Classical, Bureaucratic and Administrative views Lijo John FPM06/10-Q The modern personnel management has a dual heritage.

These two heritages were the welfare work and the scientific management of the personnel. Even though essentially these heritages had their inherent differences, both these heritages commonly thought of working towards the overall development of the personnel in the organizations. The welfare heritage had drawn its roots form the puritan ethic, which wanted the overall development of the personnel with its roots in the religious faiths. The welfare ethic was drawn from the understanding that the productivity of an employee was not restricted only to the workplace environment but rather on the other aspects of his social life too. This triggered the need to have an employee who had an equally good professional and social life. Probably the understanding that the professional and the social life cannot be separated triggered the need for the welfare management. The scientific view of the personnel management was suggested in an implicit manner by Taylor, but the idea was taken forward by Gibson, Kendall and other Taylorian activists. The scientific management of the personnel gave a new dimension which included rigor and industrial psychology and drawing the understanding from the behavioural and social sciences. Munsterberg is the pioneer in the field of industrial psychology who defined the behaviour and the human aspects of a management to be technical which can be explained by the scientific principles. The concept of the best possible man, best possible work and the best possible effect suggested by Taylor was revisited and detailed proposals relating to the worker selection to appraisal to layoffs were outlined. The contributions of Williams in the field of industrial sociology cannot be disregarded. He was one of those pioneers who advocated and practiced participative learning to understand the ground reality of the worker attitude and aspirations. His observations were very similar to that of McGregor in realizing that the satisfied needs do not act as a motivator. He also observed that the affiliation to cause was more motivating for an individual than the rewards associated with the cause. He implicitly spoke about the organizational justice, hygiene factors and motivating factors too. But unfortunately his work was not well received and appreciated by the academia which seems to be the disconnect between the industry and the academic research (Wren and Bedian, 2009; Robbins et al., 2010). The emergence of the management process and the organization theory, Fayol and Webers contribution to understanding of the same needs a special mention. Fayol realised that managing the any company with diverse geography and large number of employees were required considerable amount of skills outside the technical realm. He talked about the essence of holistic marketing for the organization to thrive forward. He advocated the idea of documentation of the activities, employee growth within the organizations, job enrichment and mentioned the qualities required by a manger such as physical, mental, moral, general education, special knowledge and experience. Fayol concentrated on fourteen principles of management which are division of work, authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interest to general interest, remuneration, centralization,

scalar chain, order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative and esprit de corps. Fayol is also the pioneer to realise the elements of a mangers job which included planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling, which even in today is valid. Weber was the pioneer in defining the bureaucratic structure of an organization. He suggested that the bureaucracy is the most ideal method of organizing any institute. The bureaucracy transcends above personal motives and provides objectivity to the managers roles and responsibilities. But Weber himself believed that bureaucracy is an ideal concept which did not exist. The advantages of bureaucracy identified were division of labour, managerial hierarchy, formal selection, career orientation, formal rules and other controls and impersonality. Follets basis of thinking was the whole man and the relations of these whole men within the groups. Follets notion of development of the whole man in a circular motion with interrelating and a-making of the self in flux with the everything draws its parallels form the puritan ethic. The conflict resolutions between the whole men can be resolved in four ways viz, submission, struggle for victory, compromise and integration of which the most important is integration where not one is giving in to the demands of other yet there is a satisfaction of both demands. The integration aims at the growth of the two where the situation is the master and not the individual. She advocated the fact that the authority and the power should be with the situation but not with the people involved in the situation. She expressed her dissatisfaction against the collective bargaining by the labour unions with the management. Though Follets ideas where far ahead of its time but one question still needs to be addressed that is this highly utopian or not? Barnard with his extensive experience in the industry from the post of the statistician to the president, he was able to gain an insight in the working of the organization and the needs to be addressed. He defined an organization for the first time and survival of the organization by achieving the equilibrium internally, achieving equilibrium with external factors and the functions performed by the executives at all levels of the organization. He mentioned that the formal organization requires the willingness of the members to cooperate, a common purpose and the communication between the members of the organization. Barnard had a different view of power when he argues that the power is does not reside in the situation but rather lies in the people who are willing to accept the authority over them and ready to act as desired by the authority. He also postulated that the three executive functions include providing a system of communication, to promote the securing of the essential facts and to formulate and define purpose. The organization, at the end of the day, is a set of people coming together for a common goal, with their efforts focussed in a common direction under the focussed leadership of one or a group of people. This requires the people to be aware of their roles in the organization. This understanding allows them to channelize their individual efforts towards the organizational goal. This could lead to a synergetic effect, where the output will be more than the sum of the individual inputs. The structure and the engine of the organization is the most important part

in converting this individual effort to a collective goal. The structure defines the flow of the effort through the channel and the engine converts the input into the unified goal. References Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A. and Vohra, N., (2011), Organizational behaviour, Pearson Education Inc. Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2009), The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th Ed.: John Wiley & Sons.