Classical and Human Relations Theories Essay

Critically evaluate the classical and human relations approaches of management theory. Your essay must clearly define the term ’’ management theory’’ and include industry examples to illustrate your answers. The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the classical and human relations theories of management giving some industry examples which supports their applicability and importance or otherwise. â€Å"‘Critical evaluation is the skill of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of work, and of understanding the importance of its contribution to the subject’. Hulme, J.A. (2004). For the benefits of in-depth analysis we will look at the classical scientific of F. W. Taylor (and not the classical administrative approach of say Weber), identifying expert supported strengths and weaknesses of his approach. Equally, we will look at Herzberg’s human relations theory of motivation. Classical management was rooted on the belief that employees have only economical and physical needs, and that social needs and need for job-satisfaction either don’t exist or are unimportant. Accordingly, this school advocates high specialization of labor, centralized decision making, and profit maximization. The humanistic (or human relations) school recognized people as a special sort of resource. They not only work for the organization – they are the organization. Mary Parker Follett succinctly defined management as ‘†¦the art of getting things done through people.’ Management theory can be defined as a body of general principles on how best to manage a business or organization to achieve its goals and how to motivate employees to achieve highest possible performance. F. W. Taylor (the father of scientific management) was the intellectual leader of the efficiency or classical movement. According to him the main object of management ‘should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity of each employee’. For employers ‘maximum prosperity’ not only means large profits but overall development in the enterprise to a state of permanent prosperity. Taylor was, therefore, driven to ask why is there so much antagonism and inefficiency? He suggested three causes: (1) the fallacious belief by workers that massive increase in output will ultimately lead to their unemployment; (2) the defective systems of management which make it possible for workers to restrict output so as to protect their interests; (3) effort- wasting methods of work. The aim of scientific management to him was to overcome these obstacles by a systematic study of work to discover the most efficient methods of performing the job, and then a systematic study of management leading to the most efficient methods of controlling the workers. As Taylor puts it: ‘What the workmen want from their employers beyond anything else is high wages and what employers want from their workmen most of all is low labour cost of manufacture†¦.the existence or absence of these two elements forms the best index to either good or bad management.’ (Pugh & Hickson, 1996) Taylor, therefore, propounded four principles of management: Development of a true science of work to replace the old rule-of thumb; those fulfilling optimum goals would earn higher wages; failure would result in loss of earnings. The Scientific selection and progressive development of the worker: Every worker can be trained to be ‘first- class’ at some task. The mental revolution in management: He argued that the major resistance to scientific management came from management as workers are all too keen to learn to do a good job for a high rate of pay. The constant and close cooperation of management and workers: Every job is divided into various tasks each of which is done by a specialist- this system he calls ‘functional management’. He also formulates the ‘exception principle’ where management reports only details deviation from the expected norm. In support of his approach, it has been argued that Taylor laid the foundation for the development of other management systems for decades to come. His thinking has been developed into what is now called Work Study or Industrial Engineering. Taylor’s focus is understandably narrow as he was writing from scratch. Few managements have been willing to put into practice one of his basic tenets that there should be no limit to earnings or bonus- most incentive schemes are restricted. This may inhibit the ‘mental revolution’ Taylor sought. The focus on division of labour leads to increased efficiency and productivity. This can be seen in many operations ranging from fast food to large industrial facilities e.g. MacDonald’s or the car industry. Ford is said to have adopted his approach in 1913. Taiichi Ono of Toyota, father of JIT acknowledges his debt to scientific management. The autocratic style of leadership also ensures a unity of command, clear lines of direction and control for a better focus on the job at hand. During his time, the work force was not highly educated or trained. For many, the opportunity to obtain a secure job and a level of wages to provide for their families was all they expected. Taylor, like the other classicists, have been criticised in that he heavily relied on experiences with large manufacturing companies enjoying stable environments. It may be unwise to generalize from those situations to others’ especially to young, high-technology firms of today that are confronted daily with changes in their competitors’ products. Taylor assumed that workers are only motivated by money and that productivity is the best measure of how well a firm is performing. These assumptions fail to recognize that employees may have needs unrelated to the workplace or may view their jobs only as a necessary evil. His approach tends to ignore informal relations as characterized by social interchange among workers, the emergence of group leaders apart from those specified by the formal organization, and so forth. When such things are not considered, it is likely that many important factors affecting satisfaction and performance, such as letting employees participate in decision making and task planning, will never be explored or tried. Taylor’s approach aim at achieving high productivity, at making behaviors predictable, and at achieving fairness among workers and between managers and workers; fails to recognize that several unintended consequences can occur in practice. A heavy emphasis on rules and regulations may cause people to obey rules blindly without remembering their original intent, defeating their objectives. The theory was dehumanising work processes – stripped jobs of skill and judgement, treating workers as machine parts. Organizations are influenced by external conditions that often fluctuate over time, yet his approach presents an image of an organization that is not affected by external influences. The Human Relations theories of Management The primary functions of any organization, whether religious, political or industrial, should be to implement the needs of man to enjoy a meaningful existence. Frederick Herzberg (Pugh & Hickson, 1996) Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000), an American psychologist, conducted research on 200 engineers and accountants that led him to develop the two-factor theory of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s two-factor theory separated the elements of a job into those serving economic needs (‘hygiene’ and maintenance factors/Adam) and those meeting deeper aspirations (motivational factors/Abraham). He also relates job satisfaction and dissatisfaction to mental health. The motivators include responsibility, a sense of achievement, recognition, promotion and job attraction. These things are likely to motivate workers and are related directly to the job. The ‘hygiene’ factors include company policy and procedures, supervision, pay, work relationships and working conditions. These factors can only reduce job dissatisfaction and they are not directly linked to the job. Making sure these factors are acceptable to the labour force prevents dissatisfaction ra ther than causing positive motivation. The ‘Adam’ factor seeks the avoidance of dissatisfaction and the ‘Abraham’ factor is linked to job satisfaction. Their absence will not cause dissatisfaction but will reduce job satisfaction. Man has the above two sets of needs explained Herzberg in a later book (work and the nature of man); his needs as an animal to avoid pain and his needs as a human to grow psychologically. A lack in one cannot be compensated by fulfillment in the other. Herzberg therefore advocates for an industrial engineering approach which would design the ‘Abraham’ factor into jobs. This he called job enrichment to produce an effective utilization of people and to increase job satisfaction. When a worker does more hours at work to save money for a holiday it is a movement, not motivation. From this, Herzberg suggested that reward based systems including bonuses, could only provide movement rather than long term motivation. The main criticism of Herzberg’s research was the fact that the sample he used consisted of only two hundred accountants and engineers. It was also overly simplistic and blurs the distinction between satisfaction and motivation. Being pleased with doing a more challenging set of tasks does not necessarily mean it will increase motivation. It was also suggested that his research understated the role of groups and teams within the workplace. This is because groups and teams can generate a great deal of motivational influence. Even though Herzberg’s work has its criticisms, his ideas have been shown to be valid in practice. This is evident in businesses because a pay rise or change in working conditions is rarely enough to produce a labour force that is highly motivated. It has also been shown that if workers perceive a wage increase to be inadequate or working conditions are less than ideal it can have major consequences on the business and its operations. (The annual series of strikes by LU workers springs to mind). Conclusion As Oliver Wendel Holmes quoted, â€Å"When we want to know what is going on today or want to make sure what will happen tomorrow, I will look back at the past.† One theory will not fit all businesses at all times, naturally. But management theories are useful in that they formulate principles of best practise. Their relevance will depend on the socio-economic, cultural and political environments in which they are applied. ‘The gurus have all the answers, but all the answers are different. No one knows the problem’ . (Owen, Jo, Management stripped bare, 2012, 3rd ed.) References Hulme, J.A. (2004). Critical Evaluation: A Student Guide. Psychology Review, 10, 6-8. Pugh & Hickson, (1996) Writers on Organizations, (5thed) George, Claude S.1968. The History of management thought (1sted). Englewood Cliffs: N.J. Prentice-hall Herzberg, F. (1959) Mausner, B; Snyderman, B. the motivation to work, NY Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the nature of man, world publ. Herzberg, F. (1976) Managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human, Dow Jones, Irwin Owen, Jo, (2012) Management stripped bare, 3rd ed.