researchers to consider the factory as a social system, and recognize that informal organization, social
norms, acceptance, and sentiments of the group determined individual work behavior. In contrast to
scientific management theory, the human relations approach pointed out the importance of leadership
in the organization and of emotional communication and participation.
The fundamental principle of scientific management was that all work could be scientifically studied,
and that optimal routines and regulations could be developed to ensure maximum efficiency. While
scientific management was developed in the United States, two Europeans also made noteworthy and
thought-provoking contributions to the formal study of management. First, Henry Fayol (1949), from
France, introduced the notion of ³V\VWHPDWLFPDQDJHPHQWWKHRU\ ́$VHxecutive and mining engineer,
Fayol played an important role in the field of management from 1888 until the time of his death in
- According to Fayol, the basic functions of any manager involved planning, organizing,
commanding, coordinating and controlling.
Second, Max Weber (1946, 1947), from Germany, derived both a theory of organizational structure ±
bureaucracy ± and a theory of authority, based on charisma. Although the term bureaucracy was not
invented by him, Weber was the first to codify and then slightly modify the system of organization
which is as old as history. Weber examined and analyzed in detail, the complex, fairly efficient and
very stable bureaucracy that had been the basis of the Chinese civilization for over 3000 years. He
also studied other bureaucratic systems that seemed to have been effective in terms of organizational
surYLYDODQGJRDODWWDLQPHQWLQFOXGLQJWKH&DWKROLFFKXUFKDQGWKH3UXVVLDQDUP\:HEHU¶VDQDO\VLV
of the bureaucratic form, was the first clear statement of organizational structure. Although today
SHRSOHRIWHQUHDFWQHJDWLYHO\WRWKHWHUP³EXUHDuFUDF\ ́ZKHQUHDGLQJ:HEHURQHbecomes aware that
bureaucracy was an valuable invention. According to Weber (1946) ³7KH GHFLVLYH UHDVRQ IRU WKH
advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other
foUPRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ ́(p.214).
ThLV³UDWLRQDO-OHJDO ́IRUPRIRUJDQL]DWLRQZDVEDVHGRQUXOHVVHSDUDWLRQRISRVLWLRQIURPSHUVRQ
specific work standards, and documented work performance. These principles were translated into
dimensions of bureaucracy, including formalization of procedures, specialization of work,
standardized practices, and centralization of decision making (Perrow, 1986). Early applications of the
bureaucratic model to the topic of effectiveness proposed that efficiency was the appropriate measure
of performance ± i.e. avoidance of uncoordinated, wasteful, ambiguous activities. That is, the more