The Contribution Of Administrative
Management Theoretician In Developing
The Classical School Of Organization
*Ph.D. Eva Pataki**Prof. Andras Sagi, Ph.D.
* Polytechnical Engineering College, Subotica, Serbia
** Faculty of Economics, Subotica , Serbia
peva@vts.su.ac.yu
Abstract— The author tries to present and analyze
the influence of theoreticians of administrative
management on developing the classical school in
the narrow sense, i.e. taylorism. In the first part,
the author considers the thoughts of Fayol, the
most eminent theoretician of administrative
management concerning the enterprise
organizational structure and the principles of
successful management. It is followed by the review
of H. Gant’s first ideas of labor relation
humanization, then the teachings of Urwick and
J.D. Mooney on rational coordination and job
distribution. At the end, the author considers the
importance of large organization
departmentalization. In conclusion, he gives the
concise comparison of differences and similarities
in conceptions of representatives of the scientific
organization (teylorists) and theoreticians of
administrative management.
Key words: teylorism, administrative
management, management principles, labor
relations humanization, departmentalization
I. INTRODUCTION
Two directions in developing the classical
theory of organization differ. The first one
deriving from the theory of Taylor, the so-called
Taylorism, sees the importance in ‘more perfect
machines’, physical activities of workers and
studying the time periods and developed program
of behavior (method) transforming the worker to
a more efficient mechanism. Some theoreticians
identify this direction with the whole classical
school in the narrower sense. The second
direction, including the theories of Fayol, Urwick
and others, concentrates on big systems and their
internal organizational distribution problems and
job coordination. Representatives of these second
directions are called the theoreticians of
administrative management.
978-1-4244-5349-8/09/$26.00 ©2009 IEEE
“The classical theory gave the first theoretical
teachings in the field of studying organizations as
the process. We cannot talk about a strict
sequence of this approach, but its limits and
domains are given by Taylor, Fayol and other
followers of the bureaucratic teachings (Weber)”
(Ahmetagic, 2002, p. 22). Taylorism, according to
its interpretations, represents the scientific
method of work organization, i.e. “the only best
way” how to work. It studied the problem of
organizing production. Enterprises, flexibly
applying Teylorism in organization of
production, have done their production programs
more adaptable to work conditions. Elasticity,
flexibility of organization of production
contributes to reducing technical errors and
possible misunderstanding among workers.
Limiting freedom of movement, strictly
determined working hours and monotony of
working tasks negatively influence on the
psychology of work. Social conflicts and absence
from work force the owners of enterprises to
stimulate workers by the method of assessment.
Basic ideas of the classical school appeared in
the period between 1900 and the middle of 1930s
and being associated with the names of Weber,
Galick, Taylor, and others. They considered the
organization as a big mechanism. Organization of
production is similar to the machine composed
from the row of plans and rules with the goal to
perform tasks. According to this theory, the
organization is more successful and its internal
activities more flexible if the structure
successfully adapt to regulated tasks for
specialization, standardization, i.e. for a precise
formalization of rights and procedures.
Coordination of procedures is possible with the
centralization of decision-making and hierarchy
of functions. The organizational hierarchy should
be in the way that every level is managed by one
higher management level. Management should be
limited so the higher management level can
399
manage, in an appropriate way, the lesser rank of 1. Planning: completely developed
staff. There must be power, authority, programs,
responsibility and skillfulness for every sphere of
work activities. The basic aim is the performance 2. Organization: establishing the
of determined tasks according to the order, organizational structure,
excluding personal opinions, proposals and 3. Direct management: orders for tasks
changes in the work of workers. These classical performance,
motives of the classical school take the central
place in Weber’s idealized bureaucratic model. 4. Coordination: harmonizing efforts and
There are static formations with static elements in tasks difficulty,
this conception of the organization, considering 5. Control: observe issued orders and set
that work suitability and routine work rules.
performance stimulate workers. Conflicts are
possible only for errors in the foundations of (It might be mentioned in passing that
designing the organization. The reason of great contemporary management theory starts from this
influence of the classical school on the five management functions; Scheme 1).
environment is in combining the formal and
organizational structure. Therefore, the general
tendency is not surprising, which considers the
organization structure as a structure where
suitability and mutual activities should be
broadened and developed.
Theoreticians of the so-called administrative
management try to realize the truth and set formal
models in their analyses, starting from the
activities of workers, fatigue, and coordination of
motions. The major objective of this work is to
present and analyze the influence of theoreticians
of administrative management on developing the
classical theory of the organization in the Figure 1 Fayol’s organization structure of the enterprise
narrower sense, i.e. Taylorism.

II. FAYOL’S IDEAS OF THE

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND
SUCCEDDFULNESS OF THE BUSINESS
ORGAZINATION
Fayol was the first, probably the most
important representative of the theory of
administrative management. He considered that
in organizations we should start from defining
basic activities; and they are: technical activity,
commercial activity, financial activity, and
activity of security (people and resources),
accounting activity and management activity.
We should emphasize that Fayol isolates
management activity from other activities,
considering that other activities have no task to
make plans of the organizational work, carrying
out the social structure f the enterprise,
coordination and harmonization of the
organization’s goals. Management is also
multifunctional, i.e. as with other activities, it
divides at the lower and higher levels of the
organization. The manager at the top levels of the
organization provides work in all other functions.
In accordance with this, Fayol defines and
analyzes the following elements of management
(Taylor listed four ones):
Successfulness of the organization, according
to Fayol, depends on the capability for
determining the principle of management.
Fourteen principles have been determined which
should be dynamic, adaptable for cases in the
course of successful management, and they are:
1. Division of labor (work efficiency,
advancement);
2. Authority – sphere of activity –
responsibility (right to order);
3. Discipline (observing and obeying rules);
4. Single management (one task from one
manager);
5. Harmony in management (only one
manager coordinates the applied
management);
6. Adapting individual interests to general
interests of workers in accordance with
the organizational interests;
7. Earnings of workers (correctness of
assessment to work performed);
8. Centralization (appropriate relationship of
centralization should be found in the
organization);

400
 9. Way of hierarchical advancement
(hierarchical chain from top to bottom);
10. Production conditions should be provided
at the right time and in the right place);
11. Acceptability (the manager should be
patient and correct to associates and
subordinate);
12. Stability of labor (low level
fluctuation);
13. Initiative (staff should be enabled to
express opinions and realize plans);
14. Unity of workers (group spirit makes
unity stronger).
There is no need and possibility to elaborate
Fayol’s principles of management. Instead, we
cite Fayol’s ideas of hierarchy and its role in
efficient management. To Fayol’s opinion,
hierarchy is a chain of managers, starting from
top management to the lowest levels. Single
management is the only way to provide obeying
the hierarchical way. In large organizations, to
evade the slow course of information because of
many scales in the enterprise’s hierarchical
structure, he suggests, because of fast reaction in
extraordinary circumstances, the “bridge” for
shortening the flow of information. Skipping
some stairs in the hierarchical structure to top is
possible, but direct managers for some problems
must be informed. Therefore, according to Fayol,
managers of higher levels can provide the
hierarchical structure in cooperation with lower
management.
The next scheme illustrates the Fayol’
Communication Bridge
Figure 2 The Fayol’ bridge for shortening the flow of
information
HENRY GANTT – THE FIRST IDEAS OF
HUMANIZING LABOR RELATIONS
The second important representative of the
theory of administrative management was Henry
Laurence Gantt, who was Taylor’s faithful
follower, and for whom the beginning ideas on
the need of human relationship humanization are
associated. “Hammond in the known Maynard’s
handbook lists, in this way, Gantt’s contributions
in this field:
1. Researching motives, analyzing aims and
systems of remuneration, based on a very
successful stimulation system;
2. High reputation which is attained with
workers, usually higher than the
administration has;
of
3. Defending training of workers in front of
the management;
4. Recognition of the social responsibility in
industrial business;
5. Measuring the results of management by
the technique of Gantt charts, or any other
way;
6. Publishing numerous articles on the
conception of management, as well as
three books: Industrial Management;
Works, Wages and Profit, and Organizing
for Work (Susnjar, 1995, p. 314).
H. Emerson, the known theoretician, also
important representative of the classical school,
developed further the theory of humanizing labor
relations, considering that a good organization
needed following elements: goals, mind,
capability of competence, discipline, impartiality,
reliable reports, control, norms, conditions,
standard procedures, instructions and efficient
rewarding.
III. IDEAS ON COORDINATION AND
JOB DISTRIBUTION AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF
DEPARTMENTALIZATION OF LARGE
ORGANIZATIONS
An important contribution to developing the
classical school of organization, by
representatives of administrative management,
Urwick and Mooney is associated with the
problem of job coordination and distribution
according to the sectors of large companies. The
goal of their researches is the analysis of tasks
which repeat and renovate cyclically in
workshops. Their performance does not need
great effort and complexity because their
simplicity. Urwick points to ten important
principles of efficient organization:
specialization, coordination, authority,
responsibility, definition of tasks authority and
responsibility, coordination of authorities and
responsibilities, range of management,
equilibrium and continuity.
In contrast to Urwick, James D. Mooney
emphasizes only five principles of organization:
vertical coordination, horizontal coordination,
top management, delegating, and power.
401
 Contribution of Urwick and Mooney’s
researches is the evidence that obeying well set
principles of organization largely increases
efficiency and successfulness of functioning well
organized large companies.
The last, but very important – in contemporary
conditions up-to-date (especially in our country)
–the field where the theory of administrative
management has contributed to advancing the
classical theory of organization is the
departmentalization of large companies. Galik,
Urwick, Kun, Fayol and other theoreticians
analyze the problem of contemporary
departmentalization, putting the question of
specialization. Namely, it is considered that
departmentalization slow down specialization in
small business because the worker, in the course
of the day, performs many kinds of jobs, while
with large organizations, specialization is
stimulating. “Therefore, the equilibrium of net
efficiency moves from the organization on the
basis of the process to the organization based on
the goal, as the size of organization increase”
(James, et al, 1972, p. 33).
Results of researching the cited authors
associated with the problem of
departmentalization of large organizations can be
summarized in these conclusions: If there is in
advance prepared scheme of hierarchy of
resources and goals, division of the organization
into departments is unclear. Departments,
established according to set goals, must
cooperate “shoulder to shoulder”; therefore
every department bears success or failure.
Department management, established according
to the process of labor, is more complex relating
to goals because, except preventing conflicts
among departments, their successful cooperation
is their task, too.
IV. CONCLUSION
Comparing ideas of the classical school in the
narrow sense, i.e. teachings of the “scientific
organization” and its (later) direction made by
theoreticians of administrative management and
pointing to their contribution to general
development of the theory of organization, we
can conclude the following:
1. In the classical school of organization, i.e.
with the representatives of the “scientific
organization”, the analysis of formal
organization holds an important place.
The classical school represents a strong
mechanistic style about the human. The
human, worker is only a resource, more
perfect than a machine in attaining higher
organizational productivity. The classical
school places an important emphasis on
economic needs of the human, thus the
human works. Working the worker
402
satisfies his/her personal needs, but also
the employer’ interests, too. Interests of
workers and capitalists must coordinate.
Taylor (and most classicists) considers
that harmonization must be attained
instead of conflicts. The worker is
interested in maximal productivity
because he/she knows that hi/her wage
will be higher. He/she is satisfied to be
employed and healthy and therefore
he/she performs set norms; as well as the
manager is satisfied by his/her work
hoping to higher salary. If this realizes,
the worker becomes a more faithful and
diligent robot.
2. According to Fayol, Galik, Weber and
other representatives of the theory of
administrative management, they treat the
organization as a device or machine
having appropriate plan and rules with
the task to enable reporting the set routine
tasks. The organization is stronger if its
internal structure is efficient and ready to
adapt to rules and strictly standardized
principles. Harmonizing activities is
possible by centralizing decisions and
establishing the hierarchy of functions.
The hierarchy must be set so that every
management level can have only one
higher level which supervises it.
Management should obligatory enable the
higher level of management to manage
freely. In any case, management,
responsibility and skill relate to every job.
The major objective is task performance.
These basic, classical principles are in the
center of Weber’s teachings of idealistic
and bureaucratic models. According to his
theory, suitability of determined tasks
motivates workers for their performance
(possibility of advancing on the
hierarchical scale and fear of dismissal).
Conflicts are only faults in building the
organization.
3. Ideas of representatives of the “scientific
organization”, i.e. “Teylorists” and the
“theoreticians of administrative
management” have some common
characteristics. Their teachings, in some
sense, make the complete entirety. “Their
common trait, especially for their formal
versions, that they are interested in simple
neurophysiologic characteristics of human
beings and simple kinds of tasks
performed in organizations” (James, et al,
1972, p. 24). “In case of the classical
administrative science, the problems of
realizing definitions for classical
changeable values and providing the
empirical verification for appropriate
 attitudes and suppositions, which can be [3]
activated, are very important” (James, et
al, 1972, p. 33). These limitations are:
[4]
motivation, conflict of interests, the flow
and processing information, ambiguity in
decision-making and task setting. [5]
[6]
V. REFERENCES
[1] Ahmetagic, E.: Organizacija preduzeüa (Organization
of the Enterprise), izdavaþ ýikoš, Subotica, 2002. [7]
[2] Denison, D. R.: Corporate Culture and Organizational
Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1990.
Gvisianyi, D.: Szervezés és irányítás (Organization and
Management), izdavaþ Kossuth Könyvkiadó,
Budimpešta, 1972.
Kenneth, B.: Stvaranje visokoproduktivnih timova
(Creating the Highly-Productive Teams) izdavaþ
Global, Novi Sad, 1995.
Dzems, Dž., Merþ, H. E., Sajmon: Teorija o
organizacijama (The Theory of Organizations), izdavaþ
Grafiþki zavod, Beograd, 1972.
Šušnjar, G.: Nauka o radu u organizaciji (Labor Science
in the Organization), izdavaþ Ekonomski fakultet
Subotica, 1995.
Weber, M.: Gazdaság és társadalom (Economy and
Society), izdavaþ KJK, Budimpešta, 1967.

403