Critical Analysis of the Disparate Schools of Management

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Facility management, Management, Property management
  • Pages : 5 (1605 words )
  • Download(s) : 91
  • Published : October 20, 2010
Open Document
Text Preview

Scholars in the field of management, from the late 19th century till modern times, have come up with different perspectives on how to manage people and organizations. These gave rise to what is called ‘Management Schools of Thought’. This study looks at the Classical School of Thought in relation to modern day management, as it pertains to the built environment. Though so many years have passed since the Classical School of Thought was developed, it is widely used in modern day management as the preferred choice by many organizations in the built environment.

One major area that arose from the Classical School of Thought is productivity and efficiency in the workplace [,articleId-8851.html]. Managers were so much inclined to assign workers to areas that best fitted their expertise. This was in order to increase their productivity and efficiency in their various responsibilities. A facilities services provider, ISS, uses a system that effectively manages its workers and all facets of a worker’s responsibilities by placing the right people in the right positions, based on their qualifications (BOOTY, 2008). This is also evident in Faceo FM UK, according to its Chief Executive, Chris Kenneally. In his words, “Our focus has been on the sustainability of our customers and putting the right people in the right positions to deliver what the client wants, as evidenced in a turnover of £40m of the £250m made by its parent company in France, where the bulk of the business is” (PFM Journal, 2008).

Bureaucracy is another important aspect of the Classical School of Thought (DAFT, 2005). Facilities management and Organizing go hand-in-hand, as the former cannot function effectively without the latter. A proper organizational structure gives room for specialisation and division of labour, as no one manager can manage, directly, all functions of an organization (LEWIS, 1998). This eventually avoids failures that may arise in the organization due to issues such as: the combination of the planning and design functions, with the operations and maintenance functions; or non-integration and synchronisation of the works of external consultants and contractors with in-house providers; or even classifying every single job to be done as a project, thereby trying to use the principles of project management (COTTS, 1999). In a research carried out by the R&D department of Spotless Sparkle Cleaning Services Limited (SSCSL Feasibility Report, 2006), leading and upcoming cleaning services providers in Nigeria operate a structured organizational model that enables them monitor and effectively manage people and resources within their respective organizations. In this structure, the janitors report to Head Janitors, who in-turn report to site supervisors. Site managers take charge of a certain number of sites each, and report to the operations manager. Other departments that complete this structure are Finance/Admin, as well as Sales/Marketing, all of which report to the Managing Director. Fayol and Weber were major proponents of the organizational structure/hierarchical system, which they say is the proper and most effective way in combining, communicating, coordinating and controlling individuals and departments (MORDEN, 2004). A proper organizational structure gives room for division of labour and specialization. WSP, a major player in the facilities management industry providing services in all continents, has a clear-cut organizational structure were the various divisions that pertain to the built environment work hand-in-hand to contribute to the bottom-line of the organization. 43% of their annual revenue comes from the Property department, while 33% comes from their Transport & Infrastructure department. The Management & Industrial, as well as the Environment & Energy departments contribute 13% and 11% respectively to the...
tracking img