Classical management approaches, as defined in our text, “are represented by a collection of theories that share the underlying metaphor of organizations modeled after efficient machines (Eisenberg et al. p. 65).” These theories stem from early organization functions that were run with a governmental hierarchy structure and was built with specific leadership funnels that are in place. In this management structure, employees are to follow specific and structured outlines and follow specific paths to promotion.

An organization that follows this similar structure is my current position at a corporate disability company. Their structure is divided on business departments, then operations, managers (two levels), seniors, then base level employees. This structure is a specific hierarchy and structure to development and promotion with specific job duties for each. The organization is slowly growing into Taylor’s scientific management style, as our company is focusing on the collaboration between employees and their managers more and more as continuous innovation and improvement becomes imperative (Eisenberg et al. p. 71).

Although I believe that the classical management approach works well for our company now, I do believe that Fayol’s approach would be more beneficial. There are often times currently that our teams feel under appreciated or underutilized in our talents. In feeling this way, often teams look to their supervisors to be worthy of their titles. Currently, there are some who believe that the current management style focuses too heavily on “who you know” rather than the actual work itself and thus has created a rift between the management and the employees. With focusing on ensuring that the management lives up to the expectations set before them, employees would be more willing to collaborate and listen.

I agree that the classical management style is fair and sets clear expectations, but when a managerial inconsistency arises and employees are not given the fair opportunity, the management approach is stifled and eventually the relationships wither. There are some companies that don’t have these issues and their employees are happy with their given directives. I believe this model is most viable within specific industries and managerial expectations.

References:

Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L., Jr., & Trethewey, A. (2014). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (7th Edition). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.