Scientific Management and Human Relations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Factual and Theoretical Evidences
Differences between Scientific Management and Human Relations
Similarities between Human Relations and Scientific Management
Conclusion
References

Introduction

“The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer; coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee” (Scribd 2011, p. 2). In attainment of the goal of satisfying employer and employee needs, Taylor and Malo designed the scientific management concept and the human relations movement.

Scientific management was developed from a wider umbrella of management theories (classical theories) which include the administrative management theory by Henry Fayol and the Bureaucratic organizational theory by Max Weber (Taylor 2010, p. 1).

Scientific management has often been compared to the human relations movement, but the human relations movement is created from a wider body of theories (neo-classical theories), which include Maslow’s behavioral theory and other theories developed by human resource scholars like McGregor, Herzberg and others.

The scientific management theory was developed by Fredrick Taylor after discovering that there were lots of inefficiencies at Midvale Steel, where he worked as a foreman. This discovery was made during his career as an engineer in the 1880s and 1890s (Taylor 2003, p. 1).

Here, Taylor noticed that, most of his workplace structures worked to create a lot of inefficiencies in the organization. From this observation, Taylor proposed that, workplace efficiencies could be easily improved if management was perceived to be a science (Khurana 2009). As a result, he proposed several concepts which form the framework of the scientific management movement.

He proposed that, the “worker experience” should be divided into different segments by allocating certain tasks to specialized employee groups. The kind of jobs to be allocated to each worker would be determined through scientific selection (Guillén 2006).

Taylor also proposed that, workers should be trained through scientific processes, and the management should limit its roles to the direction, supervision, and the design of organizational activities. He also suggested that, employees should follow the direction of the managers, within a framework of mutual respect and understanding (Tsutsui 2001).

The human relations concept was developed from several experiments. These experiments are widely known as the “Hawthorne experiments” (Gupta 2011, p. 23). The experiments included a study of six individuals who gave their full support to collaborative (team) work. The experiment showed that, the six individuals enjoyed their work experience through mutual understanding and respect.

During the experiment, it was observed that, there was no coercion or intimidation in the workplace, and from these conditions, workplace productivity was seen to improve significantly (Reece 2011, p. 12). From this observation, the human relations theory was developed from the assertion that, managers need to recognize non-monetary needs of workers.

Consequently, the theory affirmed that, “Individuals are motivated by social needs and good on-the-job relationships and respond better to work-group pressure than to management control activities” (Scribd 2011, p. 2). The human relations concept also held that, organizations are social systems that need to be perceived in the same regard.

The concept also advances the view that; management should always strive to fulfill workers’ psychological needs before they strive to fulfill any other organizational need (Krahn 2010). This view was strongly advanced because it was observed that, informal organizational groups had a strong influence on organizational performance.

Comprehensively, the human relations movement emphasized on the fulfillment of workers’ psychological need, more than any monetary need. This paper focuses on exploring the similarities and the differences between the scientific management concept and the human relations movement.

Emphasis will be made on how the two concepts aim to control the workplace environment and how they influence people’s behavior or productivity in the workplace.

Factual and Theoretical Evidences

There are several industries and companies which have adopted scientific management with great success. Already, there is evidence that several New Zealand factories have adopted this concept with much success, but McDonald has achieved greater success in the same. McDonalds operates a chain of fast food restaurants across the world and it has consistently used scientific management in its operations.

The adoption of scientific management is especially seen in its reward program, where employees are given monetary rewards for exemplary performance (McDonald’s Corporation 2006).

This program was crafted from Taylor’s assertion that, non-monetary rewards decrease employee productivity because employees would not be motivated if they received a uniform monetary reward, regardless of their level of performance. From this observation, McDonald introduced a bonus and reward program where employees received different monetary rewards for different levels of employee success.

Scientific management movement has also been implemented in other platforms, apart from individual organizations. For instance, before the cold war, the Soviet Union greatly borrowed from American ideals, which were centered on scientific management. During this period, the Soviet Union focused its efforts on importing skilled labor from America (Beissinger 1988, p. 162).

Many professionals (such as engineers and consultants) were imported into the Soviet Union to assist in building the country’s infrastructure. This move was mainly guided by the scientific management movement, thereby leading to the development of a strong communist state. Also, there is evidence of the adoption of scientific management theories by Ford Company (Merkle 1980, p. 97).

Though there are some researchers who dispute the influence of scientific management in Ford’s success, several experts believe that, Ford Company could not have achieved its high level of success without the inclusion of scientific management principles (Daft 2010).

In understanding the human relations movement, it is crucial to comprehend the influence of Maslow’s theory of human needs and Douglas McGregor’s contribution to the human relations movement. Maslow observed that, people were often motivated by several factors in their lives including monetary rewards, sense of security, self-actualization needs and the likes (Barnat 2005, p. 4).

Through his work, he developed a pyramid of motivating factors for humans, where he explained that, whenever people fulfilled lower needs (at the bottom of the pyramid), they strived to fulfill higher-level needs.

Much recognition is given to this theory because it is from Maslow’s work that many managers started to focus on other employee needs (non-monetary needs) such as the need to be accepted and the need for self-growth. Therefore, from Maslow’s contribution, the human relations movement was birthed.

McGregor also significantly contributed to the development of the human relations movement because he birthed theory X and theory Y. Theory X is somewhat cognizant of the views held by scientific management because it does not paint a rosy picture of workers.

However, theory Y paints workers in a good light because it explains that, organizations can effectively use the intellectual property of their workers and the imagination of its employees to their advantage. This theory is complementary to the human relations theory because it is more sensitive to workers’ needs. After these research studies were concluded, the behavioral approach theory was developed.

It suggested that, informal worker groups were more sophisticated than the human relations movement tried to portray (MBA Knowledge Base 2011, p. 2). This theory developed from the human relations movement, and it not only concentrated on the psychological needs of workers, but also the sociological needs of workers.

Therefore, the fie3ld of organizational behavior developed from the influence of human relations movement because it exposed a multidimensional approach to studying human behavior in the organizational context. From the same movement, several concepts were improved (developed).

For example, the human relations movement explained that, man was a “social individual”, but the organizational behavior approach explains that, man is a “sophisticated individual” (MBA Knowledge Base 2011, p. 2). The new theory also indicated that, human behavior (in the workplace) was subject to several factors including the organizational culture.

From this assertion, evidence was given of the influence that organizational culture has on employee needs and wants. The organizational behavior theory sees organizational culture as an external influence on employee productivity because a contrast was made to the concepts of the human relations theory as constituting internal influences of employee productivity (MBA Knowledge Base 2011, p. 2).

The theory also proposed that, man’s main goal is to self-actualize. The organizational behavior theory also exposed intrusive details about the informal workforce setup by explaining that, people had different personalities and therefore, they had no common view of life. This view was meant to explain that, people often reacted differently to certain elements of organizational behavior.

The organizational behavior approach also showed that, people could have different goals from the organization, and management needed to find a way to strike a balance between the two (individual and organizational goals) (MBA Knowledge Base 2011, p. 2).

The theory also proposed a democratic form of leadership by management because it suggested that, an informal style of leadership was most effective for most organizations. Finally, the theory showed that, people were usually motivated to work for their personal betterment. Therefore, organizations had to devise ways of coordinating these energies to fulfill the organizational objectives as well.

Differences between Scientific Management and Human Relations

The earlier definitions of the concepts of scientific management and human relations expose certain differences in their composition. For instance, the most significant difference between the two concepts is the methodology of achieving their core values. The scientific management concept perceives the organizational output as the main objective (Nelson 1992).

In achieving this objective, it also perceives people as the basic unit of output. However, the human relations concept focuses on human relations as opposed to organizational output (Wilton 2010, p. 45). Here, the human relations concept draws a direct relation between informal work groups and the overall organizational output.

From this assertion, we see that, the scientific management concept mainly emphasizes on improving organizational output but the goal of human relations is broader.

The human relations concept was designed to achieve a high organizational output, but it was nonetheless inclined to isolate the worker as the basic unit of production. From this understanding, the human relations movement emphasized on the importance of focusing on worker satisfaction through the development of productive human relationships (Gaines 2011, p. 151).

Also, from the development of the scientific management concept and the human relations concept, we observe that, both concepts perceive the role of the organizational leader to be very different. Taylor (through the scientific management concept) defined the role of management to constitute the tasks of direction, supervision, and setting work criteria.

From this understanding, the scientific management concept elevates the role of management to be of an authoritarian nature. However, the human relations concept softens the role of management to the improvement of employee relationships. Based on this criterion, management is perceived to facilitate cooperation and coordination among employees in the workplace to achieve high organizational productivity.

The facilitation of intra-organizational and inter-organizational human relationship is core to the human relations concept (Lunenburg 2011, p. 9). The intra-organizational and inter-organizational human relationships are achieved by paying more attention to employee’s need to develop and grow

Contrary to the human relations movement, there is little recognition of informal employee groups by the scientific management concept, but the human relations concept emphasizes a lot on informal employee groups. This distinction is traced to the mechanical and passive perception of the employee by the scientific management concept because workers are seen to work for monetary rewards only.

The scientific management concept therefore has a strong inclination to rationality. However, the human relations theory acknowledges that, workers are motivated by various factors, apart from monetary rewards only (Hamilton 2010, p. 44).

Organizational growth and employee growth also mark the difference between the scientific management concept and the human relations movement because there is a strong inclination by the scientific management concept to focus on organizational growth as opposed to employee growth (Waring 1994).

The scientific management concept outlines that, organizations may achieve maximum growth if they exercise external control over their workers but the human relations concept adopts a more subtle approach to achieve organizational growth. Though the human relations concept also intends to facilitate organizational growth, it acknowledges the need for employee personal growth (Ferguson 2001, p. 238).

Contrary to the perception of the human relations movement, the scientific management concept perceives employees as economic components of production (Miller 2003, p. 300). The scientific management concept further perceives workers to be mainly motivated through specialization.

Conversely, since communication is also perceived to be an integral component of organizational performance, the human relations theory perceives employees to be social people (Ross 2010, p. 118).

According to the philosophies of the human relations theory, satisfied workers are indeed, motivated and highly productive. Nonetheless, though the scientific management concept and the human relations movement differ on many levels, they also have some similarities.

Similarities between Human Relations and Scientific Management

The human relations concept and the scientific management concept share a lot of similarities. For instance, the goals of the two concepts are inherently similar because they aim to attain increased productivity. Scribd (2011) explains that, “scientific management believed that, planning should be separated from doing” (Scribd 2011, p. 2).

In contrast Scribd explained that, “the human relations movement emphasized emotional aspects in human behavior, yet still maintained the division of labor between those who planned and those who executed” (Scribd 2011, p. 2). Though there is a slight difference between the two statements, there is a clear agreement in the ultimate objective of improving productivity.

From this observation, we can agree that, the two concepts intend to achieve the same objective, but they use different approaches. Furthermore, the scientific management concept and the human relations movement both intend to achieve organizational efficiency through organizational excellence, and an application of one concept (or both) could achieve the same objective.

Also, the scientific management concept and the human relations movement focus on the employee as a crucial factor of production. Both movements strive to improve employee productivity, though they use different approaches.

The scientific management concept suggests that, employee productivity should be subdivided into different groups of specialization, where tasks are subdivided according to various employee specialization groups. The same concept also proposes that, management should limit their involvement to direction and supervisory tasks.

From this understanding, we see that, though the scientific management concept is mechanical in the way it expects to improve employee productivity, it focuses on employees as the main factor of production. One can state without a doubt that, the concept intends to improve employee efficiency.

This is the same criterion used by the human relations movement because it also strives to improve employee productivity in a non-mechanical way.

Human relations and the scientific management are also similar in the fact that, both concepts strived to change an existing traditional paradigm that was insensitive to the dynamics of production (Kerns 2011, p. 3). The scientific management concept was developed to change the old system of personal management in the workplace.

This fact explains the reason that the scientific management concept is attributed to be the father of modern-era management techniques. Kerns (2011) explains that, the scientific management concept was designed to change the awkward, inefficient and ill-directed (conventional) ways of personal management in the workplace by suggesting the inclusion of scientific management techniques.

The transition from conventional to new ways of management was instigated by the notion that, industry leaders were supposed to be personally brilliant. Kerns (2011) explained that, “Taylor consistently sought to overthrow management by rule of thumb and replace it with actual timed observations leading to the one best practice” (Kerns 2011, p. 3).

The scientific management concept advocated that, workers should be trained through scientific management principles and not through personal discretion preferences. Personal discretion is part of an old ideology of management that the scientific management concept strived to eliminate. The human relations movement also shares this goal because it sought to introduce a new paradigm of management.

The Hawthorne experiments were done to dispel an old view of management by introducing a new system of employee treatment that was more sensitive to worker needs (Kerns 2011, p. 3). This new paradigm was part of a newer ideology proposed by the human relations movement.

Conclusion

After weighing the similarities and differences of the scientific management concept and the human relations movement, one would realize that, even though they are different in design, they are both aimed at achieving the same objectives. From this analogy, it is crucial to understand that, though Mayo and Taylor used different methodologies to arrive at their theories, they both tried to change an inefficient model of management.

A good manager would therefore study both concepts and apply them uniformly. This observation affirms the notion that, the human relations concept and the scientific management concept are two different wheels of the same car because they are designed to achieve the same objective. Conversely, none of the concept is superior to the other.

References

Barnat, R. (2005). The Human Relations Movement. Web.

Beissinger, M. (1988). Scientific Management, Socialist Discipline And Soviet Power. London, I.B.Tauris.

Daft, R. (2010). Understanding Management. London, Cengage Learning.

Ferguson, L. (2001). Path for Greatness: Spiritualty at Work. London, Trafford Publishing.

Gaines, L. (2011). Policing in America. Sydney, Elsevier.

Guillén, M. (2006). The Taylorized Beauty Of The Mechanical: Scientific Management And The Rise Of Modernist Architecture. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Gupta, A. (2011). Principles Of Management. New York, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

Hamilton, C. (2010). Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions. London, Cengage Learning.

Kerns. (2011). Frederick Taylor – Scientific Management. Web.

Khurana, A. (2009). Scientific Management: A Management Idea To Reach A Mass Audience. New Delhi, Global India Publications.

Krahn, H. (2010). Work, Industry, and Canadian Society. New York, Cengage Learning.

Lunenburg, F. (2011). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices. London, Cengage Learning.

MBA Knowledge Base. (2011). The Behavioral Science Approach To Management. Web.

McDonald’s Corporation. (2006). Your Pay and Reward. Web.

Merkle, J. (1980). Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement. California, University of California Press.

Miller, J. (2003). Encyclopedia of Human Ecology. New York, ABC-CLIO.

Nelson, D. (1992). A Mental Revolution: Scientific Management Since Taylor. Ohio, Ohio State University Press.

Reece, B. (2011). Human Relations. London, Cengage Learning.

Ross, J. (2010). Policing Issues: Challenges & Controversies. London, Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Scribd. (2011). Attitudes of the Scientific School of Management thought with those of the Human Relations Movement. Web.

Taylor, F. (2003). Scientific Management: Early Sociology of Management and Organizations. New York, Routledge.

Taylor, F. (2010). The Principles Of Scientific Management. New York, Forgotten Books.

Tsutsui, W. (2001). Manufacturing Ideology: Scientific Management in Twentieth- Century Japan. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Waring, S. (1994). Taylorism Transformed: Scientific Management Theory Since 1945. New York, UNC Press Books.

Wilton, N. (2010). An Introduction to Human Resource Management. New York, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Click Here To Order Now!