Fully exploring the main features of each, in what ways in your view can the Human Relations Approach

be considered superior to the Classical Approach to the management of organisations.

DIEGO CANALE STUDENT X08871647 BSc (Hons) in Business information Systems (Evening) Year4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 2. Classical Approach.....................................................................................................................2 3. Human Relations Approach.......................................................................................................4 4. Personal Views..........................................................................................................................6 5. Conclusions...............................................................................................................................8 6. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION

Management has been practiced since ancient times and it is concerned with effectively getting people together and operating available resources to achieve set goals. The early practices were for most centuries based on trial and error and lacking of a structured approach. At the beginning of the twentieth century, during a period of change in society, technology and a growth in organisations, it was felt the need for a new and systematic approach to improve productivity and manage employee relations as best as possible (Bradfield, 2011, Lecture Notes). This lead to the evolution of management as "unified body of knowledge" so the newly developed rules and principles shall be used by every type organisation and everywhere. These were the backbone of classical theories which had in Fredrick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol and Max Weber their main contributors (Coulter, DeCenzo and Robbins, 2011). In the 1930's, under the behavioural approach to management, the human relations movement was the first to address issues related to employee behaviour and motivation in the workplace which were ignored in the classical approach. Workers were viewed more as valuable asset and resource for the organisation rather than just a machine [http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Behavioral-Management-Theory.topicArticleId8944,articleId-8852.html]. Organisations as we know them nowadays as well as management practices owe much to the above theories and to some extent are still influential in this day and age. Although different they both aim at organisational excellence through different methods. This paper describes both the classical and human relations approaches main characteristics and in what respect the latter could be better than the former.

THE CLASSICAL APPROACH

The classical or also called scientific - rational approach due to Adam Smith's works influence and Josiah Wedgwood practical experiments on the field, as outlined by Burnes (2009), focuses on the good of the organisation, their work and the "achievement of efficiency in internal functions". Also organisations were regarded as isolated entities from the external world. Three core ideas characterized the classical approach to management. First organisations are regarded as "rational entities" which are made of individuals working to achieve set goals and these employees are organised in formal and differentiated structures. Secondly, there has to be only one universal organisation form for everybody, based on the hierarchical and horizontal division of labour and the concept of organisations as perfect and efficient machines. Thirdly, people are viewed as "economic beings" who are only motivated by money based on the assumption that workers will try to get the maximum wage possible by putting in the minimum effort. Also, the more knowledge and skills they have, the more employees will use them as bargaining tool for their own interest. In order to prevent this every job should be structured in a way to allow greater supervision on employee and to minimize their own use of skills and freedom to decide as to what and how to do things. Fredrick Taylor's studies and main publication, Principle of Scientific Management were centred around the above principles. His most important beliefs came from the observation of the phenomenon of soldiering among workers in the steel industry who operated inefficiently and below their capacity. In order to overcome soldiering, Taylor believed that methodical study and scientific principles should be used to find the best way to carry out a job. This should then implemented and workers be instructed to operate accordingly. Since soldiering also implies that human beings "seek the maximum reward with the minimum effort" (Burnes, 2009) it is asserted that every worker's task should be planned in details and managers should ensure through close supervision that each step of the process is executed and employers strictly follow the rules. Also the employee motivated to keep productivity to the highest level possible with high salary reward. The above concepts are important to Taylor Scientific Management Theory whose elements are the systematic collection of knowledge about the work process by managers, the removal of workers' control and discretion over what they do and the placement of standard procedures and timing required to do a specific task (Burnes, 2009). However rules and methods are also applicable to managers and their authority should be more based on competence rather than an arbitrary power to "hire and fire" people. This means Taylor's ideas aimed at a radical change of organisations and ways of work. Contemporary to Fredrick Taylor, Henry Fayol was focused on the overall efficiency of the organisation as complementary to Taylor's works. The latter concentrated on the practical and operational level while his French counterpart's approach was downwards from the direction of the company. Nonetheless they both believed that managers should adhere to the same set of rules rather than arbitrarily. Fayol laid down his fourteen management principles as to how every organisation should function. These are division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of 2

direction, subordination of individual interest to general interest, remuneration of personnel, centralisation, scalar chain, order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative and esprit de corps[http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Classical-Schools-of-Management.topicArticleId8944,articleId-8851.html]. These principles should be then applied by management through a set of activities or duties known as planning, organising, command, coordination and control (Burnes, 2009). The French theorist also contributed to the elaboration of administrative management principles by which all the organisation business activities can be grouped into different areas such as accounting, finance, commercial, technical, security and managerial (Tiernan S., Morley M.J., Foley E. 2009). German economist Max Weber also focused on organisation effectiveness. The sociologist who was inspired by the events in the early twentieth century Germany, believed that the ideal organisation needs to be efficient and called "bureaucracy". It consists of six important elements and characteristics which are division of labour, hierarchy, unbiased selection of qualified personnel, career orientation, formalisation of rules and procedures and impersonality to their application (Tiernan S., Morley M.J., Foley E. 2009). Weber's bureaucratic model was based on rationality and application of laws thus eliminating human tendency to make mistakes (Burnes, 2009). In regards to managing change in the organisation, the classical approach implies the imposition of change through directive strategies of managerial authority and rationality thus not taking into account "view and feelings of those involved in, or affected by, the imposed change" (Lockitt, B. October 2004, change management article).

HUMAN RELATIONS APPROACH

The human relations management theory, contrary to the classical approach focused on the "human side of management" as well as the social and physiological elements that impacted workers' performance (Tiernan S., Morley M.J., Foley E. 2009). Organisations were viewed as cooperative systems as opposed to machines, where everybody can actively cooperate for the good of the firm rather than passively execute commands from superiors. People are motivated not only financially or in terms of wages but by a wider range of rewards for instance self esteem and recognition. Also incentives and people's motivations are different and can change from time to time. The Hawthorne experiments conducted under Elton Mayo supervision, came to the conclusion that workers performance and productivity are influenced by intangible elements and not economic factors, such as the need for recognition, security and belonging to an informal group. Indeed, since the Hawthorne findings human relations and social needs become the new focus of management theories and practices (Burnes, 2009). Chester Barnard, another contributor to the behavioural theories of management, stated the idea of organisations as cooperative systems contrary to the classical approach view of organisations as machines. In a cooperative organisation all members should be eager to contribute to achieving common goals and purposes and this can be attained with the addition of non monetary incentives to economic inducements. Also, the organisational goals need to be clear and shared by everybody in the organisations at all levels. In Barnard's view top management is to set the goals and objectives but the cooperation from bottom and middle levels is essential to achieve these. Therefore it is asserted that authority flows from bottom upwards meaning that without the lower layers' cooperation, understanding and acceptance of organisational goals these cannot be accomplished. For the first time authority is not restricted to top management and it is defined by Barnard as "a response by subordinates to superiors". Systematic and effective communication are considered the key functions required to facilitate staff motivation, encourage their participation and cooperation to the pursuit of organisational objectives. However, it is asserted that it takes an effective leader to make this happen and is not by chance (Burnes, 2009). An important contribution to the human relations management thought was brought by Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs which deals with non economic needs for every human being. This classification is broken down into five levels starting from the basic physiological needs, then progressing through safety, social, esteem and self actualisation needs. According to Maslow the progression to the next level is subject to satisfying the needs at the lower level first (Tiernan S., Morley M.J., Foley E. 2009). Maslow's theory proved the monetary and material incentives to be inadequate in more complex scenarios where other factors and motivations are important (Burnes, 2009). Douglas McGregor's Theory X and theory Y was influenced by Maslow works and the Hawthorne experiment conclusions. Under this theory there are two types of managers: type X who tends to be the more authoritarian of the two and inclined to a classical view of nature and type Y who is more participative in style and closer to the human relations views. The former has a negative view of

employees and assumes are purely motivated by money and retribution, that are lazy, unwilling to take any responsibility and unreliable. The latter assumes the opposite and a type Y manager believes in subordinates who are well capable of assuming responsibilities, who are trustworthy and highly motivated. According to McGregor, the choice of one or the other approach is a matter of personal discretion but it can create an environment and situation in which employees behaviour can justify managers initial assumptions and expectations [http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/BehavioralManagement-Theory.topicArticleId-8944,articleId-8852.html]. More contributions to the human relations theories came from Warren Bennis in the 1960's and the introduction of job design or work humanisation techniques. The American academic, who coined the term "death of bureaucracy", critiqued Weber's bureaucratic organisational structure model as being inadequate to business environment changes and its rigid hierarchical structures cannot manage size increases in organisations nor a more specialised as well as more heterogeneous workforce. Also the change in managerial behaviour towards a more people oriented or type Y approach was contrary to the principles that characterized bureaucracy (Fitzgerald, 2002). The Job Design movement, in contrast with the Tayloristic view of work design and organisation, it proposed a more humanistic approach in line with Maslow's theory of needs. According to this movement it was possible to create jobs that would both fulfil the employee human needs and achieve organisational goals. This could be achieved by making jobs less predictable thus including a large variety of tasks and increasing autonomy, personal independence and discretion on what is to be done (Bradfield, 2011, Lecture Notes). In relation to managing change the human relations approach is more inclined to a change by consent. For example, negotiating, educative and participative strategies of change management would better fill the requirement as people involved can better express their views, are more committed to change and have more opportunities for individual learning although implementation of change is slow and more costly (Lockitt, B. October 2004, change management article).

PERSONAL VIEWS

Having described both theories of management my own general view is that neither approach can be absolutely superior to the one another. This is due to the fact that they focus on different and complimentary aspects one being making production more efficient and getting the job done and the other focusing more on the physiological needs of the workforce. Both of them have their own valid arguments and have been criticised for their flaws as well. They also share the same limit as being close systems hence claiming to be the "one best way" of going about organisations and achieving their goals. Moreover, as Burnes (2009) indicates, both approaches regarded "organisations as close entities" that no matter the external or internal changes and developments as long they are functioning according to some set rules or principles there is no need to change. The classical theories of management has been credited for bringing in rules and procedures that everyone in the organisation, including management, thus getting rid of unlawful management practices that were common in the earlier centuries (Burnes 2009). Also in an early twentieth century context the application of the classical approach theories proved to be adequate to the need to increase productivity which came from increased per capita income following the industrial revolution. It is also worth to acknowledge the influence of Fayol and Weber management principles which till to this day and age are applied for the day to day staff and departmental activities especially in large organisations. However the classical approach had a very limited and restricted view of human beings by which they were only motivated by monetary incentives. From the employee motivational perspective the human relations approach can be considered better than Classical theories and a breakthrough being the first to deal with staff non materialistic needs and well being. Indeed recognition and encouragement are as pleasant as valuable incentives that can help improving performance. Proof is a recent personal experience in my work as I received an informal yet motivating award for being the best overall agent of the week in terms of production in email answered and quality of service given during the roll out period of a new CRM tool; no extra bonus pay was involved. As a matter of fact I felt good about it, more involved and motivated to embrace the change that was impacting our day to day working life. Another advantage in favour of the human relations over the classical approach is the possibility for the employees to actively participate to decision making in the matters affecting the workforce directly as mentioned by Gaurav Akrani, in the article "Human Relations Approach to Management". An aspect of the human relations theory which I personally value and was rejected by Taylor's scientific management is the job design concept of enrichment which stresses the importance of workers flexibility, use of personal initiative and ability to use discretion and work in groups to better respond to today's changing customer needs, as asserted by Burnes (2009). This aspect had practical relevance in my job when as a customer support team we suggested to management a new and

better solution to solve a recurring issue with users enquiries. This was then implemented as new process. However the Human relations approach, contrary to scientific management, as a flaw didn't have the same defined rules and definitions so organisations could fully understand it and implement it as quickly as the latter (Burnes 2009).

CONCLUSIONS

The different emphasis and concern expressed by these theories, production on one side and people on the other side, although aiming to the same goal, clearly suggest that classical approach and human relations can rather be considered complimentary to an organisation. I believe that both approaches are needed in an organisation even though they fit on different scenarios, whether is about increasing workforce motivation, involve people in organisational changes or push productivity. By the same token a good manager on his day to day, depending on the situation or individual employee should choose the best management style (e.g. X or Y) or approach that best fits the situation therefore proving either theory practically inadequate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradfield, D. (2011) An Introduction to Change, lecture notes distributed in the topic of Change Management at National College of Ireland, on September 2011.

Lockitt, B. (2004) Change Management, article distributed in the topic of Change Management at National College of Ireland, on September 2011.

Burnes, B. (2011) Managing Change

Tiernan S., Morley M.J., Foley E. (2009) Modern Management

Fitzgerald, S. P. (2002). Organizational Models. Chichester, Capstone Pub. [http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=124704].

CliffsNotes.com. Classical Schools of Management. 10 Nov 2011 [http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-8944,articleId-8851.html]

CliffsNotes.com. Behavioral Management Theory. 11 Nov 2011 [http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-8944,articleId-8852.html]

Kalyan-city.blogspot.com. Principles of Human Relations Approach to Management. 20 Nov 2011 [http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2011/04/principles-of-human-relations-approach.html]