The influence of classical approaches can be hard to identify in the context of emerging
markets. With nascent industries that are still trying to figure out how to be efficient,
everything can often seem chaotic and unproductive - a symptom of unmotivated work.
Nonetheless, this might actually prove the "soldiering" principle that notes workers
rarely put in more than the minimum effort - this is a common trait in Uganda. In fact, if
you work into some restaurants, it can be hard to get the right services. It often falls on
the customer to push the workers to get what they want. The concept of customers first
can seem foreign.
On the other hand, airports, hospitals and upscale restaurants do show evidence of
classical approaches. They push for efficiency and often the division of work is clear
between workers. Many hospitals in Uganda practice Specialization to some extent,
from reception, the patient goes to the next step of consultation before she first go to the
cash office to pay for services and then is attended to by the doctor then if he/she needs
to go to the laboratory thats another step this demonstrates that there is a different
skilled person at every level the patient reaches.
According to Fayol the basic principles of classical approaches can be seen basing on
the type of organization for example in Uganda there’s a lot of bureaucracy especially in
the government. This brings in orderliness since every level has its responsibilities.
Taylor in other words concentrated on productivity and manufacturing companies. In
Uganda there are companies like the Coca cola Company where theres a lot of
specialization in the factory at each stage its important to have a very skilled employee
so that there’s accuracy and limit soldiering.
Each approach is based on the organization that is to say, if it is a productivity and
manufacturing company the best approach is that of Taylor, in case of an organization
with management and structures, Fayol approach would be suitable.
