Influence of the Classical and Human Relations Approaches in Management Today - Coursework Example

Classical management theory and human relations theory Name Class Unit Introduction Classical management theory and human relations theory are two management theories that have evolved for a long time. The two theories have been used in combination by managers in some cases in order to achieve the best results. While the classical management theory looks at the employee as a way of getting the job done, human relations theory looks at coming up with organisation behaviors and motivating the workers to get the work done. The classical management approach was started during the late 19th century and early in the 20th century. The main theories used to come up with classical approach are based on efficiency (Mintzberg, 1973). At the time, there was an industrial revolution and firms were looking for the way to increase their production. Among the classic theories developed were by, Max, Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol (Heames & Breland, 2010). The theories were Taylor’s scientific management, Fayol’s Administrative management and Bureaucratic management by Weber. The human relations theory came up as a result of reaction to the classical theories which put emphasis on mechanical and psychological aspects of management (Heames & Breland, 2010). The human relations theory was more human oriented and looked into aspects such as motivations, needs, behaviours and attitudes of the employees. Hawthorne experiments were based on the behavioural viewpoint and led to human relations movement. This paper will critically look at the influence of the classical and human relations approaches in management today using relevant literature and cases. Classical management theories were the first management thought that was developed. The writers who were involved in the classical theories are considered to be the pioneers of management. By looking at the classical theories, the managers were supposed to work in ensuring that their organisation had highest levels of efficiency. The main aim of the theories was to enable the organisation to increase production through high levels of efficiency. The Scientific management theory was aimed at coming up with the best method to accomplish a task. The method is seen to relate mostly to the lower level managers. Thus, the method is referred to as lower level management theory and had a lot of input by Fredrick Taylor (Wrege & Hodgetts, 2000). The method looked at the best way to perform a task (Sheldrake, 2003). The comprehensive view in management is more focused on the organisation efficiency. The theory by Fayol and Henry among others was based on comprehensive analysis of management. The theory looked at the concepts of planning, organising, controlling, coordinating and commanding. The theory is still applicable in today’s management (Wren, Bedeian & Breeze, 2002). Bureaucratic management was more concerned with the hierarchical levels and roles in an organisation. The main aim of bureaucratic organisation was to maintain efficiency and effectiveness. The theory was developed by Max Weber and is commonly used today. According to the theory, the organisation is divided into hierarchies which create lines of authority and control. Bureaucratic organisations have division of labour and clearly defined roles. Administrative devices are widely used in these organisations by the management (Heames & Breland, 2010). The classical theories are mostly focused on the organisation structure and how to improve it with an aim of enhancing efficiency. The theories have most of their focus on changing the organisation structure as a way of improving its efficiency. The main problem with classical approach is limiting the control of people in their working environment (Wrege & Hodgetts, 2000). The main subdivisions of the classical theories that are still in use today are scientific management and bureaucracy. The main application of these theories is in coming up with ways of improving management and optimise production. The main motivation used in these theories is monetary with an aim of enhancing the employee’s productivity. The method believes that there is the best way in which employees can work to enhance productivity. Each of the job is broken down into parts and arranged with an aim of coming up with the most efficient method. Through scientific management, the belief is that workers are motivated if they obtained higher wages and worked in the most efficient method possible. Taylorism is considered as a management principle for exerting control over the employees (Sheldrake, 2003). An example of application of the scientific management theory in today’s organisation is the Hanger insertion programme. This is a method in which a firm can utilise to hang merchandise in an effective and efficient manner. The method can be utilised in stores with an aim of improving the customer care services, increases the number of units produced and carry out tasks in an efficient manner. The theory main weakness is the fact that it fails to recognise human feelings and sentiments. Human behaviours in the organisations are complex and cannot be ignored (Heames & Breland, 2010). Bureaucracy is n classic theory which is found in several organisations today. It has been an important part in the modern organisation theory. The administration is based on discipline and rules. The increasing size of the organisation at the moment has led to growth of bureaucracy. The organisation is designed with careful planning with clearly assigned duties. The method is based on having a clear hierarchical structure with less flexibility. Lack of bureaucracy in some cases has been associated with failure and crisis in organisations. An example of an organisation that faced issues due to bureaucracy is IBM. The organisation was composed of cumbersome bureaucracy who led to crisis during the marketing of their personal computers in the 1980s (Dyer & Heyer, 1986) Despite their use in many organisations, bureaucracies are becoming less adopted. Most of the organisations that use bureaucracy are in the public sector and universities. The rise of technology has affected the running of the bureaucratic organisations. There are electronic transactions which can be processed anywhere overcoming the nature of bureaucracy involved in offices. In most of the organisations, bureaucracies are criticised a lot (Heames & Breland, 2010). They are seen to inhibit service delivery and reduce flexibility required by the organisations. Most of the organisations still retains bureaucracy though they do not rely on tight control through rules and regulations. It becomes hard to run a large organisation without some form of bureaucracy (Luthans, 2005). The human relations approach emerged after the great depression. More attention started being paid to employees’ aspect and these social factors. Hawthorne experiments marks a very important point in the human relations theory. The theory has been criticised due to its simplicity and frame of reference. The theory has also been criticised for being too narrow in its view and ignoring the way society operates. The experiments were able to show the importance of teamwork and leadership (Sheldrake, 2003). The importance of personnel management was evident through the experiments. The experiments are very important tools in social science and a very important foundation for the management thinking. Through humanising the work organisation, the human relations theory aimed at enhancing production. The human relations approach was able to identify that people need in an organisation are not only monetary based but also other types of needs. The work of Maslow helped in coming up with the motivations based on the human hierarchy of needs. The theories have been very important in the organisation setting. As an individual advance in the hierarchy their need changes. This helps the organisation in determining the type of motivation to use when dealing with the employees. The human relations theory puts more emphasis on social and psychological aspects of work (Maslow, 1954). At the moment, classical management theories are not utilised in a lot of organisations. The theories have severe shortcomings which have led to their dismissal in several instances. Despite this, some of the components are still in use. Some of the classical theory aspects are used together with the human relations theory. For example, an organisation can adopt some level of bureaucracy and maintain human relations aspects in its management. The combinations of both theories are the best for the firm performance. The classical and neo classical theories cannot be applied without human relations aspect in an organisation. This is because the theories lack the human aspects in their organisation (Luthans, 2005). The human efforts are appreciated as machines by the classical theories. During industrialisation, classical theories were very vital in mass production. For example, Ford adopted scientific management in the production of vehicles. The company was able to benefit a lot through increased production due to specialisation. Though the organisations were able to succeed, no organisation can survive without the human element. The organisations alienated their employees in management with an aim of coming up with maximum profit. The workforce was over utilised with an aim of high production, making them work like machines (Heames & Breland, 2010). At the moment, organisation requires employees with the freedom and who are capable to meet their needs. The human relations theory is based on having employees who are able to work with freedom and meeting theory needs as well as those for the organisation. Human are the life of an organisation and by recognising this, human relations theory has been very effective. Follet advocated for the organisation to have a good homogenised relationship that can help in group goal attainment. Organisation values the employees as an integral part of success. In classical theory based organisations, communication is task based. This is in contrast with human relations and human resources theories. Communication in human relations their task oriented communication is coupled with human relationship communication. This is the kind of communication that attempts to ensure that there is relationship among the employees (Luthans, 2005). Most modern organisation utilises concepts from both classical and human relations theories to come up with innovative organisation. A good example is Apple computers. The company under leadership of Steve jobs was able to come up with innovative products. The leadership value the human aspect of the employees and encouraged innovation. Through the use of human relations and human resources theories, the company managed to have a motivated workforce which was keen on innovation. The employees at Apple are valued and enabled to have an innovative environment. The success of Apple computers can be attributed to their human resource management principle through utilisation of human resource theory (Cruikshank, 2006). In classical organisation, communication flow is from top downwards. The employees wait for directives from the management (Berdayes, 2002). An example is public universities and government institutions where the top management has the major roles in decision making. Human relations theory includes horizontal communication in their channels. Communication among employees is encouraged with an aim of need satisfaction (Luthans, 2005). These types of firms respect both types of communication among the employees and from management to the employees. The organisation is able to gain ideas from employees as well as the management. This sort of communication in an organisation leads to team based performance (Heames & Breland, 2010). A major difference between human relations organisations and classical organisation is channel for communication. Classical based organisations beliefs on written communication due to permanence. Human relations based organisations beliefs in face to face communication. This implies that human relations based organisations are able to benefit from having immediate feedback (Griffin, 2006). Human needs are thus easily satisfied and accessed using human relations approach. The style of communication also differs depending on the type of organisation. For classical organisation, communication is professional and based on the bureaucracy. This implies that titles and position are very vital in these organisations. Human relations organisations break down the bureaucracies and unify managers and employees in communication. This is a means of ensuring that they are able to satisfy human needs. There is less emphasis on titles and bureaucracies. Meeting the human needs is critical in modern organisations. The organisation performance has been linked on its ability to satisfy its human resources. The attitude of the management towards employees means a lot to organisation (Luthans, 2005). The attitude of the management towards the employee is the major indicator of the type of management theory being used in an organisation. The management utilising the human relations theory does not see workers as machine in an organisation. This is seen in organisations which are contemplating on closing a plant. The organisation looks at the welfare of the employees as well as the economic impacts. The task is designed with emphasis being put on the satisfaction of the workers needs (Armstrong, 2003). Organisations utilising social relations theory have a lot of emphasis on the social relationships. This is due to belief that these relationships can make the employees happy and enhance their productivity. Mayo who one of the pioneers of the human relations theory is believed that employee motivation was not only monetary based (Heames & Breland, 2010). He realised that employees could be motivated by social needs being met in their jobs. He wanted the management to take more interests into the employees and enable them to interact. Organisations that follow human relations are able to use the Mayo’s findings. The findings were that employees enjoy better communication, greater involvement and working in teams. Some of the organisations have adopted a flat structure where bureaucracy is not utilised. This has given employees a chance to interact. This has also enhanced teamwork among the employees (Heames & Breland, 2010). The human resource perspective is a behavioural approach which is used in many organisations today. The employees’ job tasks are combined with motivations. For most organisations, tasks are connected with aspects of motivation. An organisation such as McDonalds is an example where the theory is utilised (Gilbert, 2011). The jobs at the company are designed in such a way that they are not dehumanising and workers are able to utilise their full potential. The organisation has a lot of motivations such as holidays, company cars among others. The employees at McDonalds are motivated also through appropriate job design (Gilbert, 2011). The jobs are designed with the human aspects being considered. Abraham Maslow was one of the major contributors to the theory. He gave the five hierarchies of needs that need to be met. Each level of hierarchy must be satisfied before engaging in the next level. McGregor came up with two levels of motivations by theory X and Y. Theory X was based on a negative view on the people. The theory saw people as in need of close supervision and more likely to avoid responsibility. Theory Y saw people as responsible and able to exercise self direction. According to McGregor, he believed that theory X represented classic approaches to management. He asserted that theory Y was more appropriate to define employees (Heames & Breland, 2010). Through having a realistic view on workers, organisations are capable of benefiting from the employees’ contributions. Most of the firms have based their management on the human resource theory due to these facts. Herzberg proposed that only the job can be able to give the employees total satisfaction. The way jobs are designed have the ability to enhance the firm performance through motivation. Organisations are also concerned with the employees behaviour ad their interactions. The influence of the human factor in organisations has not been ignored as it was in the classical theories. Organisations have tailored their jobs to meet the expectations of their employees (Griffin, 2006). Classical and human relations theory have led to the development of the human management thought. The classical theories made their focus on the job and machine. The human relations theory emphasized understanding of the employees with an aim of enhancing performance. If the management is able to understand its workers, they can adapt the organisations to meet their needs hence motivate them. The success of most organisations has been based on the combination of the two theories aspects to come up with a performing organisation (Armstrong, 2003). Regardless of the change in the organisations environment, classical theories are still relevant in understanding the organisation behaviour. The negative aspects of the classical theories have been eliminated in several instances. The employees require having a sense of interdependence when carrying out their jobs (Sheldrake, 2003). In most organisations, they have eliminated the autocratic approach that was advocated by the classical theories. Autocratic and bureaucratic organisations fails to be productive as the employees does only what is required of them without need to innovate. This leads to high turnover rates. Autocratic approach is utilised when new employees joins an organisation or the job requires a lot of coordination. Bureaucracies are still applied in organisations which jobs are done repeatedly and in high volumes. In modern organisations, there has been higher criticism on the classical theories. The theories notion of a classical person have been criticised highly. Today organisations are more complex and cannot be managed in the same way. Classical theories had weakness in that they argued al organisations can be managed in the same way. Despite of being outdated, classical theories have been a major contribution to the modern management principles (Heames & Breland, 2010). Combination of the two theories has led to organisations which utilises both forms of communication. The organisations maximise use of human resources. These are organisations which can use face to face communication in meetings and also utilise written memos and emails. The Communication channel is matched with the task at hand. For example, the organisation utilises face to face communication if the task to be accomplished involves a lot of uncertainty (Sheldrake, 2003). The main danger of operating using human relations theory is the fact that employees can become too social which can lead use of emotions and personal opinions rather than data when performing their tasks. It also becomes hard to fire employees since the organisation invests in them. Despite having the shortcomings, the theory has the capability to improve the organisation performance and enhance employee retention. The workers feel more valued in the firm and hence are capable to contribute their best (Griffin, 2006). Conclusion Classical and human relations theories have contributed a lot to the development of the current management in organisations. The evolution of the management theories has helped the organisations to increase their productivity and efficiency. The classic theories have put more emphasis on the job and machine while human relations theory have looked at enhancing firm production through understanding the employees. If the management is able to understand the employees, they are capable of coming up with motivation which can enhance production better. Organisations have realised that employees are motivated by different needs, hence they have to understand their behaviour. The classical theories are still in use in organisations such as public universities and government sector. These are areas where bureaucracy is needed. For most organizations, adoption of human relations theory together with some aspects of classical theory has led to great success. Others have eliminated bureaucracy and replaced it with flat structure where communication is emphasized. References Armstrong, M 2003, A handbook on Human resource management practice (9th edition), London, Kogan Page. Berdayes, V 2002, “Traditional Management Theory as Panoptic Discourse, Language and the Constitution of Somatic Flows”. Culture & Organization, Vol.8, no.1, p.35. Cruikshank, J. L 2006, The Apple way, New York, McGraw-Hill. Dyer, L & Heyer, N. O 1986, Human resource planning at IBM: A case study reference guide. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. Gilbert, S 2011, Mcdonalds, Creative Paperbacks Inc. Griffin, R.W 2006, Management, Newyork, Houghton Mifflin Company. Heames, J.T & Breland, J.W 2010, “Management Pioneer Contributors: 30 Year Review”, Journal of Management History, Vol.16, no.4, p.427-436. Luthans, F 2005, Organizational Behaviour, (10th edition), New York, McGrawHill Companies, Inc. Maslow, A 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York. Mintzberg, H 1973, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row. Sheldrake, J. 2003. Management Theory. (2nd Edition) Thompson, London. Wrege, C and Hodgetts, R 2000, “Frederick W. Taylor’s 1899 Pig Iron Observations: Examining Fact, Fiction and Lessons for the New Millenium”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1283-1291. Wren, D., Bedeian, A & Breeze, J 2002, The foundations of Henri Fayol’s administrative theory. Management Decision, Vol.40, no.9. p. 906-918. Read More