Do you think they are applicable in your organization? If not, what forces drive such a change?
The two phrases that sum up the primary belief on work and human beings as perceived by Taylor are indeed applicable. The first phrase is all about job design, which is a fundamental approach towards understanding the particulars of any given job. Job design represents methodological approach through which the contents, methods, as well as, relationships of jobs are defined in order to satisfy a range o requirements including organizational, social, and technological needs of the holder of a job (Burnes, 2014). Once the job design has been understood, it is often the duty of managers, especially the human resource manager, to holistically implement it and ensure that it operates in a consistent manner.
The second phrase is also agreeable and applicable. However, without controlling this, workers would strive to use shortcuts in order to gain more and this is damaging, considering the goals that an organization has set. To avoid such a thing happening, most managers embrace what is known as job description, which involves clearly defining what a worker is supposed to do, step by set. Aside from this, they ensure close supervision to ensure that the instructions that underlie a job are adhered to, provide positive motivation, and link pay to performance (Burnes, 2014). With this, it follows that employees would not take shortcuts but would instead do what is required fully and comprehensively to their benefits and to the realization of the organizational goal.
Problems that need to be addressed for improvements in your organization based on Fayol’s management principles
Among the principles of management advanced by Henry Fayol includes division of work and equity. According to Fayol, the object of division of work is to produce not only more but also better work, however from the same effort, through advantages that are presented by specialization (Burnes, 2014). On the other hand, central to the principle of equity is to ensure that there is fairness in handling with employees throughout all levels of the scalar chain. In my organizations, there are two problems which ought to be addressed through these principles. Foremost, managers tend to undertake most of departmental tasks on their own, rarely involving teams. As a result, the level of productivity has been declining every year. This problem could be addressed using the division of work principle (Burnes, 2014). Managers ought to involve the team members more. They ought to break down any task and hand every member a portion, however depending on the area of specialization. In this way, better results will be achieved. Secondly, there have been growing complains that some employees are favored. As a result, there have been several go slow strikes, and even worse consequences are thought to emerge in the future if the issue is let unattended. To avoid this, a need for equity is there. The management of the organization should ensure that no employee is treated better than the other. For instance, if two employees have performed exemplarily, they should be rewarded the same.
Organizations are not machines but cooperative systems
SUBJECT: Organizations Are Not Machines but Cooperative Systems: The Merits
Organizations ought not to be perceived as machines, but rather as cooperative systems. They are systems in that they involve a significant range of aspects. For instance, there are inherent functions, they embrace several forms of economies, and are characterized by a set of resources such as human resource (Burnes, 2014). Unlike a machine, organizations as a system require the active cooperation of workers along with their passive obedience in order to work efficiently and effectively.
However, to achieve this effectiveness and efficiency, there are several things that have to be taken into account. It must be noted that workers are often motivated by factors such as rewards, and these includes social esteem and material rewards. While this is the case, it must be understood that factors tend to change over time. As such, what might motivate a worker at a particular time might not work in other times or in another organization. If all these are taken into account, the system is likely to work productively and consistently towards the realization of the overall systemic goal.
If treated as a machine, it means that the workers will be perceived as machines. Therefore, they will be expected to perform with little inputs or considerations. Therefore, there will be multiple breakdowns along the way, which means that the long-term goal of the organization will not be realized.
The major difference between contingency approach and classical approach
The chief difference between the two approaches is that the classical theories focus on an universal approach. As such, they propose the establishment of the most ideal management principle, which applies the same technique to all organizations (Burnes, 2014). In stark contrast, contingency approach to management holds out that not all situations and people ought to be handled identically. In other words, the theory puts forth that what is practically done in practice is contingent on and is dependent on a given set of circumstances (a situation). Unlike the classical theory, the classical view holds out that the effectiveness of managerial aspects tend to vary in accordance with given circumstances of identified situations (Burnes, 2014).
The difference between the two approaches could be explained by the following example. Suppose it has been noted that the overall productivity of the employees is lowering. In such a situation, a classic management theorist would seek to establish the most appropriate management principle, which is likely to solve the situation. A contingent manager would approach the situation differently. He or she would the employees that, if they perform in a way that matches a given level, they will be provided with certain incentives.