CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE APPLICATION MANAGEMENT THEORIES TO A

CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATION

A case study based on the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID)

Student Name: Arthur Kachemba

Student Number: R1702D2307535

Course Module: BS4S16-V1- Leadership and Management Theories

Assessment #: ONE

Programme / Course: MBA - Master of Business Administration

Page | 1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1. Purpose and structure of the report ......................................................................................... 3
1.2. Background to Case Study Organization ............................................................................... 3
2. EVOLUTION AND SHAPING OF MANAGEMENT THINKING .................................................. 5
3. A DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT THEORIES ...................................................................... 6
3.1. The Classical Approach ............................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1. Scientific Management .......................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2. Bureaucracy .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. The Human Relations Approach ............................................................................................ 14
3.2.1. Human Relations Movement .............................................................................................. 14
3.2.2. Human Resources Perspective.......................................................................................... 16
3.2.3. Behavioral Sciences Approach .......................................................................................... 17
3.3. Post Humanistic and Classical Approach ............................................................................. 18
3.3.1. Systems theory ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.3.2. The Contingency Approach ................................................................................................ 19
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 22

Page | 2
 1.INTRODUCTION
Management theory provides the necessary context for understanding organizational and
management functions. It is a reasonable conclusion that through exposure to literature
of prominent thinkers in the field of management, the skills and approaches of
management in organizations are influenced positively.

The study of management theory is justified on multiple fronts. Management theory

simplifies understanding of the evolution of various theoretical approaches in relation to
adopted organization and management processes. Theory also provides a foundation for
understanding managerial principles and skills that are necessary for execution of
functions associated with management practice. It is also pointed out that management
philosophies are illustrative and transform in course with organisational settings.

According to Miner a detailed knowledge of any organisation and its operational

processes, provides an effective platform for dealing with them. Therefore, theory delivers
all-encompassing foundation for action (Miner, 1980). However, for theory to be sufficient
and relevant to various organization approaches it must be a ‘good’ theory.

1.1. Purpose and structure of the report

Having laid out this foundation. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical evaluation
of management theories and discuss their application to contemporary organizations. In
order to achieve the intended objectives, the paper will: discuss the evolution and shaping
of management thinking, provides a description of various aspects of management
theory, provide a critique and relevance of theory to management, discuss the relevant
application of theory to a contemporary organization such as USAID.

1.2. Background to Case Study Organization

For purposes of this assignment, the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) is used as a case study.

“The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an official

foreign assistance development organization of the United States federal
government that. The organization operates on an annual budget of over $27

Page | 3
billion, primarily making it the largest official aid agencies in the world, and
accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance. The organization has
been in existence since 1961 when it was formed under the Foreign Assistance
Act.

As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the

guidance of the President, Secretary of State, and the National Security
Council. USAID has missions in over 100 countries, primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin
America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. As of 2016, USAID total staffing
stood at 10,235, including both field missions (7,176) and the Washington DC
headquarters (3,059).

Globally an administrator and deputy administrator, both appointed by the

president and confirmed by the Senate, head USAID. See organization structure
below

Figure 1: Organizations Global Structure

Source: https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization

At operational level, the USAID is guided by the Automated Directives System

(ADS). The ADS contains the organization and functions of USAID, along with the
policies and procedures that guide the Agency's programs and operations. It

Page | 4
 consists of over 200 chapters organized in six functional series: Agency
Organization and Legal Affairs, Programming, Acquisition and Assistance, Human
Resources, Management Services, and Budget and Finance. The information is
continuously updated to align USAID's policies with the latest Federal regulations,
Administrator policy statements, and other overarching guidance. The Bureau for
Management, Office of Management Policy, Budget and Performance (M/MPBP)
administers the ADS”. (Usaid.gov, n.d.)

2. EVOLUTION AND SHAPING OF MANAGEMENT THINKING

For a considerable length of time, researchers have been following the conduct of workers
and managers. The comprehension and investigation of this conduct developed into
another field of study called management thought. Management thought is a generally
new teach. Over the previous century, its cutting-edge rehearse has become out of the
impact of social, economic and political powers. It has likewise developed from the impact
of numerous specialists and experts, for example, Fredrick Taylor, Elton Mayo, and W.
Edwards Deming.

Late 1800, America had turned into the assembling capital of the world. Large-scale
manufacturing systems empowered organizations to turn a bigger number of items at a
lower cost than previously. Enhancements in sequential construction system innovation
prompted an expansive scale creation of a wide assortment of material merchandise.
These mechanical headways happened at such a quickened pace, to the point that a
specific level of disorder occurred.

A large portion of industries during this period viewed this confusion as a national
productivity issue. Industrial organizations were not as proficient as they ought to have
been. Three issues framed the reason for this. Initially was the issue of joint effort amongst
individuals and machines. Numerous assembly line workers were worried about the
possibility that substituting machine control for human power would bring about the
disposal of occupations. Workers were additionally physically apprehensive of large,
noisy, and filthy risky manufacturing plant machines. The second snag was the general
inability in running substantial size manufacturing plants and organizations that could
deliver a huge volume of items to bring down per unit cost.

Page | 5
Since proprietors and workers were not used to working in large settings. Diverse expert
structures were required. Along these lines, standard working techniques needed to be
designed and executed. Whatever efficiencies these strategies realized were
counterbalanced to some extent by a general profound personalization in the work
environment. Larger businesses or industrial corporations were simply having more
serious issues. The more mangers started to acknowledge how bigger these issues were
turning into, the more they scanned for solutions. The scan for solutions gave the premise
to the advancement of the four notable theories or ways to deal with managerial decisions.
The classical approach beginning in the late 1800, the behavioral approach in the early
1900, Systems approach 1930-40, and Contingency approach 1960
(greatvideoresources, 2013).

3. A DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT THEORIES

This section is intended to provide a description, relevance and critique of various
approaches that have shaped management philosophy and practice in the past centuries.

3.1. The Classical Approach

The foundation proposition of the classical approach to management is anchored on the

premise that organization efficiency could result in improved productivity. Therefore, the
preoccupation of managers should be finding best ways of performing tasks.

In line with this argument, it is critical that the purpose and structure of any organization
is fully understood. Thereby stressing the importance of work planning, specification of
prerequisite technical needs, principles of management, and the assumption of rational
and logical behavior (Mullins, 2010).

According to the classical management writers, understanding an organization purpose

is critical in appreciating the various work units and methods for improving work
efficiencies for any organization. Highlighting organization objectives would prompt the
clarification of purposes and duties at all levels of the organization and ultimately lead to
an optimal structure. Consideration is given to the division of work, the reasonable
definition of obligations and duties, and keeping up specialization and collaboration.

Page | 6
Prominence is on a chain of command of administration and formal authoritative
connections.

Evaluation of the classical approach

The classical writers are mostly criticized for ignoring essential aspects personality or
human relations factors and thus developing an organizational structure where individuals
barely exercise control over their workplace. The idea of sets of standards to control
managerial activity has likewise been liable to much disapproval. For example, according
Simon, it is improper to liken organizational design to architectural design. As such,
creating an organization requires consideration for complex systems aimed at stimulating
achievement of multiple goals. Therefore, it is deceptive to assume that strategy can be
made by using the purported standards of classicalist managerial hypothesis (Simon,
1976). Furthermore, a number of researchers have questioned the practical value of
classical management theories (Woodward, 1980).

In any case, classical theorists still receive credit for establishing a foundation of a more
methodical perspective of management that endeavored to give some regular standards
pertinent to all establishments. These standards are still of significance in that, they offer
a helpful beginning stage in endeavoring to break down the viability of the outline of
organization structure. The use of these ideologies must assess the specific situational
factors of every individual organization, and the mental and social components identifying
with individuals from the organization.

The classical approach to management can be studied under three main areas, Scientific
Management, Administrative Management, and Bureaucratic Management.

3.1.1. Scientific Management

Primarily most classical writers were preoccupied with the idea that perfecting
management processes would enhance productivity. Therefore, the classical
management hypothesis was anchored on the belief that increased worker productivity
can be achieved through technical structuring of work and improved monetary incentives.
F. W Taylor (1856–1917), the ‘father’ of scientific management was the primary

Page | 7
contributor to this approach.14 According to Taylor just as machines are designed to
perform specific specialized tasks, people can equally find best working approaches to
accomplish their tasks. Therefore, the scientific method postulates that each work
process can be examined into distinct jobs with a sole purpose of finding best way to
perform intended tasks. In other words, each job should be layered into component parts,
which should be meticulously programmed, and readjusted to achieve optimum working
techniques.

As a firm advocate of motivation achieved through economic benefits. Taylor argued that
if management embraced his recommendations, work would end up being even more
satisfying and fulfilling. Overall, employees would be encouraged through advantages
picked up from higher wages and gainful efficiency accomplished through work.

In his push to create effective techniques and methodology for coordination and control
of work. He set out various standards to direct management generally condensed as:

“The development of a true science for each person’s work; the scientific selection,
training and development of the workers; co-operation with the workers to ensure
work is carried out in the prescribed way; the division of work and responsibility
between management and the workers” (Mullins, 2010).

Evaluation of Scientific Management Criticism versus Relevance

Principles of scientific management approaches are mostly criticized for introducing

monotony in work processes. It is a proven fact that workers tend to be less motivated
when work done requires little skills and has many repetition processes. However, in
general scientific management provides useful techniques and offers valuable
organizational recommendations for improved efficiency and mass production of goods
and services.

Taylorism is also admired as a management system suited for managing workers.

Emphasis is placed on achieving a fair day’s work and optimization of employee efficiency
levels. Systematic soldiering, however, is viewed as a major obstacle to this objective.

Page | 8
As there could be deliberate attempts by employees to advance their advantage by
keeping managers oblivious of how quick tasks can be accomplished.

The concept of management control from Taylor’s perspectives is also criticized on the
proposition that there should be total control and complete removal of any form of
decision making of how work is performed. Through the division of work, and by
directing exact stages and techniques for each part of work execution, management
could pick up control of the definite procedure of work. This would ultimately result in the
de-skilling of work (Gospel and Littler, 1983). The idea that managers should design
and control the work process scientifically in order to guarantee maximum efficiency
ultimately leads to rigid and unpleasant human relation outcomes between workers and
employers (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002).

Recognizing the vast criticism advanced against scientific management. It is important to

acknowledge that Tylor’s work was highly influenced by the emergence of large, complex
organizations with new forms of technology that come as a result of the industrial
revolution.

Preoccupied with the optimization of both employee and management efficiencies. Taylor
believed that scientific management would lead to improved management–labour
relations and contribute to improved industrial efficiency and prosperity. By adopting an
instrumental view of human behavior together with the application of standard procedures
of work. Taylor regarded employees as rational, economic beings motivated directly by
monetary incentives linked to the level of work output.

Regardless of the so many opposing opinions on scientific management, Taylorism is

credited for its contribution to modern management practices such as work-study,
payment by results in other words performance based rewards, organization and
methods, management by exception and production control.

Overall, it is important to acknowledge Taylors’ work and how much influence it has
exerted towards the progress of managerial philosophy. His philosophy is the foundation
that provided a systematic application of managerial process in manufacturing.

Page | 9
Accomplishing profitability efficiency still influences administration thinking up to date
(Stern, 2001).

It is critical however, to understand that Taylor’s principles can be subject to misuse.

Therefore, the perspective and mode in which such values are put into effect should be
properly understood. The suggestion that a unique approach to performing or
accomplishing work is primarily very useful in automated manufacturing set up. However,
behavioral considerations should be accounted for as individuals have inclinations to their
unique method of working and generally love to perform tasks that are captivating.

The question that begs answering at this point is how Taylors’ scientific management
principles can be applied in public entities such as the USAID. A variety of several
organizational functions such as office management, accounting and control are firmly
anchored on scientific management principles. Scientific principles such as performance
measurement have been applied by USAID in its conduct of business. As an organization
whose primary responsibility is contracting organizations and businesses to deliver
services on its behalf, the USAID applies a number of contract types that are mostly
performance based. This is consistent with the work of Taylor on measuring work or
performance measurement, time and motion studies and cost accounting just as
illustration.

3.1.2. Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is a subdivision under the classical management theory approach.

Predominantly bureaucratic structures are a common feature of many large-scale
organizations. The USAID is a typical institution that primarily resemble this category.

Max Weber, a German sociologist, is largely credited for his works in the study of
bureaucratic structures. According to his philosophy, Weber argues that by defining tasks
and responsibilities within a given management or organization structures, permanent
administration and standardization of work methods emerge. Max Weber believed that a
bureaucratic system was a definite way of achieving sustainable order and rationality in
a work place.

Page | 10
Characteristics of a Bureaucratic System

Without providing a concrete definition bureaucracy, Weber identified the central features
of a bureaucratic system. He stressed the significance of organization in light of aptitude
and organization in light of discipline. Based on Weber’s conceptualization, Stewart
(1999) highlights the key features of bureaucracy as specialization, hierarchy of authority,
system of rules and impersonality. With regards to application for the chosen case study
organization, These characteristics are a full embodiment of the USAID management
system.

Specialization is specifically required for the execution of job functions as opposed to the
person undertaking the job. This is critical for guaranteed continuity in circumstances of
the departure of the current position holder.

Hierarchy of authority defines a clear line of separation between the administrators and
the subordinates. Clearly defined levels of authority are specified within given
management structures. This type of leadership is clearly a common feature in the army
and civil service system.

System of rules is a prerequisite to attain efficient and objective organizational

procedures. The system of rules is largely predictable and stable, although there could
be alterations effected to some rules over the passage of time. It is a primary condition
for all employees in a bureaucracy to be conversant with applicable rules or procedures
in conducting institutional business. The USAID demonstrates this characteristic through
the adoption of Automated Directives System. The ADS is simply a suit of policies and
documents that provide operational guidance to the USAID. All USAID work strictly
adheres to these regulations.

Impersonality infers that dispersion of benefits and the execution of authority ought not to
be discretionary, but rather as per the set down arrangement of guidelines. In mature
bureaucracies, prudently defined processes to overturn wrong decisions are sufficiently
provided (Stewart, 1999). The ADS is a good example of this characteristic. USAID as an
institution prides itself to be one of the largest contracting organization. In conducting its

Page | 11
contracting and public procurements, the institution has well laid guidelines for all possible
contractors.

Evaluation of the Bureaucratic Approach to Management - Critique and Relevance

The Bureaucratic Approach to Management is subject to criticism from a various

perspectives. For instance, the approach has placed too much importance to adherence
of rules, procedures, record keeping and paperwork defeating the prime focus of
achieving intended results. Because of this, many officials become over reliant on rank
and regulations. Which ultimately suppresses innovation and as a result, when a situation
not covered by rules and regulations arises there seem to be no interest to execute
responsibilities based on changing situations (Mullins, 2010).

Argyris is among the many scholars credited for putting forward a formidable critic of
bureaucratic institutions, and the demands they make on employees (Argyris, 1964). He
argues that that bureaucratic systems hinder psychological development of employees
and cause feelings of failure, frustration and conflict. Argyris proposes that the institutional
platforms must provide significant level of individual duty and discretion; obligation
towards objectives of the organization; productiveness and work; and an open door for
workers to apply their full capacities. This critique resonates with features of bureaucracy
discussed earlier.

As a result of embracing an impersonal system, positions become firm foundation of

administrative processes. The overemphasis on the process as opposed to reason,
divided obligations, and various leveled control implies that it is very simple for people to
disregard the bigger purposes to which their little exertion is being put (Caulkin, 1988).

Bureaucracies are also criticized on the fact that they provide an excuse for managers to
shun responsibility, avoid being considered responsible for mistakes of judgment or
issues they made or neglected to tackle (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002).

The need to achieve effective management in tandem with increasing complexity and
size of organizations justifies adoption of a management approaches anchored on
bureaucratic processes. The careful design, planning of institutions, description of

Page | 12
discrete duties and responsibilities is a hallmark of the classical thinkers. Therefore, well-
coordinated structure and delegation hierarchy provides effective management platform
in organizations. It is also argued that greater specialization and the application of
expertise and technical knowledge have highlighted the need for laid down procedures.

It is a given reality that to function optimally, public sector institutions requires

standardized rules, regulations and public accountability. In many instances, there is
always a call by various interest groups for increased bureaucracy in public institutions in
order to strengthen adherence to regulations, procedures and accountability by public
servants. These calls for uniformity of action, standardized guidelines applicable to all,
and the prevention of discretionary decisions by responsible managers is in fact a
demand for bureaucracy.

Even though typically most large corporate entities with strong drive for profit
maximization and growth might not be very much inclined to bureaucratic principles.
Public sector organizations such as the USAID function very well based on bureaucratic
principles. By anchoring its operations on researched and tested rules or processes, the
institution is helped to embrace essential values and ethics necessary to function in a
consistent and fair manner (Green, 1997). In addition, having adopted advanced models
of information technology, the seemingly cumbersome government processes in service
delivery, execution of administrative functions have shifted in a positive way (Waller,
1998).

Regardless of the inherent weaknesses of bureaucratic principles, it is difficult to imagine

how a large-scale corporation such as the USAID can function effectively in the absence
bureaucratic regulations. In short, the desire to eliminate any form of bureaucratic
structure is impractical. Given the above, what extent can we substantiate the continued
use of bureaucratic principles in a modern and highly complex environment?

As already, alluded bureaucracy is a formal, clearly defined and hierarchical structure of

management system. I submit therefore, that as organizations – i.e. both public and
private in nature – become more complex, simpler and flexible bureaucratic structures be
adopted.

Page | 13
In order to achieve maximum operational efficiency under a bureaucratic system. There
is need to adapt organizational solutions that strike a balance of flexibility without
however, completely departing from the traditional bureaucratic model. To achieve this I
suggest the following propositions:

Decentralization and adoption of flatter management structures to enhance faster and

efficient decision-making process. Ultimately enhancing service delivery and customer
satisfaction. We attain flatter management structures through enhanced management
scope and reduction in layers between top management and lower or removing layers of
middle management.

Adoption of robust organizational knowledge management systems that provides every

employee equivalent level of understanding and capability to perform required job
functions. In most recent years for organizations to remain competitive have begun to
develop detailed inventory of core competencies. In order to fully exploit current
knowledge, managers and employees are required know what their institutions knows.
This also ultimately improves the level of service delivery and customer service
(Ridderstrale, 2001).

3.2. The Human Relations Approach

The classical writers were mostly focused on the need to formalize structure for optimum
productive efficiency within any given structured institution. However, the need to
strategize management approaches with a focus on social and behavioral touch was
conceived during the 1920s. Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard are identified as
being early proponents of this philosophy of management thought. Principally the
humanistic management philosophy is categorized in three subfield: human relations
approach, human resources perspective, and the behavioral sciences approach (Bounds
and Dobbins, 1995).

3.2.1. Human Relations Movement

The foundation idea for human relations movement was a belief that strict authoritarian
management does not provide effective control, as individual workers are capable of self-

Page | 14
control (Scott, 1971). This school of thought therefore, acknowledges the need to have
enlightened and fair treatment of employees as a way of motivating productivity.

Due to the prominence of scientific management movement. The early days of the
industrial psychology movement had minimal impact. There was a complete twist of
events however, when a series of studies commonly known as the Hawthorne studies at
a Chicago electric company come into effect. Hawthorne studies were a chain of
investigations on worker productivity that begun in 1924.

The Hawthorne study design was based on four experimental and three control groups
of which five different tests were performed in each group (Greenwood, et al 1983). Elton
Mayo, and Fritz Roethlisberger supervised these studies, for almost six years. It is argued
that results from these experiments were highly contentious because so many
uncontrolled factors come into play thereby diminishing the academic integrity of the
findings.

Evaluation of the Human Relations Approach – Criticism and Relevance

Based on the methodological weaknesses of the Hawthorne experiments, the human

relations approach is subject to a fair amount of criticism. Among the obvious
methodological weakness pointed was the failure by investigators to take account of
environmental factors. The results of the first Relay Assembly Test Room (RATR)
experiment are said to have been highly disputable. This is because many factors were
changed and so many unforeseen factors uncontrolled such that intellectuals disagree on
the factors that truly contributed to the general increase in performance over the study
period.

As such, the human relations proponents are criticized for an oversimplified management
viewpoint towards worker productivity (Silverman, 1970). In other words the approach
was said to be less scientific as it adopted a narrow perspective that ignored the role of
the organization itself and how society operates. For example,

"Hawthorne experiment results were prone to several interpretations attributable

to sex power differential. The group in the relay assembly room where output

Page | 15
 increased was all female, while in the bank wiring room where output was
restricted was all male. The workers in the relay assembly test room were all young
unmarried women. All except one were living at home with traditional families of
immigrant background. In the work environment of the factory, the women had
been subjected to frequent contact with male supervisors and therefore ‘the sex
power hierarchies in the home and in the factory were congruent’. It is suggested,
therefore, that it was only to be expected that the women agreed readily to
participate with management in the relay assembly test room experiment" (Stead,
1978).

Regardless of the scholarly soundness of the Hawthorn findings, the propositions of the
human relations approach have significantly influenced most organizations human
resources policies. The conclusion suggesting that a positive correlation existed between
employee output and the way management treated them generated a mass movement
interested in organizational efficiency through better treatment of workers.

The USAID is one of the organizations that apply the principles of human resource
motivation consistent with Human Relations Approach. USAID ADS series 400 is the
institutions human resource guideline. This ADS 400 series provides among other thing
an elaborate description of motivational factors such as award, recognition, performance
management, and professional development programs. All these factors are an
acknowledgement that the USAID values the principles of human relations approach.

Contrary to classical proponents whose belief was that, increased production was a
direct function work rationalization. The human relations movement embraced the idea
that humanizing the work organization could lead to increased worker productivity. In
other words human relations approach requires understanding of people’s psychological
and social needs at work as well as improving the process of management.

3.2.2. Human Resources Perspective

Certainly, the limitations in the human relations approach and assumption that a satisfied
worker is a productive worker gave rise to the human resources perspective.

Page | 16
In addition to the principle that productivity in workers is stimulated by good management.
The human resources perspective further suggested the need to combine motivation
factors and inspiring job designs (Scott, 1971). With regards to the later, workers should
be provided a platform to perform inspiring job tasks. In other words, the assigned tasks
should not be in any way viewed as patronizing, but should instead give an opportunity
for demonstration of maximum potential. Under this scope of management theory, we
have Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor as the pioneers (McGregor, 2008).

Through his practice as a psychologist, Abraham Maslow concluded that predominantly

most of his clients were unhappy because of their unmet needs. In view of this
consideration, a hierarchy of needs was proposed. According to Maslow, the hierarchy of
needs begins at a physiological level and advancing to safety, belongingness, esteem,
and, finally, self-actualization needs (Daft, 2010). Based on this sequence, it is suggested
that progression upwards is conditional to one achieving the bottom needs. The needs at
the bottom are basic and we cannot live without them. In spite of the fact that Maslow did
not initially expect his work to be applicable to management, his ideas have been at the
center of management approaches on motivation and work design. There is a perfect
connection and progression from Maslow’s work and the human relations approach.

As for Douglas McGregor, he challenged the classicalist and the suppositions of human
relations on human behavior. Basing his argument on Maslow’s work, his practical
managerial experience, and his training as a psychologist. He suggested that the adopted
management style is a direct outcome the manager’s attitude towards human nature and
behavior at work. He put forward two suppositions called Theory X and Theory Y, which
are based on popular assumptions about work and people (Yaeger, 2011).

3.2.3. Behavioral Sciences Approach

By using, scientific approaches from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and

economics the Behavioral Science Discipline is credited for propagating theories about
human behavior and interaction in an organizational setting. The proponents of this
management philosophy further define employees as being naturally complex and cannot
simply fit the economic and social propositions of the classicalist and the human relations’

Page | 17
approaches respectively. The approach further advances the notion of work, and how
much it will fulfill the human need to indicate capabilities and proficiency.

By integrating leadership and group dynamics, the behavioral approach maximizes the
benefits associated with work performance, communication, motivation, and participatory
management. By taking into account, the superiority of leadership in accomplished
management. It focuses on team cohesion and perceives organizational success as a
reflection of individual personality and team conduct.

The practical applications of this management branch are visible in virtually all
organization settings. The concepts of team coordination with the purpose of attaining
organizational goals, staff development and training to stimulate work efficiencies, and
adoption of reward and incentive-based techniques for staff motivation. Have fully been
embraced by the USAID. As already alluded to earlier in this paper, the USAID ADS 200
series fully document how these critical human resource functions are applied in a
practical sense.

The Behavioral Approach to Management is challenged on the basis that human behavior
is complex and cannot be modeled to predict with accuracy the outcomes of changes in
management approach.

3.3. Post Humanistic and Classical Approach

The post– World War II period saw the ascent of new ideas, alongside there was a
sustained enthusiasm in behavioral management principles that promoted ideas such as
team building, group dynamics, and different ideas that identify with the humanistic
viewpoint, as represented prior in this paper. Among the concepts that have emerged
post humanistic and classical era are systems theory and contingency view.

3.3.1. Systems theory

As it has already been alluded to the classicalist movement was mostly interested in
instituting necessary technical processes in organizations. Whereas the human relations
movement called for a management process that accentuated the mental, social
perspectives, and the thought of human needs.

Page | 18
The systems theory of management provides a fusion of the two models by focusing on
the entire organization and the interrelationships of structure and behavior, and the choice
of factors within. The management approach encourages managers to have a holistic
perspective in dealing with organization and the bigger atmosphere it operates from.
Under a systems management approach, organizations are open system, which
perpetually networks with the broader outward environment of which it is part. The notion
therefore is that there is a chain causality process between activities and the rest of
organization components. Consequently, the reactions of prior approaches to deal with
organizations are positioned to some extent on an endeavor to contemplate actions and
issues of the entity exclusively as far as the interior environment (Daft, 2010).

Systems thinking management approach is applicable to USAIDs development

programing assistance and program implementation cycle. The Program Implementation
Cycle (PIC) is a USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing, and
adapting development programing. The PIC applies a number of tools that embrace
system-thinking approach. Some of the popular tools the USAID uses in its development
planning process are the logic model and results framework.

In applying system concepts, USDAID does not only limit itself to meeting the objectives
and performance of different program areas of focus. The institution through its program
cycle operational model conducts a thorough analysis of various factors that would affect
achievement of intended performance.

The systems approach has been criticized for failure to examine the orientation of
individual members to the organization, the different expectations people have of their
work or ways in which the environment influences expectations of work.

3.3.2. The Contingency Approach

The classicalist approach proposed one best type of structure and put prominence on
general arrangements of standards while the human relations approach gave little
consideration at all to structure. Interestingly, the contingency approach demonstrated
reestablished worry with the significance of structure in influencing managerial execution.
As an extended idea to the systems management branch, contingency management style

Page | 19
provides feasible methods for separating among different available managerial
frameworks. The contingency approach therefore argues that every adopted
management style should be flexible enough to respond to the relevant tasks. In short,
managerial tasks should be contingent upon the desired situation (Daft, 2010).

Managerial processes therefore, should be dictated by situations being dealt with.

Therefore, according to the contingency argument, the idea that only one best way to
structure an organization is unrealistic. In view of the aforementioned managerial systems
should be contextualized in relation to the relevant factors. It is however, difficult to
contextualize the application of this management philosophy to a highly bureaucracy
entity such as the USAID. As a United States federal agency, the USAID exclusively relies
upon written rules and regulations, which in most cases cannot be changed at will to suite
individual common sense.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Taking interest to learn the evolution of management theory and various approaches is
significantly critical to the practice of modern management. Primarily the objective of this
paper was to provide various perspectives of management thinking and their possible
applications to modern establishments. Tacking a historical context, the paper anchored
its analysis on four broad sub categorization of management theory.

The classical theorists were intentional about the need to establish well-thought-out
technical specifications to achieve optimum worker productivity. They further argued that
employee’s behavior was rational. Hence incentivizing productivity through high wages
would lead to increased productivity. As for the humanistic approach, the belief was that
employee productivity was correlated to social and psychological wellbeing. Therefore, a
manager with deep intimate social connection with employees was most likely to succeed
in motivating his employees to work harder. The system approach advocates emphasized
on the need for managers to be more holistic in their approach. Furthermore and the need
to understand how specific sets of actions will results into intended objectives and the
extent to which environmental factors within and outside might affect the desired
outcomes. Finally, the contingency theorist suggests that the adopted management
approach should be flexible enough to respond to applicable situations.

Page | 20
These disciplines of thought are a firm foundation to unravel the systematic evolution of
management thinking. We should however, not restrict our understanding of management
entirely on the theories discussed above, as it is possible that additional themes can
emerge from these sub-categories.

The blend in management thinking provides multiple benefits to organizations and

practicing managers. This entails that organizations and managers can be flexible in their
ability to solve problems as they tap knowledge from various vantage perspectives.

Therefore, in our choice between philosophy and science, it is important that we view
management philosophy as our guide to weave through modern complex management
systems. Whatever, criticism advanced towards various management philosophies. Its
study is indispensable to perfecting the art of management practice.

Page | 21
 5. REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. John Wiley & Sons.
Bounds, G. and Dobbins, G. (1995). Management: A Total Quality Perspective. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-
westerns College, pp.pp. 52–53.
Caulkin, S. (1988). Faceless Corridors of Power. Management Today, p.p.65.
Cloke, K. and Goldsmith, J. (2002). The end of management and the rise of organizational democracy.
San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Daft, R. (2010). Management. 9th ed. South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Gospel, H. and Littler, C. (1983). Managerial strategies and industrial relations. Heinemann Educational
Books.
greatvideoresources (2013). Evolution of Management. [image] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=EobeHwOw3S4 [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018].
Green, J. (1997). ‘Is Bureaucracy Dead? Don’t Be So Sure’. Chartered Secretary, pp.pp. 18–19.
Greenwood, R., Bolton, A. and Greenwood, R. (1983). Hawthorne a Half Century Later: Relay Assembly
Participants Remember. Journal of Management, 9(2), pp.217-231.
McGregor, D. and Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2008). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill
Professional.
Miner, J. (1980). Theories of Organizational Behaviour. Dryden Press.
Mullins, L. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour 9th edn. Harlow, United Kingdom:
Pearson Education Limited.
Ridderstrale,, J. (2001). ‘Business Moves Beyond Bureaucracy’, in Pickford, J. (ed.) Financial Times
Mastering Management 2.0. Financial Times Prentice Hall, pp.pp. 217–20.
Scott, W. (1971). Work Organizations: Major Theoretical Perspectives.Curt Tausky. American Journal of
Sociology, 77(1), pp.180-181.
Silverman, D. (1970). The Theory of Organisations. Heinemann.
Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior. Third edition. Free Press.
Stead, B. (1978). Women in Management. Prentice Hall, p.p. 190.
Stern, S. (2001). Guru Guide. Management Today, pp.p. 83-4.
Stewart, R. (1999). Reality of Management. 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Usaid.gov. (n.d.). Organization | U.S. Agency for International Development. [online] Available at:
https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018].
Waller, P. (1998). ‘Bureaucracy Takes New Form’. Professional Manager, p.p. 6.
Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
Yaeger, T. (2011). Journal of Management History; Honoring Douglas Mcgregor and the Human Side of
Enterprise. Emerald Group Publishing.

Page | 22