Criticisms of Classical organization theory

Thompson and McHugh (2002) point out that early 20th century management theory was promoted by engineers who were trying to 'extend the boundaries of their profession by trading on the general rise of interest in management and planning that was characteristic of the early part of the century.

Citing P.Armstrong from 1984, they observe that engineers found it difficult to 'sustain the privileged role as the focal point of management' as their own knowledge base became 'increasingly disconnected from their productive expertise. Argyris (1957) noted that if classical principles of formal organization are used, employees work in an environment in which:
1. They have minimal control over their working lives.
2. They are expected to be subordinate, passive and dependent.
3. They work to a short-term perspective.
4. They are 'induced to perfect and value the frequent use of a few skin-surface shallow abilities'.
5. Their working conditions are conducive to psychological failure.

In short, people are treated more as infants than competent human beings:

This approach is entirely at variance with the rhetoric (but perhaps not the reality) of modern management thinking with its emphasis on empowerment, team-work and motivated performance. Another weakness in classical organizational theory is the assumption that all organizations are somehow alike.