Abstract

Organization management has had two major schools of thought in the last century. These were the classical and neoclassical approaches to management. While the classical approach emphasized on authoritarian approaches, the neoclassical theories (human relations and systems theory) emphasized on employee welfare and organization structure. These two were underscored by a framework developed by Max Weber’s Bureaucracy theory. Once an organization structure is formed hierarchically, at least to an extent, the neoclassical approaches seem to work best.
Introduction

This paper illustrates the dependence of beurecratic organization systems in public and private administration. Despite Max Weber’s writings being discredited in many sectors, his management principles for public and private organizations remain the single most popular form of organization structure. This paper elaborates irrefutably, how the classical organization theory was dependent on the bureaucratic form expounded earlier by Weber. Thereafter, despite opposing and sometimes contradictory positions on various aspects of organization structures, every neoclassical theory found itself still dependent on some form of Weber’s bureaucracy.

In simple words, neoclassical theories of organization, in particular the systems theory and the human relations theory also fell into step with the classical organizational theory when it came to establishing a form of bureaucracy in its operations. It is the intent of this paper to thus expound on the indispensability of Weberian model of bureaucracy, whichever of the later theories is implemented to formulate public and private organization structures.

Literature

To illustrate the case for this paper, let us first review the classical theory and its relationship with Weberian bureaucracy. This will helps us to highlight the opposing positions of the classical theories and the neoclassical theories that came thereafter. It is also important to trace how bureaucratic structures remained; despite the change of emphasis either on production or on employee’s working conditions.

Classical theory of organization evolved at the dawn of the 20th Century, presenting a merger of scientific management and administrative theory. More importantly, the classical theory was totally dependent on the Max Weber’s 1947 bureaucratic theory. Max Weber had stressed on the need of reducing ambiguity and diversity in organizations. Weber’s focus was on how an organization should establish clear and formal authority channels and control dynamics. The Weberian bureaucracy emphasized the ultimate need for an organizational structure of power that was hierarchical.

A great strength of this theory and what makes it an indispensable blue print of almost every theory after it, is that it readily recognized the great importance and reliability of specialization and division of labor. This requirement mandates formal set of rules to be institutionalized into a hierarchy structure in a bid to gain stability and functional uniformity. According to Bateson (1979), Weber’s genius was in the notion that an organizational behavior must involve a formal network of human interactions that relied solely on a cause and effect functioning.

For the classical theory to work in an organization, the rigid and mechanistic structures had to ingrain Weber’s ideas of specialization and division of labor. The greatest shortcoming of classical theory apparently became its explanation of peoples’ motivation to perform purely as consequent to economic reward. The need for structural effectiveness, employee welfare and division of labor was ignored to a large extent. This gave rise to the neoclassical organization theory.

The neoclassical theory of organization structures generated three distinct theories namely the human relations theory, behavioral theory and the systems theory. The neoclassical theory was intent on improving on the authoritarian structures of the classical theory, consequent to human relations movement in the developed nations. The leading objection held against the classical theory was an over conformity, rigidity and inefficiency in the organization. This rigidity cared little for the motivation, creativity and individual appreciation of employees. As such, the neoclassical theory came in with a display of genuine concern for the human needs of workers. This is the catch; the human relations and systems theories only improved on employee’s welfare upon the same structure that Weber had decreed as most effective. By manipulating the working conditions, an organization’s productivity improved, but the structure remained bureaucratic (Laszlo, 1996).