve-ment, or both. [13; 334] This poli cy with respect to the ^personnel is intended to develop the esprit de corps among ? >the employees, to educate in them staunch loyal ty to theorganisation.

As a result the employees "identify" themselves with the

organisation and this prompts them to work intensively inthe organisation's interests.*

* In bourgeois sociology the concept "career" often implies lifelongservice in government employment, with the prospect of progressiveincreases in salary and responsibility.

"In the concept career several basic ideas can be set apart. First, agovernment job is considered a specific profession, differing greatly


6. "Experience tends unive&rally to show that the purely

bureaucratic type of administrative organisation . . . is,

from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining

the highest degree of efficiency" [13; 337], that the structureinherent in an organisation of an "ide al type" makes the

"bureaucratic form" of administration a system far superior

to any other as regards its accuracy, stability, strict disciplineand reliability.

In trying to prov e the advantages of the "bureaucraticform" of organisation, based on a specialisation of functions,hierarchy and career, Web er emphasises that it ensuresgreat efficiency by making it possible to use computationsand calculations. To defend "bureaucratic administration"Weber uses arguments which were used by the Taylorists todefend "scientific management". In particular he uses thefollowin g comparison: "A fu lly developed bureaucraticadministration stands in the same relationship to nonbureau-cratic forms as machinery to nonmechanical modes of pro-duction." [14; 349)

Accor ding to Webe r, the "bureaucratic for m" makes it

possible to give an optimal solution to the problem of howto raise the effectiveness of the organisation as a whole. The

from all others, despite the seeming similarity. Since such employment

presupposes the acquaintance with particularly important informationand a corresponding frame of mind, it is essential that people in stateemploy should devote their entire professional life to it and dedicate

themselves fully. Hence, government service must give them materialand moral satisfaction, at least equal to what they may obtain at anyother job. . . .

"Secondly, it follows from the above that in order to make people

interested in taking and holding government jobs it is essential thatevery one of them should realise that the preservation of the job andhis career (if there is no serious neglect of duties) depend solely on

himself The emplo yment of civil servants should de facto and dejure be based on the idea of security and guarantees: civil servants

must be convinced that they risk losing their position and their legalright to regular promotion only if there are serious reasons for it, and

that such reasons will be considered by impartial bodies. There mustbe no arbitrary decisions affecting their career. And, finally, one moreidea connected with the concept career: in order to attract and hold in

the civil service people valuable to it and to facilitate their becomingpart of the group, it is essential that the service should enjoy a definiteprestige, and that the civil servants should be granted definite privi-leges." [10; 34-35]

141325


19/21

210 III. "Classic" Theory of Organisation and Management

members of an organisation work efficiently when theypossess the requisite skills and know-h ow, and use themrationally and energetically. For this reason they shouldhave specialised technical qualifications. However, variousfactors, notably personal motives, will sometimes stop even

experts f rom adopting rational decisions. This source ofirrationality can be abolished by the consistent implementa-tion of the "impersonal detachment" principle in theorganisation's entire activity. However, a rationalisation ofindividual activity is entirely insufficient. If all members ofthe organisation without exception adopt rational decisionsindependently of one another, their work cannot be co-ordinated and this will have ill effects on the organisation'sefficiency. That is why there must be discipline. Its purposeis to decrease the scale of "rationalistic discreteness" bymeans of a system of rules and instructions and a hierarchyof control. Even intelligent initiative, if it transgresses thebasic rules governing the functioning of the organisation, isincompatible with bureaucratic organisation, under which

all employees must observe them rigidly.The "bureaucratic fo rm" creates social conditions thatmake every individual member of the organisation act onlyin accordance with the "rational aims of the organisation asa whol e", irrespective of whether he personally considersthem rational or irrational.

In recent years Weber's conception has constantly at-tracted the attention of the "classicists" and also of rep-resentatives of other trends. [15] While it is emphasised thatWeber takes a stand close to that of the "classic" theory ofmanagement, his analysis of the functioning of the organisa-tion comes in for some serious criticism. Thus, Peter Blau,a Chicago University professor, says that Weber's theoryexplains the social structure only through the functions of

its component elements. Such an approach, however,excludes the need for a thorough investigation of the"disturbances" that various elements produce in the structureof an organisation. "As a result," Blau writes, "his[Weber'sD.G.] presentation may make the social structureappear to function more smoothly than it actually does,since he neglects the disruptions that do in fact exist. Toprotect ourselves against this danger, it is essential to extend


the analysis beyond the mere consideration of functions, asRobert K. Merton [16; 21-81] points out. Of particular im-portance for avoiding false implications of stability and forexplaining social change is the study of dysfunctions, thoseconsequences that interfere with adjustment and create

problems in the structure." [17; 32-33]According to Peter Blau, Weber could not fail to see that

". . .the same factor that enhances efficiency in one respectoften threatens it in another; it may have b

gvishiani chap 3 classical

Documents