was devised by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, superior” 1958). typology covers the same ground as the Tannenbaum Likert’s four-fold and Schmidt continuum in a more succinct manner it ranges from exploitive – – authoritative to participative (Likert, 1967). Furthermore research into the Side of Enterprise” “Human (McGregor, 1960) highlighted the role of personnel operating inside the organisational system. The concept of administration was seen in terms of the of subordinate “hierarchy – which exist within any superordinate relations” (Getzells, 1958:151) “intricate social was directed to the fact that system” (ibid). Attention “administration always operates in an interpersonal or social (ibid). Getzells, – relationship” clearly influenced by both schools of thought, regarded organisations as comprising two and phenomenally interactive “conceptually independent The ideographic dimension with its emphasis on the social dimensions” (152). aspect of work, the context under which work takes place, which was regarded as complementary to the nomothetic dimension, which highlighted the job content itself and that of the institution as a whole. Getzells thus regarded organisational effectiveness as a function of both dimensions the job context and the job – content. Scientific management theory had, through the writings of Taylor, Fayol, and Gulick, directed its attention solely on the job task itself. It has thus favoured a highly structured bureaucratic style of organisation in the Weberian mode. Post 1950s writers, emphasising the social nature of work, attacked such structuring as rigid and restrictive. For them, the main function of any organisation was to facilitate individual development through better organisation of human relationships. Increased productivity, according to the human relations theorists, occurred not through the utilisation of task formulae but rather through concentrating on the worker himself and on his needs. Man was seen to become apart from, rather than part of, a mere machine.
superior” was devised by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958). Likert’s four-fold typology covers the same ground as the Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum in a more succinct manner – it ranges from exploitive – authoritative to participative (Likert, 1967). Furthermore research into the “Human Side of Enterprise” (McGregor, 1960) highlighted the role of personnel operating inside the organisational system. The concept of administration was seen in terms of the “hierarchy of subordinate – superordinate relations” (Getzells, 1958:151) which exist within any “intricate social system” (ibid). Attention was directed to the fact that “administration always operates in an interpersonal – or social relationship” (ibid). Getzells, clearly influenced by both schools of thought, regarded organisations as comprising two “conceptually independent and phenomenally interactive dimensions” (152). The ideographic dimension with its emphasis on the social aspect of work, the context under which work takes place, which was regarded as complementary to the nomothetic dimension, which highlighted the job content itself and that of the institution as a whole. Getzells thus regarded organisational effectiveness as a function of both dimensions – the job context and the job content. Scientific management theory had, through the writings of Taylor, Fayol, and Gulick, directed its attention solely on the job task itself. It has thus favoured a highly structured bureaucratic style of organisation in the Weberian mode. Post 1950s writers, emphasising the social nature of work, attacked such structuring as rigid and restrictive. For them, the main function of any organisation was to facilitate individual development through better organisation of human relationships. Increased productivity, according to the human relations theorists, occurred not through the utilisation of task formulae but rather through concentrating on the worker himself and on his needs. Man was seen to become apart from, rather than part of, a mere machine.