i

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY LOKOJA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION: THERE IS A WAY OF LOOKING AT

ORGANIZATIONS, THAT A SINGLE (ONE)
PRINCIPLES OR THEORIES CANNOT TOTALLY
EXPLAINE THE NATURE AND DYNAMICS OF
ORGANIZATIONS. ELUCIDATE

BY

OBAGBOYE FELIX
SPUG202420250413

COURSE CODE: BUS 201 (PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT)

COURSE LECTURER: EDINO, PhD

JANUARY, 2025
 2

Introduction

Yes, the idea that a single principle or theory cannot fully explain the nature of organizations is
based on the contingency theory of management. Contingency theory, also known as decision
theory, suggests that no one management style is best for every organization. Instead, different
environments require different organizational relationships to be most effective.

An organization is a deliberately organized social object, with a comparatively distinguishable

frontier, that functions on a fairly continuous source to attain a common objective or set of
objectives (Robbins & Mathew, 2009). Theories are supported managers understanding the
arrangement of executive organizations. A theory is a statement or system of thoughts, clarifying
something, grounded in broad-spectrum philosophies independent of the specific effects to be
clarified or the range of theoretical understanding or abstract thought. Organizational theory
purposes at empathetic to the structure within the organizations. It is envisioned to discover
whether there is a greater way for organizing organizations, or else, whether it differs centered
on the circumstances. One more objective is to recognize what sources the diverse structures
concerning organizations (Mili & Nasrullah, 2014).

In the present day, as the organizational surroundings have become to a greater extent
complication, organizations seem to be flat-structure, network affiliation, stratified class, elastic
and uncertain frontier. The development of organization theories conserved from exercise
contingent on the development of organization carries out. The development of organization
theories understands in three phases, i.e. classical, neoclassical and modern stage with the
development of the dynamic forces (Yang et al, 2013). At diverse phases, the interpretations and
approaches of organizational research have been transformed. These three phases give the
organization three new knowledge of development. The sequence of research pattern moved new
approaches and new ways to the research of modern theories of organization.

Organisation, according to the dictionary, “is the work of connecting inter-dependent parts so
that each has a special function, act, office or relation to the whole.” According to J.M. Gans,
“Organisation is the arrangement of personnel for facilitating the accomplishment of some
agreed purpose through the allocation of functions and responsibilities. It is the relating of efforts
and capacities of individuals and groups engaged upon a common task in a way as to secure the
 3

desired objective with the least friction and the most satisfaction to those for whom the task is
done and those engaged in the enterprise.”

Classical Organizational Theories

The development of administrative theory is drawn here in footings of interactions, all phase
being a development on the previous one. The classical theory of administration is as entitled as
it is the eldest theory (Maheshwari, 2003). The classical theory of organization accepts that
administration is a common structural concept, which has a common applicability, irrespective of
the condition and framework, and is subject to similar kind of complications. Thus, the central
character of this theory is the view that definite common philosophies of organization can be
operated out to simplify the smooth working of an organization. Situational discourse, the
classical organization theory was innate in a usual Western setting at the culmination of the
eighteenth century and commencement of the nineteenth century as soon as the Industrial
Revolution had stretched its apex and effectiveness and economy became the mottos of business
production. The classical theory of organization with its intrinsic structural preference rose up to
the event to rationalize the output. The classical theory of organization is erected about four vital
supports. They are the scalar and functional procedures, the division of labor, span of control,
and structure (Chakrabarty & Chand, 2012).

The classical theory creates some audacious suppositions. First, it undertakes that in an
organization the individual is a reflexive tool, who can be influenced at determination by the
owner or administration. Secondly, an individual is encouraged exclusively by financial
inducements. Thirdly, the classical theorists trust that a business is a closed system unaffected by
outward environment. In conclusion, on the formal organization, this theory as specified by
organizational diagrams, guides, official procedure and therefore disregards the informal
organization (Maheshwari, 2003).

One of the eldest of the classical theories is the scientific management theory which stresses on
the assignment or task. Scientific management swayed public administration throughout its
initial years, principally through the works of Frederick W. Taylor. Taylor's key thoughts and
procedures contain cost analysis, incentive pay-scales, time and motion study, functional
foremanship, the selection of employees scientifically, the training of employees carefully, etc.
Entirely these swayed the philosophy of initial. academics in public administration. Yet again,
 4

Max weber's bureaucracy, stresses on the formal theory of organization (Maheshwari, 2003). The
manager and French mining engineer Henri Fayol's "General and Industrial Administration"
(1916) is viewed as a magnificent impact to the devising of classical administration theory in
footings of five efficient components including 1. Planning 2. Organizing 3. Commanding 4. Co-
coordinating and 5. Controlling. He perceived administration as a common procedure which is
appropriate correspondingly in both public and private administrations. Fayol established an
agreed fourteen principles regarding the shaping of organizations (Naidu, 1996). The last,
accompanied by Fayol demonstrated by the works of L.F. Urwick, J.D. Mooney, Luther Gulick,
and A.C. Reiley recognize the significant essentials in the procedure of administration and the
structures common structures of administration, building the approach for the expansion of
generally adequate agreed principles (Maheshwari, 2003).

Neo-Classical Organizational Theories

With the expansion of output and the development of employee level of education, the
excessively severe principles and mechanical models of organization encouraged by classical
theories of the organization have produced consequently outcomes: the inner communications
are responsible for being misunderstood and the inner clashes become to a greater extent
common. Entirely these inspire the new theories of administration that would pay more
consideration to the human issue and inspire the humanize organization (Yang et al, 2013).
Neoclassical theory has made important influence to a considerate human behavior at the job and
in the organization. It has produced consciousness of the vast role of the human issue in
production. This method has given fresh thoughts and practices for a well understanding of
human behavior. Providers to this approach identify an organization, for instance, a social system
matter of the thoughts and cultural forms of the associate of the organization, leadership,
motivation, group dynamics, participation, the environment of the job, etc. organize the principal
of the neoclassical theory. This method transformed the opinion that employees are apparatuses
and promoted the acceptance that employees are treasured assets. Moreover, it placed the basis
for future expansion in management theory. The neoclassical tactic is not beyond limitations.
Firstly, it has deficiencies the accuracy of classical theory as human behavior is changeable.
Secondly, its inferences have the shortage of scientific legitimacy and suffer from an
experimental partiality, its conclusions are uncertain. Finally, its use, in reality, is very tough as it
 5

necessitates essential modifications in the philosophy and approach of both administration and
workforces (Sarker & Khan, 2013). Elton Mayo is well-known for his study which he started in
1924 at Hawthorne works, the western electric company in Chicago. He did several
experimentations and accepted diverse approaches to investigate the affiliation of the style of
leadership, working condition and other organizational issues with employee output. Elton Mayo
recognized different motivating issues which contain appreciation, association, sense of
belongingness and different societal facets connected to the workplace (Kashyap,
2015).Enchanting an evidence from the Hawthorne Experiments numerous theorists steered
research in the ground of relational and societal affairs amongst the associates of the
organization. These relationships are recognized as human relations. A sequence of research by
Abraham H. Maslow, Frederick Herzberg, Douglas Mc Gregor, Rensis Likert, Keth Davis and
others worked to what is the drive of human relation. Drive of human relation reasoned that
workers react principally to the societal setting of the workplace, containing societal habituation,
group customs and relational dynamics (Sarker & Khan, 2013).

Evaluation of Contingency Theory

The contingency organization theory has a more valued aspect to the outcomes of the
contemporary theorists of the organization who had reckoned the systems theory of
organizations. Burns concentrated on diverse types of organizations and their influence on
communication forms and on the events of managers. Moreover, he discovered the applicability
of diverse practices of organizations to shifting circumstances, particularly the influence of
practical improvement. In association with Stalker, they advanced two “ideal” kinds of
management that they said differ with environmental issues. These were the mechanistic graces
of management. They contended that in a constant atmosphere, the mechanistic grace of
management wins through. Difficulties and jobs of management in this environment are not
working into specialization within which every individual brings out his organized
responsibilities. On the other hand, organic style is improved to unsteady circumstances when
innovative and unfamiliar difficulties rise. There are the frequent modification and demarcation
of individual responsibilities, open and free communication for guidance (Dzimbiri, 2009).
Woodward tried to discover why there were dissimilarities between organizations in relations of
the sum of levels of power concerning top and bottom, the usual number of juniors per
 6

supervisor, the span of control, the simplicity or want of simplicity and degree of division of
purposes among specialists. Her research discovered the importance of technology in
manipulating organizational features (Dzimbiri, 2009). Lawrence and Lorsch's method is known
as the 'if-then" contingency organization theory. The short-term summary of the results of studies
directed by the two scholars are in the following:

a) If the environment is indeterminate and diverse, then the organization must be comparatively
unstructured and have extensively shared effect amongst the management staff;

b) If the environment is constant and varied, at that time a rigid structure of organization is
applicable; and

c) If the exterior environment is actually different and the inner environment is highly
distinguished, then there essential to be the very intricate assimilating instrument in the structure
of the organization (Sahni & Vayunandan, 2012).

Evaluation of Organizational Theories

The classical theorists of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth have made differently
appreciated influences to the theories and application of management. However, their theories
did not continually attain required consequences in the conditions that were emerging in the
initial twentieth century. Modifications were happening in this arena that offered delivery to
different standpoints on management. The classical theory of management was not simply vital
in the past, and then as well lasts to be vital in present, equally in the building of modern-day
organizations. The classical theories are grounded in a hierarchical structure, pyramid and
autocratic administration, strong chain of command and little spans of control.

The classical theory is seriously evaluated as being out of date in the modern world. The view of
a sensible economic person is frequently and intensely critiqued. In the 19th century, the reward
centered administration might be 100% appropriate and for limited individuals/organizations
now. This might not foot well in the present effort where the desires and level of education of
individuals have significantly transformed. Moreover, organizations have developed more
difficult and therefore necessitate more creativeness, possession, and decision from all of the
personnel. Besides, classical theory accepts that all kinds of administrations can be brought about
permitting to one agreed of philosophies, however, this necessity is not factual in all
 7

circumstances. With variations in aims, organizations, and atmosphere, organizations have made
variations in standard and how organizations essential to be achieved competently and efficiently
for better output (Ehiobuche & Tu, 2012). The philosophies comprehensive by the classical
theory are not exclusively scientific and besides did not get position for the assessment of time.
They revealed the individual’s experiential explanations and their personal reasonable inferences
and not a factual scientific- centered research and proof. Though the classical theory is assessed
as out-of-date and has turn out to the past, still this is the foremost school of thought and the
utmost prevalent kind of organization seen actually in nowadays business organizations even yet
they do not in applied terms reveal worldwide use and application (Őnday, 2016).

The human relations and neo-classical method required to revise the hierarchical structures of the
organization therefore enthusiastically adopted by classical writers. It distresses with the
approaches and feelings of the employee and the significance it involved to societal sets in
defining individual conduct obviously a key swing in the study of administrations. By leading its
consideration to the societal and emotional facets of administrative behavior the human affairs
method attracted to an extensive sort of human requirements that were measured vital to inspire
employees working in organizations. Providers to this neo- classical method acknowledged an
organization as a societal system dependent on the feelings and cultural forms of associates of
the organization. Leadership, motivation, group dynamics, involvement and employment
environmental issues were as well acknowledged as significant variables. This method
transformed the assessment that workers are simple apparatuses and in the procedure progress
the concept that personnel is valued properties (Nhema, 2015). Neo-classical theories are diverse
in their method as associated to Classical theories but both goals at attainment one general
objective specifically maximizing earnings. Motivation is a collective issue in equally the
theories by which they effort to increase the production of employees. Theories from classical
are more organized than Neo-classical arenas (Kashyap, 2015).

The modern organization theory very seldom reveals a search for the form of affairs (concerning
personnel, organization and the conforming environment) formation amongst sub-system and a
contingency assessment. The systems method to management contains inputs from the exterior
environment and from contenders, the transformation procedure, and the communication
arrangement, outside issues, outputs, and a method to reactivate the system. Undoubtedly, a
 8

manager who creates severe efforts to interpret theory into actuality is inevitable to raise output
above a manager who takes to practice the ‘fire brigade’ or experimental and fault method
(Olum, 2004). In contrast, the contingency theory of organization forms the relationship and
affiliation of the environment to specific arrangements of the organizations.

Conclusion

The 21st century has conveyed with it a different place of work, one in which everybody needs
to adjust to a quickly dangling society with continually ever-changing demands and prospects.
The economy has converted worldwide and is focused on modernizations and technology and
organizations have to convert themselves to attend different client expectations. Currently
economy offers inspiring prospects in addition to melodramatic ambiguity. The innovative
economy has converted knowledge centered and is performance focused. F. W. Taylor’s
scientific management utilized the scientific technique to regulate the “one best way” for a work
to be completed. Various existing management thoughts and theories can be found in the effort
of the common administrative theorists. The practical observation of a manager’s job relays to
Henri Fayol’s thought of management. Bureaucratic management of Weber has the features are
apparent in several of nowadays large organizations—though in extremely flexible organizations
that hire brilliant professionals. A number of bureaucratic apparatuses are essential in extremely
innovative organizations to confirm that possessions are used professionally and successfully. In
the current day perspective behavioral method/neo-classical theories helps managers in planning
jobs that stimulate workers, in functioning with worker teams, and in assisting the stream of
communication inside the organizations. The behavioral method / neo-classical theory deliver the
basis for contemporary theories of leadership, motivation, and group development and behavior.
Managers visualize an organization as a form with many inter-reliant parts, all of which is
significant to the welfare of the organization, for instance, a whole employing the systems
method. Managers organize the effort actions of the diverse parts of the organization,
understanding that judgments and activities taken in one organizational space will distress other
extents. The contingency method to management is an assessment that the organization identifies
and reacts to conditional variables as per they ascend. In these situations, the subjects in the
current perspective extent are esteem, involvement, empowerment, communication and self-
 9

management. In the condition of the above tasks, a different kind of leader is desired to lead the
business through unrest. In organizations, managers do this job. A manager is somebody who
organizes and supervises the effort of other individuals so that administrative goals can be able to
achieve. It is not almost individual attainment but facilitating others to do their work. Managers
could as well have extra duties of work not linked to organizing the effort of others.
 10

References
Abdullah, M. M. (2012). Public Administration. Dhaka: Jahan Publications.
Chakrabarty, B. & Chand, P. (2012). Public Administration in a Globalizing World: Theories
and Practices. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Dzimbiri, L. B. (2009). Organisation and Management Theories: an African Focus: Integrating
Structure, People, Processes and the Environment for Human Happiness. Cuvillier Verlag.
Ehiobuche, C., & Tu, H. W. (2012). Towards The Relevance of Classical Management Theories
and Organizational Behavior. ASBBS Proceedings, 19 (1), 310.
Hicks, G. H. & Gullet, C. R. (1975). Organizations: Theory and Behaviour. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Ivanko, Š. (2013). Modern Theory of Organization. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Kashyap, H. (2015). Relevance of Classical and Neo-Classical Theories in Present World.
Indian Streams Research Journal, 5(1), 104.
Maheshwari, S. (2003). Administrative Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Mcmillan India
Ltd.
Mili, B. R. & Nasrullah, A. N. (2014). Fundamentals of Public Administration. Dhaka:
Bangladesh Institute of Islamic Thought (BIIT).
Naidu, S. P. (1996). Public Administration: Concepts and Theories. Delhi: New Age
International Publishers.
Nhema, A. G. (2015). Relevance of Classical Management Theories to Modern Public
Administration: A Review. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 5(3), 165-179.
Olum, Y. (2004). Modern management theories and practices. Uganda: Makerere University.
Őnday, O. (2016). Classical Organization Theory: From Generic Management of Socrates to
Bureaucracy of Weber. International Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(1), 87-
105.
Robbins, S. P. & Mathew, M. (2009). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Applications.
New Delhi: India.
Sarker, S. I., & Khan, M. R. (2013). Classical and neoclassical approaches of management: An
overview. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 14 (6), 1-5.
Sahni, P. & Vayunandan, E. (2012). Administrative Theory. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private
Limited.
 11

Yang, C. X., Liu, H. M., & Wang, X. X. (2013). Organization Theories: From Classical to
Modern. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(21), 4470-4476.