Scientific Management And Human Relationship Management: A Comparison

Question:

Discuss about the Introduction of Management for Human Relationship.

The report focuses on how scientific management and human relationship management has contributed to the modern management.  It is a brief approach to make the readers understand the importance of the two approaches in an effective way. The comparison of the two theories and the other aspects clears the idea of readers about the two management theories. It explains that how scientific management theory and modern management theory contribute in modern management theory and practices.

The father of scientific management who developed the theory of scientific management in relation to management is Fredrick Winslow Taylor. The principles of scientific management depicted by Taylor discusses that the scientific management is an approach of hiring men to do what they want to achieve the goals and objectives (Stergiou and Decker, 2011). The management only has to ensure that whatever they do is in the favor of business and also uses the cheapest way while working on any task assigned to them by the company.  Taylor proposed the idea of scientific management in order to oppose the old idea of the rule of thumb that companies used to follow. The approach he took to accomplish this theory was by breaking the human activities and assigning the particular task to the employees individually. According to him, this will take less time and the outputs of the work will come in an effective way.  He used standardized tools for the effective business approach. The theories made by him were satisfactory and resulted in maintaining a discipline in the workplace (Corley and Gioia, 2011).

The theories of human relationship management were developed by Hawthorne but it was conducted by Professor Elton Mayo. The major area that Hawthorne focused on was the effect of motivation and productivity on employees or on a group of people working in the organization. The models created in the use of human relationship management are effective and efficient which inspires the employees to get self-motivated. This enhances their working in the organization (Datta, Mitra, Paramesh and Patwardhan, 2011). The theory of human relationship management started in the early years of 1920. This was the time when people saw industrial revolution (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013).  During the time the main focus of the industries was in the business production. At that time Professor Elton Mayo started experimenting over his studies of human relationships. His main aim of the study was to let the industries know about the importance of people for production than that of machines. He argued to the thought of giving more importance to people working in the organization than to the machines which are a total waste without them. The theory makes the people believe about their desires to work for the company and to support them in facilitating growth and success. This encourages the employees to participate in the function of business in order to get special attention because of their work (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This motivates them to work more significantly in order to get credit for their high quality of work. The results of theories after being imposed on the business proved that the factor responsible for influencing the increased production is ‘relationship’ (Fiedler, 2012).

Human Relationship Management Theory

The main objective of scientific management is to develop science by replacing the old pattern of ‘rule of thumb’ used by the management. Managing factories by the method of ‘rule of thumb’ made them handle the situation raised but they had to suffer from the approach of trial and error; Whereas, in the theory of human relationships, the attitude of workers depends on the productivity (Trevarthen, 2011).

Taylor objected on the point of letting workers choose their tasks on their own and get trained in best possible manner. He suggested they should be trained by scientific approach of getting involved in a specific task. In human relationship theory, the workplace is a system that shows the effect of individual’s behavior which is a way of supervising the work done by the employees (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013).

The organization that follows the scientific management approach ensures that the conduction of the work is carried out scientifically. This develops a good cooperation among the workers and the management. The studies of human relationship management showed the collaboration between worker and management by assisting employees to adjust in the organizational environment (Bolden, 2011).

The communication between the workers and the other members of management followed under scientific management are impersonal relationships that are organized in a hierarchal system, whereas human relationship management focuses on satisfying the needs of workers through interpersonal communication. Their focus remains on the issues of communication with the workers efficiently (Parry and Urwin, 2011). 

The two schools of management are different from each other in many different aspects. The theory of Taylor differs largely from the theory of Mayo. The very first difference is seen between the treating of employees. The employees under scientific management theory are treated as robots. They have to work effectively and efficiently all day, but the employees working in the management of human relationship are treated as humans. The company is concerned in fulfilling the needs of their employees (Crane, 2013).

Taylor believed that the incentives are a way to keep employees motivated while Mayo stated that the outputs are generated by harmony among employees and not by the technological and economic acceptance. This suggests that if the environment of the workplace is in favor of employees, good outputs would be generated and employees will remain motivated.

The third differences is that theory of scientific management teaches employees to follow the rules while working in the company while human relationship believes in encouraging employees to participate in decision making and takes care of the good going relationships in the workplace (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013).

Comparison of the Two Theories

Taylor’s theory suggests an employee work individually while the theory of human relationship encourages employees to work in groups and share opinions.

The differences show the attitude of two schools towards the employees. Scientific management is more close to the members of an organization while the other theory seems to be open to the employees. 

In the two theories of management, we can observe the similarities that prevail equally while operating a business. Both the theories play a vital and significant role in largely managing the attitude of the employees towards organization (Pinkerton, 2011). 

The contribution of both the schools has been a practice of management. Both the schools motivate the employees in performing the assigned task in their own way. The measures taken while motivating the employees in both the schools of management are effective and provide a good result. The employees are seen dedicated towards the work. This increases the productivity level and the outputs generated are maximized.

The idea of “technical division of labor” suggested by Taylor states that the task given to the employees is divided and then they are put to work on a particular task. The incentives given to them for completing the task is given in order to motivate them. Similarly, in the idea of Mayo’s theory, the employees are encouraged to work in groups but the idea to achieve the target is same.

Hence the theory of ‘Scientific Management and Human relationship Management’ is very important to be followed in the organization. The ultimate idea in both the theories is to accomplish the set target (Corley and Gioia, 2011).

Conclusion

On the above discussion, it has been analyzed that scientific management theory and human relations movement give a vital contribution in modern management in order to meet the goals and objectives of the firm. The organisation is using these theories to attain the mission and vision of the firm with maintaining sustainability within the organisation. 

References

Bolden, R., 2011. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), pp.251-269.

Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A., 2011. Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 36(1), pp.12-32.

Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A., 2011. Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 36(1), pp.12-32.

Crane, A., 2013. Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), pp.49-69.

Datta, H.S., Mitra, S.K., Paramesh, R. and Patwardhan, B., 2011. Theories and management of aging: modern and ayurveda perspectives. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2011.

Fiedler, P.L. ed., 2012. Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation preservation and management. Springer Science & Business Media.

Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L., 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L., 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

Parry, E. and Urwin, P., 2011. Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International journal of management reviews, 13(1), pp.79-96.

Pierce, J.R. and Aguinis, H., 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), pp.313-338.

Pinkerton, E. ed., 2011. Co-operative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management and community development. UBC Press.

Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W., 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), pp.381-403.

Stergiou, N. and Decker, L.M., 2011. Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: is there a connection?. Human movement science, 30(5), pp.869-888.

Trevarthen, C., 2011. What is it like to be a person who knows nothing? Defining the active intersubjective mind of a newborn human being. Infant and Child Development, 20(1), pp.119-135.