In the 1920s and 1930s, observers of business management began to feel the incompleteness and shortsightedness in the Scientific as well as Administrative Management Movement. The Scientific Management Movement analyzed the Activities of Workers whereas the Administrative Management writers focused on the Activities of Managers. Importance of individua1 as well as group relationships in the work place were never recognized.
The social aspect of a worker’s job was totally discounted; the emphasis was clearly on discipline and control rather than morals. The defects or drawbacks of the Scientific and Administrative Management schools, like the over simplified notion of motivation of man and under estimation of human factors, brought into existence “the Human Relations School” or “Functionalist school”. This school is the outcome of the thought propounded by the behaviourists.
They looked at the organizations as people who work individually or in small and large groups. For them organizational effectiveness and efficiency depend upon the quality of the relationship. The neo-classical theory tried to compensate for the deficiencies in classical theory modifying it with insights from behavioural sciences like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.
The neo—classical theory did not reject the classical doctrine, but suggested that more goes into an organization structure than rules, regulations and strict rationality. In a way it has modified, and added to classical theory by emphasizing the fact that organization is a social system and the human factor is the most important element within it.
Human relations school has functionalism as the basic theory. Functionalism is
a sociological school of thought which views every organization as a social
system. All the members of the organization join it willingly. Their
continuance in the organization is based upon their acceptance of the central
value system or the objective of the organization. Here, there is no element of
compulsion on the part of workers.
This theory deals with the motivation of workers and psychology of man. It is mostly concerned with the way of improving moral of the workers not necessarily with monetary incentive, but with praise and informal relationship, better leadership, efficient communication, participation in decision making, team work and so forth. If workers are happy, the productivity will go up. According to the functionalist view, there is in every organization an informal organization apart from formal structure. Human Relations Theory maintains that workers are likely to take interest in their work and accept challenges if favourable circumstances are created.
This theory deals with the motivation of workers and psychology of man. It is mostly concerned with the way of improving moral of the workers not necessarily with monetary incentive, but with praise and informal relationship, better leadership, efficient communication, participation in decision making, team work and so forth. If workers are happy, the productivity will go up. According to the functionalist view, there is in every organization an informal organization apart from formal structure. Human Relations Theory maintains that workers are likely to take interest in their work and accept challenges if favourable circumstances are created.
The theory arose mainly out of
studies conducted around 1920s and 1930s by Elton Mayo, the founder and father
of this school of thought and F. Roethlisberger, Douglas Mc Gregor, Abraham
Maslow, Chris Aggris and so on. This school was started with the famous
Hawthorn Experiments at Western Electric Company by Elton Mayo (a professor of
Industrial Sociology) and his Harvard associates between 1924 to 1932. The
scholars examined the effects of social factors on the employees’ motivation,
satisfaction and leadership. Management of organization is human being
oriented. It is the quality of human beings working in the organization that
determines the efficiency. One of the most important propositions of this
school of thought is the theory of participative system in
administration which replaces the authoritarian system of control and
leadership developed by Taylor and his group. The Hawthorne studies began a chain of research
into human problem at work that is continuing even today. They were
instrumental in the early development of Personnel Management, Industrial
Psychology and Organization Theory. These studies “marked the beginning of an
ideological revolution in organizational theory”.
Elements of
the Theory:
The neo-classical theory challenges the economic man concept of the classical theory. It holds that every person is different (not homogenous as was the economic man philosophy), and that a person’s work group and other social factors are profoundly important. In summary, the Hawthorne experiments indicated that employees were not only economic beings, but social and psychological beings as well, demonstrated that the man at work is motivated by more than satisfaction of economic needs. In fact, Human Relations developed a necessary correction to the excesses of classical theory. By treating organizations as social systems, it argued vehemently for democratic participation, creativity and commitment. This school is characterized by a genuine interest in informal humanistic organization rather than in mechanistic organization, and by an empirical orientation as opposed to a conceptual one. The objectives of Human Relations movement were to provide management with the social and psychological insights needed to diagnose problems rooted in the informal organization and to devise the appropriate interventions. Great emphasis was placed on the development of human relations skills which would help supervisors to effectively bridge the gap between the informal and formal organizations. The emphasis was also placed on creating a workforce with high moral. There is a serious attempt to break down formal or arbitrary boundaries that are part of the fabric of a bureaucratic organizational structure. There is an attempt to democratize the organization, to keep people content as part of one big happy family. Human Relations approach has been widely accepted both in private and public administrations.
The neo-classical theory challenges the economic man concept of the classical theory. It holds that every person is different (not homogenous as was the economic man philosophy), and that a person’s work group and other social factors are profoundly important. In summary, the Hawthorne experiments indicated that employees were not only economic beings, but social and psychological beings as well, demonstrated that the man at work is motivated by more than satisfaction of economic needs. In fact, Human Relations developed a necessary correction to the excesses of classical theory. By treating organizations as social systems, it argued vehemently for democratic participation, creativity and commitment. This school is characterized by a genuine interest in informal humanistic organization rather than in mechanistic organization, and by an empirical orientation as opposed to a conceptual one. The objectives of Human Relations movement were to provide management with the social and psychological insights needed to diagnose problems rooted in the informal organization and to devise the appropriate interventions. Great emphasis was placed on the development of human relations skills which would help supervisors to effectively bridge the gap between the informal and formal organizations. The emphasis was also placed on creating a workforce with high moral. There is a serious attempt to break down formal or arbitrary boundaries that are part of the fabric of a bureaucratic organizational structure. There is an attempt to democratize the organization, to keep people content as part of one big happy family. Human Relations approach has been widely accepted both in private and public administrations.
The important elements of
neo-classical theory could be stated thus
1. The individual: This theory emphasizes differences among
individuals that are ignored by classical theory. For them each worker is unique. Each is bringing to the job situation certain attitudes, beliefs and ways of life, as well as certain skills, technical, social and logical. Each person has certain hopes and expectations of job situations. Thus, emotions and perceptions are recognized as important. Hence, the individual is not only motivated by economic factors, but is also motivated by multifarious social and psychological factors.
2. The work group (informal organizations): The second element of this theory is its emphasis on social aspects of work groups. Work is a social experience and most workers find satisfaction in membership of social groups. Mayo concluded that man’s social situation in his work group ranked first and the work incidental. According to Roethlisberger, workers are not isolated, unrelated individuals; they are social animals and should be treated as such. Unless managers recognize this, human relations at work will not improve. One of the clearest contributions of neo-classical writers has been to describe the effect of work groups (informal organization) on motivation and productivity. The informal organization, as William G. Scott remarks, refers to people in group associations at work, but these associations are not specified in the blue print of the formal organization. The informal organization means natural groupings of people in the work situation. It has been found that each group tends to adopt a production standard or norm that is imposed by social sanctions on group members. Good interpersonal and inter-group relationships among people need to be maintained to obtain productivity gains.
1. The individual: This theory emphasizes differences among
individuals that are ignored by classical theory. For them each worker is unique. Each is bringing to the job situation certain attitudes, beliefs and ways of life, as well as certain skills, technical, social and logical. Each person has certain hopes and expectations of job situations. Thus, emotions and perceptions are recognized as important. Hence, the individual is not only motivated by economic factors, but is also motivated by multifarious social and psychological factors.
2. The work group (informal organizations): The second element of this theory is its emphasis on social aspects of work groups. Work is a social experience and most workers find satisfaction in membership of social groups. Mayo concluded that man’s social situation in his work group ranked first and the work incidental. According to Roethlisberger, workers are not isolated, unrelated individuals; they are social animals and should be treated as such. Unless managers recognize this, human relations at work will not improve. One of the clearest contributions of neo-classical writers has been to describe the effect of work groups (informal organization) on motivation and productivity. The informal organization, as William G. Scott remarks, refers to people in group associations at work, but these associations are not specified in the blue print of the formal organization. The informal organization means natural groupings of people in the work situation. It has been found that each group tends to adopt a production standard or norm that is imposed by social sanctions on group members. Good interpersonal and inter-group relationships among people need to be maintained to obtain productivity gains.
3. Participative Management: Participative management or decision-
making in which workers discuss with supervisors and influence decisions that
affect them is the third element of neo-classical theory. Participative
management means participation of workers in decision - making about their work
conditions. It was observed that this led to increase in productivity. This is
what the Hawthorne
researchers led by Mayo reported, before every change of programme the group is
consulted (illumination experiments). The group unquestionably develops a sense
of participation. The experiments showed that a supervisor can contribute
significantly in increasing productivity by providing a free, happy and
pleasant work environment where bossism is totally absent and where members are
allowed to participate in decision-making policies. Authoritarian tendencies
must give way to democratic values. Instruction and coaching must replace
browbeating and driving.
The Views of Chester I. Barnard
(1886-1961).
One of the brilliant theoreticians of the human relations movement was Chester I. Barnard. As a practicing top manager he had a continuing interest in describing organizational activities and the social and personal relationships between the people involved. This he has given in his classical book, The Functions of the Executive first published in 1938. His selected papers have also been published under the title Organization and Management. Barnard was a contemporary of Mayo and an American business executive. Barnard defined organization As a system of consciously coordinated personal activities of two or more persons held together by a capacity to generate a common purpose, by a willingness on the part of its members to contribute to its processes and by effective communications.
He argued that organizations function through an equilibrium of contributions and inducements. He disapproves the theory of economic man and instead proposes the theory of contribution -satisfaction - equilibrium. Contributions are the efforts of members; inducements, the incentives or satisfaction are offered by the organization. The organization at each level must provide satisfaction to the members to obtain contributions. That means that management must provide incentives such as material inducements like money and opportunities for distinction, desirable conditions for work, ideal benefactions, pride and workmanship, patriotism, loyalty to organization and so on. Efficiency depended on the organizations’ capacity to offer these inducements in sufficient quantities to maintain the equilibrium of the system. Nigro and Nigro remark that Barnard’s inducement - contributions theory greatly influenced later theories of motivation and decision-making, especially the landmarks of Herbert Simon and his followers. Barnard thought that formal organizations are artificial systems and they grew out of informal organizations which are natural systems. The formal organizations in turn give rise to new informal organizations which carry out three positive functions:
One of the brilliant theoreticians of the human relations movement was Chester I. Barnard. As a practicing top manager he had a continuing interest in describing organizational activities and the social and personal relationships between the people involved. This he has given in his classical book, The Functions of the Executive first published in 1938. His selected papers have also been published under the title Organization and Management. Barnard was a contemporary of Mayo and an American business executive. Barnard defined organization As a system of consciously coordinated personal activities of two or more persons held together by a capacity to generate a common purpose, by a willingness on the part of its members to contribute to its processes and by effective communications.
He argued that organizations function through an equilibrium of contributions and inducements. He disapproves the theory of economic man and instead proposes the theory of contribution -satisfaction - equilibrium. Contributions are the efforts of members; inducements, the incentives or satisfaction are offered by the organization. The organization at each level must provide satisfaction to the members to obtain contributions. That means that management must provide incentives such as material inducements like money and opportunities for distinction, desirable conditions for work, ideal benefactions, pride and workmanship, patriotism, loyalty to organization and so on. Efficiency depended on the organizations’ capacity to offer these inducements in sufficient quantities to maintain the equilibrium of the system. Nigro and Nigro remark that Barnard’s inducement - contributions theory greatly influenced later theories of motivation and decision-making, especially the landmarks of Herbert Simon and his followers. Barnard thought that formal organizations are artificial systems and they grew out of informal organizations which are natural systems. The formal organizations in turn give rise to new informal organizations which carry out three positive functions:
1.
They
enhance communication by providing viable alternatives to formal channels.
2. To maintain the social psychological cohesiveness of the
organization by creating relationship among members that would not otherwise
develop.
3. Informal ties and activities allow members to develop feelings of personal importance and effectiveness. Hence Barnard thought that the informal organizations are essential as a positive support to the formal structure because they generate necessary inducements and promote social integration.
3. Informal ties and activities allow members to develop feelings of personal importance and effectiveness. Hence Barnard thought that the informal organizations are essential as a positive support to the formal structure because they generate necessary inducements and promote social integration.
EVALUATION OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS THEORY
It is said that the neo-classical emphasis on the human factors of organizations constituted a major contribution to modern theory. Moreover, the consent model of authority as conceive by Barnard, had great impact on organization theory and management practice. It strengthened the trend towards seeing organizations as sociological entities rather than legal rational entities. Criticisms are not without merit, and it is probably true that the Hawthorne researchers and their critics overstated their case. Yet, it would be a mistake to disregard the Hawthorne findings as worthless scientifically. By stressing social needs, the human relationists improved on the classical theory, which treated productivity almost exclusively as an engineering problem. They introduced the idea of the organization as an open system in which the technical and human elements are closely intertwined. They spotlighted the importance of employee attitudes in an era when wage incentives and physical work conditions were often viewed as the only requirements for high productivity. They emphasized the importance of a manager’s style and thereby revolutionized management training. More and more attention was focused on teaching people management skills, as opposed to technical skills. Their work led to a new interest in the dynamics of groups. Managers began thinking in terms of group processes and group rewards to supplement their former concentration on the individual worker.
The criticism of this theory can be countered by emphasizing the fact that human relations philosophy as such is not the culprit. A humanistic approach to organizational problems does not imply total negation of performance requirements of work place. It is the use and practice to which it is put that account for most of its serious limitations. From a practical point of view, it really is of little importance whether the studies were academically sound or their conclusions justified. What is more important is that they were significant in stimulating an interest in human factors. As Ivancerich et al pointed out, if it did nothing else, it stimulated an interest in the human problems of management and thereby provided the necessary impetus for the present day behavioural science emphasis in management theory. The Hawthorne studies and the Human Relations Theory have been severely criticized and our discussion would be incomplete without a brief discussion of these criticisms
1. Philosophy: Several economists claimed that by encouraging workers to develop loyalties to anything, but their own self interests and by preaching collaboration instead of competition, human relations would ultimately lead to reduced efficiency.
2. Over concern with happiness: The Hawthorne studies suggested that happy employees will be productive employees. This, of course, is a naive and simplistic version of the nature of man. Studies have failed to show a consistent relationship between happiness and productivity. It is quite possible to have a lot of happy, but unproductive employees.
3. Anti-Individualist: The Human Relations Movement is anti- individualist. Here the discipline of the boss is simply replaced by the discipline of the group forcing the individual to sacrifice his personal identity and dignity. The individual may not find his true self and gain a stimulating feeling of personal freedom by completely losing himself in a group. Further, there is no guarantee that groups will always be instrumental in distributing satisfactions to members.
The Human Relations Theory supplements the classical theory of organization and is thus a necessary adjunct to the later.
Neither can usefully be considered in isolation.
It is said that the neo-classical emphasis on the human factors of organizations constituted a major contribution to modern theory. Moreover, the consent model of authority as conceive by Barnard, had great impact on organization theory and management practice. It strengthened the trend towards seeing organizations as sociological entities rather than legal rational entities. Criticisms are not without merit, and it is probably true that the Hawthorne researchers and their critics overstated their case. Yet, it would be a mistake to disregard the Hawthorne findings as worthless scientifically. By stressing social needs, the human relationists improved on the classical theory, which treated productivity almost exclusively as an engineering problem. They introduced the idea of the organization as an open system in which the technical and human elements are closely intertwined. They spotlighted the importance of employee attitudes in an era when wage incentives and physical work conditions were often viewed as the only requirements for high productivity. They emphasized the importance of a manager’s style and thereby revolutionized management training. More and more attention was focused on teaching people management skills, as opposed to technical skills. Their work led to a new interest in the dynamics of groups. Managers began thinking in terms of group processes and group rewards to supplement their former concentration on the individual worker.
The criticism of this theory can be countered by emphasizing the fact that human relations philosophy as such is not the culprit. A humanistic approach to organizational problems does not imply total negation of performance requirements of work place. It is the use and practice to which it is put that account for most of its serious limitations. From a practical point of view, it really is of little importance whether the studies were academically sound or their conclusions justified. What is more important is that they were significant in stimulating an interest in human factors. As Ivancerich et al pointed out, if it did nothing else, it stimulated an interest in the human problems of management and thereby provided the necessary impetus for the present day behavioural science emphasis in management theory. The Hawthorne studies and the Human Relations Theory have been severely criticized and our discussion would be incomplete without a brief discussion of these criticisms
1. Philosophy: Several economists claimed that by encouraging workers to develop loyalties to anything, but their own self interests and by preaching collaboration instead of competition, human relations would ultimately lead to reduced efficiency.
2. Over concern with happiness: The Hawthorne studies suggested that happy employees will be productive employees. This, of course, is a naive and simplistic version of the nature of man. Studies have failed to show a consistent relationship between happiness and productivity. It is quite possible to have a lot of happy, but unproductive employees.
3. Anti-Individualist: The Human Relations Movement is anti- individualist. Here the discipline of the boss is simply replaced by the discipline of the group forcing the individual to sacrifice his personal identity and dignity. The individual may not find his true self and gain a stimulating feeling of personal freedom by completely losing himself in a group. Further, there is no guarantee that groups will always be instrumental in distributing satisfactions to members.
The Human Relations Theory supplements the classical theory of organization and is thus a necessary adjunct to the later.
Neither can usefully be considered in isolation.
NEO-HUMAN RELATIONS
THEORY
In the
post-second World war period, the Human Relation theory
was enriched by the advent of the behaehavioura1 scientists, who put their attention to the study of human behaviour in organizations. Among them were Likert, Argyris, Masloaslow, Mc Gregor and Herzberg. Likert discussed management style while the focus of Agyris was individual well being. Employee motivation attracted the attention of Mc Gregor while Herzberg emphasized job enrichment. Maslow discussed human needs. Psychology, social psychology and Sociobiology are behavioural sciences A part of political science is also included in the behavioural sciences; electoral or voting behaviour, for example. Each behavioural science has its own focus of attention and study as is confirmed below:
was enriched by the advent of the behaehavioura1 scientists, who put their attention to the study of human behaviour in organizations. Among them were Likert, Argyris, Masloaslow, Mc Gregor and Herzberg. Likert discussed management style while the focus of Agyris was individual well being. Employee motivation attracted the attention of Mc Gregor while Herzberg emphasized job enrichment. Maslow discussed human needs. Psychology, social psychology and Sociobiology are behavioural sciences A part of political science is also included in the behavioural sciences; electoral or voting behaviour, for example. Each behavioural science has its own focus of attention and study as is confirmed below:
Behavioural Science
|
|
Psychology
|
Study of mind and its interrelation with the individual’s behaviour.
|
Sociology
|
Evolution of society and forms institutions and functions of groups
|
Social Psychology
|
Behaviour of individual as affected by a group
|
ABRAHAM MASLOW: According to
Maslow, human needs are ordered into a hierarchy. As a man obtains satisfaction
for one level of needs, he aspires for the next. At the bottom of the ladder
are physical or physiological needs. These are basic needs and must first be
satisfied. But physiological needs have little upwards thrust. In the words of
Mc Gregor, “consider your need for air. Except as you are deprived of it, it
has no motivating effect on your behaviour, man lives by bread alone only when
there is no bread” Once physiological needs are met, his attention shifts to
safety needs and so on. The Human Relations Theory later turned its attention
to motivation and job satisfaction. In this connection, Abraham Maslow’s
contribution is rated very substantial:(1) Physiological need (2) Security
need(3) Love or belongingness; (4)Self-esteem, and (5) Self-actualization.
Man’s first need, one may repeat, is physiological or biological; in other
words, his basic need is food; he seeks security, love and self- esteem.
Self-actualization is his ultimate need. It means developing one’s capacities,
and integrating one’s motives. An individual, naturally, grows and matures.
Self-actualization means that work becomes part of the self; he integrates with
the work, and the work integrates with him.
Abraham Maslow put forward three basic propositions
based on his concept of human needs:
1: Man
is a wanting animal. He always has some
need driving him to action.
2. There
is a hierarchy of needs. They are arranged in a priority order
with the most basic needs to be satisfied first.
3.
A satisfied need is no longer
motivating.
Maslow
said that there were five of these needs arranged in a kind hierarchy. Two of
them are what we are born with: physiological and
security needs - such as hunger, thirst, a roof over our head, freedom from physical danger. The other three are learnt needs. Social - we all like to be liked; esteem or status, and self-fulfillment - that is realizing one’s potential. Maslow said that people seek to grow, to develop. Many people are motivated largely by the opportunity to achieve their potential. And yet both commercial and government bureaucracies frequently confine people to routine tasks. Their low order needs are satisfied and that is all. People who do not have sufficient variety in their own work or an opportunity to use their abilities may revolt by constantly changing their job, or in the extreme, by sabotage in some degree. Many others will give only 20-30 percent of their potential effort. Properly motivated workers will give up to 90 percent of their potential effort.
security needs - such as hunger, thirst, a roof over our head, freedom from physical danger. The other three are learnt needs. Social - we all like to be liked; esteem or status, and self-fulfillment - that is realizing one’s potential. Maslow said that people seek to grow, to develop. Many people are motivated largely by the opportunity to achieve their potential. And yet both commercial and government bureaucracies frequently confine people to routine tasks. Their low order needs are satisfied and that is all. People who do not have sufficient variety in their own work or an opportunity to use their abilities may revolt by constantly changing their job, or in the extreme, by sabotage in some degree. Many others will give only 20-30 percent of their potential effort. Properly motivated workers will give up to 90 percent of their potential effort.
FREDERICK HERZBERG: Frederick
Herzberg is another notable scholar
who has made significant contribution to Maslow’s field of hierarchy of needs.
He developed the concepts of hygiene - seekers and motivation-seekers. Motivators directly determine
job-satisfaction and hygienic or intrinsic factors relate to psychological
satisfaction derived from environment. Participative decision-making., for
instance, promotes job satisfaction and thus a motivator. In other words,
Herzberg believes there are two important categories of factors affecting job
motivation-he called these the Hygiene Factors and the Motivators. The hygiene
factors are necessary to prevent dissatisfaction on a job. Pay, for example,
has to be at a certain level. But above that level it will not necessarily motivate
the worker to produce more. Motivators are intrinsic to the job. Jobs need to
be structured to enable workers to obtain achievement, recognition,
responsibility and advancement in the work itself. The motivating factors,
however, cannot work unless the conditions are right. Herzberg argues that jobs
may need to be restructured so that the motivators have an opportunity to
function. This, he suggested, can be done in two ways. In job enlargement (or
horizontal expansion of the job), workers are given more and more of the same
type of job they are already doing. In job enrichment (vertical expansion of
the job), however, workers may, for example, be responsible for the production
of the whole machine, not just the one component.
MC GREGOR: Mc Gregor
propounded a philosophy designed to put public administration into its
post-Weberian phase. He made Maslow his point of departure Mc Gregor postulated
two sets of managerial assumptions which he terms Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X opines that:
the average person is lazy and works as little as possible;
* People lack ambition, dislike responsibility prefer to be led;
* People are inherently se1f-centred, and indifferent to organizational needs;
* they are resistant to change;
the average person is lazy and works as little as possible;
* People lack ambition, dislike responsibility prefer to be led;
* People are inherently se1f-centred, and indifferent to organizational needs;
* they are resistant to change;
* most people are gullible
and stupid.
In
short, people are passive or resistant to organizational needs and need to be
persuaded, rewarded, punished or controlled in some way to achieve the organization’s
goal.
Theory Y, however, takes
the opposite view that:
* people are not by nature
resistant to organizational needs;
* people have a latent capacity for deve1opment and the acceptance of
responsibility;
* they can be motivated towards management goals;
* people have a latent capacity for deve1opment and the acceptance of
responsibility;
* they can be motivated towards management goals;
* management must arrange
matters so that people can achieve their
goals through organizational objectives. Overall, Theory Y says that people can be encouraged to do better things. Satisfaction is intrinsic to the job. Moreover, Theory Y enables an employer (or management) to offer to the employees benefits which every management has in abundance and which do not harm it either.
It is now becoming clear that the application of the same talents to the human side of enterprise will not only enhance substantially these material achievements, but will bring us one step closer to the good society.
goals through organizational objectives. Overall, Theory Y says that people can be encouraged to do better things. Satisfaction is intrinsic to the job. Moreover, Theory Y enables an employer (or management) to offer to the employees benefits which every management has in abundance and which do not harm it either.
It is now becoming clear that the application of the same talents to the human side of enterprise will not only enhance substantially these material achievements, but will bring us one step closer to the good society.
CHRIS ARGYRIS: Chris Argyris,
another American Scholar, urged organizations to promote democratic leadership
and give enlarged roles and responsibilities to their employees. Such measures
would benefit both the organizations and the employees working in them. Argyris
has visualized a conflict between the needs of an organization and the needs of
the employee but this could be avoided when the organization becomes
employee-oriented.