Page 38 - DMGT402_MANAGEMENT_PRACTICES_AND_ORGANIZATIONAL_BEHAVIOUR

Unit 2: Development of Management Theories

2. Criticism of Principles: The theory was not only criticised for its certain assumptions that Notes
are unrealistic in modern industrial world but it’s certain principles formulated by classical
theorists were also criticised. The main criticisms of classical principles are as follows:
(a) Lack of empirical research: Its various concepts and principles are developed by
practitioners in management which are mainly based on personal experience and
limited observation. They (principles) lack precision and comprehensive framework
for analysis. No scientific method was used. Moreover, it is not clear whether these
principles are action recommendation or simply definitions. Certain independent
specifications are to be made in understanding the meaning of an organisation. The
classicists have referred to the advantages of various organisational arrangements,
their arguments are one-sided and they offer no objective criteria for selecting one
method over other methods. March and Siman observed, perhaps the most crucial
failure of the administrative management theory is that it does not conform to the
practice. The theory tends to dissolve when put into testable form. Thus, not a single
principle is applicable to all organisational situations and sometimes contradicts
each other.
(b) Lack of universality: The classical theorists have claimed that these principles have
universal application. This suggests that these principles can be applied in: (i) different
organisations, (ii) different management levels in the same organisation, and
(iii) different functions of the same organisation. The empirical researchers, however
suggest that none of the principles has such characteristics. Moreover, there are
many principles which are actually contradictory with other principles.

Example: Principle of specialisation is quite in conflict with the principle of unity of
command.
The following are certain classical principles which are invariably questioned:
(i) Hierarchical structure: The classical theory is based upon the hierarchical
structure that establishes the authority relationship between individuals in an
organisation. It refers to arrangement of individuals in superior-subordinate
relationship. Today, the institutions of hierarchy based upon position within
the organisation is being discounted and the technological specialisation with
authority of knowledge is gaining importance.
(ii) Unity of command: The classical theory suggests that each person has one
superior. This principle has now become outdated. The trend is changing and
the organisation seeks help from other members who are not in their chain of
command, such as staff personnel. The organisations formally provides such
supervision and the members thus, work under multiple command instead of
under unity of command.
3. Excessive Reliance on Strength of the Key Characteristics: The classical theorists have
focused excessive reliance on the strength of four key pillars, i.e., division of labour, scalar
and functional process, structure and span of control. The neoclassicists who do not entirely
reject the principles of classical theory, have attacked these key pillars. Some of the more
important points raised by them are:
(a) Division of labour: Division of labour is one of the key pillars of the classical theory
but this tenet is criticised on the ground that there is no exclusive basis for grouping
products, process, person or place, can always be used. The considerations of expertise
and economy, warrants different approaches in different situations. Besides, division
of labour causes de-personalisation of work at the operative level which results in

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 33