Comparison Of Human Relations School And Scientific Management

Assigning the ‘good guy’ role to Human Relations School and the ‘bad guy’ role to Scientific Management School has preoccupied conventional approaches in the study of organizational theory. While many linkages and convergences between them were ignored and one theory was assumed to be better than the other, their differences were interpreted as positive or negative according to personal opinions of conventional researchers without conclusive evidence supporting their views. The Human Relations Approach had its roots in the Hawthorne Experiments (1924-27), conducted at the Western Electric Company, USA by Elton Mayo and his associates. They concluded that workplace performance was the outcome of positive working environment, responsive management and fulfilment of the workers’ social and psychological needs. The researchers also acknowledged the importance of peer and informal groups who influenced workplace decisions and performance. These outcomes were further improved when dependence on command and control was mitigated, making it possible to promote cooperation, coordination, collaboration, participation, communication, commitment and motivation of workmen. In other words, they sought to cement such outcomes by nourishing feelings and emotions and attach less priority to economic incentives. In 1911 F.W. Taylor published his views in the Principles of Scientific Management. His engineering background helped him to formalize the ‘rule of thumb’ management practices in Bethlehem Steel Plant, implement rational measures to enhance production of steel at a lower cost and improve productivity. According to Turan (2015) this is possible when managers and supervisors promote cooperation and collaboration among all to guarantee full utilization of scientific work principles and enhance output, signalling the emphasis on workplace harmony to mitigate dissention, clashes and production loss. Taylor emphasised the importance of scientific selection and training to improve the readiness of workmen to enhance productive output.

It is clear from the above standpoint that there is no best way to manage an organization, implying the best results can be attained when Human Relations Approach and Scientific Management Approach are adopted and implemented together in the workplace. The reason for such view is linked to deficiencies of both to establish the utility of their approaches across all forms of organizations and industries. It is relevant to note that Mayo advocated singular focus on interest of the workers as a key driver of motivation and cure-all for all maladies (lack of harmony, production, productivity and profit) in an organization which unacceptable. This is because Human Relations Approach was based on beliefs and not on empirical evidence. Similarly, Taylor’s acute focus on standardization of work processes, command and control, responsibility accounting, unit based pay and productivity was apt for factory management. This corroborated by Uddin and Hossain (2015) who noted the introduction of Scientific Management Approach in close 200 American businesses of which a vast majority was factories. By itself the application of this singly limits its efficacy.

An interpretation of Griffin et al (2002) and Obedgiu (2017) reveals Elton Mayo’s reliance on psychology to manage organizations democratically. The leaning on psychology and psychiatry stemmed from his belief that workers in an organization are motivated to work and attain goals when their needs (economic and social) are satiated. Such perception leads him to claim that productivity in an organization is elevated when satisfaction of workers and their welfare are assured, establishing the merits of Hawthorne experiment (1924-1927) that inspired managers to attach priority to human relations.

Elton Mayo justified the worth of Human Relations Approach by linking an organization to a social entity that is composed of workmen and informal groups who influence workplace decisions and performance. From his viewpoint these are further elevated when dependence on command and control is mitigated, making it possible to promote cooperation, coordination, collaboration, participation, communication, commitment and motivation of workmen. In other words, he advocated harnessing He sought to cement such outcomes by nourishing feelings and emotions and attach less priority to economic incentives.

A critical review of Ahlstrom (2014), Bruce and Nyland (2011) and Jones (2000) sheds light on flawed assumptions of Elton Mayo who presented a psychology based reasoning to promote collaborative and congenial work culture to elevate productivity. He attached priority to team building, informal social communication, conflict reduction between labour and management, training, congenial work environment, group work dynamics, workload planning, participation of all and leadership to elevate production and productivity. These premises are not new and they are rooted in Scientific Management Theory, pounded by Fedrick W. Taylor.

Taylor had an engineering background that allowed him to change ‘rule of thumb management practices’ in Bethlehem Steel Plant and implement rational measures to enhance production of steel at a lower cost and improve productivity. According to Turan (2015) the realisation of such missions becomes possible when managers and supervisors promote cooperation and collaboration among all to guarantee full utilization of scientific work principles and enhance output, signalling the emphasis on workplace harmony to mitigate dissention, clashes and production loss. In his work Ratnayake (2009) emphasises the importance of selection, training and improving readiness of workmen to be productive and deliver results, an outcome of clear prioritization of human element in workplace.

It is important to note that Taylor fused Human Relations principles with scientific way of managing work composed of tasks, processes and workflows. As a result, he recommended review of every aspect of a worker’s work (job analysis), making it possible to ascertain how such work can be done efficiently (performance analysis) by breaking it into smaller parts (work study and work design) based on rules and procedures. It is apparent from his stand that he did not overlook human aspect management of management in an effort to gain productivity, supported by division of work, chain of command, division of planning and function, unambiguous communication of accountability. Such holistic approach of Scientific Management improved workplace environment, quality of performance, overall production and profit.

The analysis clarifies the limitations of both theories. They are not suitable across all organizations and industries. While Scientific Management Approach with its focus on demarcation of roles, tasks, responsibilities and functions; process and workflow control; and fatigue reduction by time and motion study is suitable for large industrial organizations engaged in manufacturing machines, equipment, automobile, aircraft and pharmaceutical. In contrast human approach known to emphasise psychological, social and physical needs is relevant to public organizations, banks, educational institutions and not for profit organizations.

Further analysis of Bruce and Nyland (2011), Urick et al (2017) and Zuffo (2011) explains the underlying reasons for lack of universality of the approaches. Acute concentration of Scientific Management on top-down command and control culture shows the stifling intellectual maturity and creativity of workers, job satisfaction and commitment, happiness quotient and sustainability. Such deficiencies limit the adoption of Scientific Management across industries, notably knowledge based industries. Superficial stress on human aspect in Human Relations retards implementation. This signals the impact of Mayo’s inabilities to consider workers’ actual behaviour, unions and their role in conflict and tension management, nature of work, economic factors and formal relationship. The weaknesses dilute the utility of the approach, reinforcing the necessity to integrate the two approaches to evoke workers’ passion to collaborate with the managers and build teams, maintain workplace harmony through management of informal groups, systematize work processes and flows, establish a chain of command that facilitates clear communication and eliminates bureaucracy, assessment of performance and implementation of performance based payment, prioritize lean production and profit.