Influence of Classical and Human Relations Approaches In Management
Management is the act and science of getting things to be done generally by others. (American Society of mechanical engineers). It can also be referred to as a way of organizing the things and directing the duties of people in the context of their jobs (Mullins, 2011) Management remains an essential component of any entity (Nadrifar et al, 2015). The discipline of management permeates every organization where human and other resources are involved. The word management emanates from a latin word ‘manus-agree’. Manus means “hand” and agree means “act” referring to leadership by hand or giving direction. As market became more global and competition increasingly fierce, and advances in technology continue to redefine competitive advantage, management theories have evolved making management more suited to the present conditions. Bartrek (2002) points out; contemporary theories of management tend to account for and help interpret the rapidly changing nature of today’s organizational environments. One of the earliest management frameworks was associated with bureaucratic organizations which exercised traditional management theory designed to control behavior. Modern management theory and practice, though, have demonstrated that bureaucracy is no longer an effective model. According to Wofgang Pinder and Sandra E. Rogers state approach to management arose between 1885 and 1940s in an effort to provide a rational and scientific basis for the management of an organization. its commencement shoots from the industrial revolution when different individual conveyed together to work in factories as opposed to the handicraft system whereby people worked in small shops or in homes. Industrialization generated a need for effective planning, organizing influencing and controlling of all work activities.
Classical approaches to management
In the early twentieth century, classical organization theories emerge with the vigorous development of industry. Taylor, Fayol and Webb established the building and the development of skeleton of classical organization theory, by defining respectively research objects: individual efficiency, enterprise organizational efficiency and social organizational efficiency (Guo, 2003).Classical approaches to management gained prominence during the individual revolution. its focus was on efficiency , productivity and output of workers as well as their contribution to the bottom line ( Parker and Retson ,2005 ) The three major theories that promoted the classical approaches to management are listed below;
1. Fayol’s administrative theory
2. Taylor’s theory of scientific management
3. Weber’s theory of Bureaucracy.
Fayol’s Administrative theory
Henri Fayol’s management theory is a simple model of how management interacts with personnel. Fayol’s management theory covers concepts in a broad way, so almost any business can apply this theory of management. He believed into that management theories could be developed, and then taught for the overall good of organizations and society. He advocated that if a manager wants to be successful, he is required to learn his main management roles-functions: to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control. Presently, business community considers Fayol’s classical management theory as a relevant guide to productively managing staff.
He developed the first comprehensive theory of management. Fayol believed that organizational and business was a combination of six activities. These activities are as follows: (Ehiobuhe & Tu, 2012).
Technical (Relating to Production of goods), Commercial (Buying, selling and exchanging), Financial (Raising and using capital), Security (Protection of property and people), Accounting (Preparation of various statements, accounts and returns so on) and Managerial (Coordination, control, organization, planning, and command of people).
Fayol’s 14 principles are as follows: (Shafritz et al., 2005)
Division of work: The object of division of work is to produce more and greater work with the same effort. Division of work allows reduction in the number of objects to which attention and effort must be directed and has been recognized as the best means of making use of individuals and of groups of people.
Authority and Responsibility: Authority is the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. Authority is not to be conceived of apart from responsibility that is apart from sanction-reward or penalty-which goes with the exercise of power. Responsibility is a corollary of authority, it is its natural consequence and important counterpart, and wheresoever authority is is exercised responsibility arises. Nevertheless, generally speaking, responsibility is feared as much as authority is sought after, and fear of responsibility paralyses much initiative and destroys many good qualities. A good leader should possess and infuse into those around him the courage to accept responsibility.
Discipline: Discipline is in essence obedience, application, energy, behavior, and outward marks of respect observed in accordance with the standing agreements between the firm and its employees, whether these agreements have been freely debated or accepted without prior discussion, whether they derive from the wish of the parties to them or from rules and customs, it is these agreements which determine the formalities of discipline. Nevertheless, general opinion is deeply convinced that discipline is absolutely essential for the smooth running of business and that without discipline no enterprise could prosper. Discipline is what leaders make it.
Unity of command: In all human associations, in industry, commerce, army, home, state, dual command is a main source of conflicts, very grave sometimes, which have special attention of superiors of all ranks. Subordinate should report only to one supervisor or supervisee.
Unity of directions: The principle is expressed as: one head one plan) should not be confused with unity of command (One employee to have orders from one superior only). Unity of direction is provided for by sound organization of the body corporate, unity of command turns on the functioning of the personnel. Unity of command cannot occur without unity of direction, but does not flow from it.
Subordinate of Individual interest to General Interest: This principle brings to mind the fact that in a business the interest of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over that of the concern, that the interest of the home should come before that of its members and that interest of the state should have pride of place over that of one citizen or group of citizens. It seems that such an admonition must not need calling to mind. But ignorance, ambition, selfishness, laziness, weakness, and all human passions tend to cause the general interest to be lost sight of in favour of individual interest and a perpetual struggle has to be waged against him.
Remuneration of Personnel: Remuneration of personnel is the price of services rendered. It should be fair and, as is possible, afford satisfaction both to personnel and firm (employee and employer). The rate of remuneration bases, firstly, on circumstances independent of the employer’s will and employee’s worth, cost of living, abundance, shortage of personnel, general business conditions, the economic position of the business, and after that it depends on the value of the employees and mode of payment adopted. Salaries and wages should be equal to workers. It should be fair to employees and employers. This includes financial and non- financial compensation.
Centralization: This principle is like division of work, it relates to the natural order; this turns to the fact that in every organism, animal or social, sensations converge towards the brain or directive part, and from the brain or directive part orders are sent out which set all parts of the organism in movement.
Scalar chains: This is the chain of superiors ranging from the ultimate authority to the lowest ranks. The line authority is the route followed through every link in the chain by all communications which start from or go to the ultimate authority. This path is dictated both by the need for some transmission and by the principle of unity of command, but it is not generally the swiftest. Employees should be aware of where they stand in the organization’s hierarchy or chain of command.
Order: Material order means a place for everything and everything in its place. Social order means a place for everyone and everyone in his place.
Equity: Why equity and not justice? Justice is putting into execution established conventions but conventions cannot foresee everything, they need to be interpreted or their inadequacy supplemented. For the personnel to be encouraged to carry out its duties with all the devotion and loyalty of which it is capable it must be treated with kindliness and justice. Equity excludes neither forcefulness nor sternness and the application of it needs much good sense, experience, and good nature.
Stability of tenure of Personnel: Time is needed for an employee to get used to new work and succeed in doing it; always assuming that he possess the requisite abilities. If when he has got used to it, or before then, he is removed, he will not have had time to render worthwhile service. If this be repeated indefinitely the work will never be properly done. The undesirable consequences of such insecurity of tenure are especially to be feared in large concerns, where the settling in of managers is generally a lengthy matter. Much time is required indeed to get to know men and things in a large concern in order to be in a position to decide on a plan of action, gather confidence in oneself, and in spite it in others.
Initiative: Thinking out a plan and ensuring its success is one of the keenest satisfactions for an intelligent man to experience. It is also one of the strongest stimulants of human endeavor. This power of thinking out and executing is what is called initiative. At all levels of the organizational ladder zeal and energy on the part of employees are augmented by initiative of all, added to that of the manager, and supplementing it if need be, shows a great source of strength for businesses. This is mainly apparent at difficult times; hence it is required to encourage and develop this capacity to the full.
Espirit de Corps: Union is strength. Team work should be encouraged.
The effect of Fayol’s principles on organizational effectiveness has been subject to increasing criticism since such principles were not designed to cope with modern conditions of rapid change, flatter structures and increased employee participation in the decision-making processes of the organization (Cole and Kelly, 2016, pp.25). Exponents of Taylor’s theory like Brunsson (2008) postulates that Taylor’s theory would have prevailed if Fayol’s ideas were better scrutinized, as cited by Pryor and Taneja (2010, pp. 496)
Taylors Theory of Scientific Management
Scientific management was contributed by F.W Taylor (1856-1917), During Taylor’s time, management left working methods to the initiative of their employees, a behaviour called ‘rule of thumb’ by Taylor. He suggested that for efficient performance, management would take this role from workers, which lead to separation of planning and control from doing the job itself nowadays. Taylor’s inspiration was based directly on his personal experience he had while working as a shop floor worker and later as a manager in steel companies. He analyzed work and observed steel workers minimal output and discovered the reasons for inefficient work practices and related this to the concept of ‘soldering’ and ‘rule of thumb’ problems which could be solved scientifically. Taylor calculated the most efficient way to perform every job by observing the most skilled craftsman. This resulted into a work study, in other to break the work processes into smaller simpler tasks that could be taught to inefficient workers. According to Cole and Kelly, Taylor ”studied the jobs of a sample of especially skilled workers, noting each operation and timing it with a stopwatch. All unnecessary movements could be eliminated in order to produce the best method of doing a job. The best method would become the standard to be used for all like jobs” (Cole & Kelly, 2016)
Mullin (2007) had summarized some principles of management as;
The development of a true science for each persons
The scientific selection, training and development of workers;
Co-operation with the workers to ensure work is carried out in the prescribed way.
The management idea was to reduce the working time by simplifying the working task of the human based work. However, the contribution thinking of Taylor has been misinterpreted. Some organization had misused his idea to invoke the employees to conduct more work at the less cost basis.
Scientific management principles are very common in manufacturing and factories. The assembly line is car manufacturing is a clear example of the application of scientific management principles to manufacturing.
Scientific Management and Microsoft
Microsoft founded in 1975 is a US-based multinational technology organization based in Washington; the basic operations include the development, manufacturing, licensing and support of computer software, electronic and provision of computer services (Microsoft, 2015). The company, which is the world largest software organization, offers a range of products and services for both the consumers and businesses. Innovation may not inherently be associated with scientific management, the process requires those involved to undertake original though and non-standardized approaches towards identifying and developing new ideas (Dogson et al., 2008). Based on the job review site “Glass door ” it also appears that the organization adopts the concept within a modern interpretation, with different elements of empowerment and support motivation, as job satisfaction does not appear to be low ( Glass door, 2015 ). The conditions on the outsourced sector display the characteristics of scientific management, but with the lower labor cost, higher cost savings and higher levels of attrition with outsourced suppliers (Thibodeau, 2010). The implementation of scientific management techniques are more likely to be based on the traditional rigid approach rather than implementing the empowerment strategies, and embracing the concept of hearty co-operation.
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy
Max Weber is a German theorist and sociologist who supported Henri Fayol administrative principle. He envisaged management of an organization to be impersonal and rational basis. The theory was popular during the 1930-1950 periods and focused on dividing organization into hierarchies, establishing strong lines of authority and control. According to Stoner et al (1995), Weber considered the ideal organization to be a bureaucracy whose activities and objectives were rationally thought out and whose divisions of labour were explicitly spelt out. The model presented by Weber corresponds to what many management people call formal organization (Ile, 1999). Weber recognized the functional properties of a bureaucratic system but failed to see the importance of informal organizations. Weber’s view for bureaucratic organization is necessary in modem business practice as a prerequisite for efficiency. It has a lot in common with scientific management school, which laid emphasis on rigid application of scientific principles to work. Critics have heaped all kinds of challenges on it, excessive red tape, inflexibility, authoritarianism and general lack of human face (Eze, 1998). Therefore, instead of finding creative solutions to problem, the bureaucratic organization and the people in it spend valuable time following rules and procedures. No wonder Thompson (1961), stated dysfunctions of bureaucracy to include; Rigidity, Impersonality, Displacement of Objectives, Limitation of categorization, Cost of controls, Self-perpetuating.
The theory is used to good effect in small entrepreneurial organization where most of the decision making lies with the owner. As a result, bureaucratic management can handle some more complex operations than the traditional management approach.
Human Relation approach
After World War I and Proceeding from the draw backs of the classical/scientific theories of management; (1) neglecting well-being of workers, (2) financial reward (e.g. salaries and wages) is the only motivator for employees to exert effort, another group of theorists (a.k.a.
Human-Relations theorists) started to understand why classical/scientific management failed to deliver its promises (increase the worker productivity) operating under efficient control -face of management- only. They relayed this to the other management face (leadership motivation & coaching feature). They examined factors and conditions that motivated workers which revealed the significance of human and social factors -people feelings, needs, perceptions, attitudes, and relationships- in the workplace (Safferstone, 2005, pp.5-6)
This approach encourages an organization to be seen as “social system with interactions, communications, alliances and conflict” (Holt, 1999, p137). The human relation movement developed from a research done by early behaviorists, such as Hugo Munsterberg, Mary Parker Follet and Elton Mayo (Bartol et al, 2006). The most known and important of this studies (Gautschi, 1989). How studies were conducted at the haw Thorne plant of the western electric company. The students tested the effects of different factors such as lightening workers had on efficiency.
The result of the Hawthorne studies caused the focus of management study to change greatly and generated enough interest in the social aspect of organization to spark the human relation movement (Bartol et al , 2006 ; Perrier 1972 ) Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor were the two major theorist to contribute to the human relations movement . Maslow developed a theory of motivation based on three assumptions of human needs. He created a hierarchy of needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1970) Douglas McGregor developed the theory of X versus theory Y approach to behavior management. Douglas theory x and y refers to the assumption that managers hold about their workers (Bennis ; Stephens, 2000). Kermally (2005) describes McGregor’s theories as;
Theory X assumes
People inherently dislike work. As a consequence they love to be threatened using disciplinary action before they work hard and also they have to be controlled. The average person prefers to be directed and is not keen on taking any responsibility.
Theory Y assumes
It is natural for human to put effort into work.
Control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work.
The average person will take responsibility if there are proper conditions.
Employees like to use their imagination and creativity to make decisions to solve problems.
Maslow hierarchy of needs and McGregor’s theory of X and Y help managers develop a better view of employee’s nature, their behavior and how to interact with them. The focus of human relations is on how to best deal with the needs and behaviors increase efficiency.
Bartol, K., Tein M., Matthew, G., Ritson P. and Scott. Ladd, B. (2006). Management
Foundations: A Pacific Rim Focus, Mc Graw-Hill: Sydney.
Bennis , W., Stephen D.C. (2000). Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise, Newyork: John
Wiley and Sons.Cole, G. and Kelly, P. (2016) Management theory and Practice. UNICAF edn. Hampshire:
Cengage Learning EMEA.
Dodgson, M., Gamn, D. and Salter, A. (2008). The Management of Technological Innovation:
Strategy and Practice: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ehiobuche , C., & Tu, H.(2012). Towards the Relevance of Classical Management Theories and
Organizational Behaviour. Paper presented at the ASBS Annual Conference: Las
Vegas, (19) 310
Eze, C.I. (1998), Issues in Economics and Corporate Management in Developing Country:
Lagos, Mina Publication
Glassdoor, (2015). Microsoft, retrieved from http://www.glassdoor.co.uk/overview/working-at-
Gautschi, T.f.(1989), Hawhorne Studies: A work place classic, Design News, 45(20), p180.
Ile, N.M. (1999), Management and Organizational Theory and Practice: Enugu, Vougasen Ltd.
Pryor, M. and Taneja, S. (2010) ‘Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician – revered and reviled’.
Journal of Management History, 16(4), pp. 489 – 503
Safferstone, M. (2005) ‘Organizational Leadership: Classic Works and Contemporary
Perspectives’, Choice, 42(6), pp. 959-975.
Shafirtz, J. M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S. (2005). Classics of Organization Theory(6th Edition)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stoner, J.A.F., Freeman R.E. & Gilbert D.R. (1992), Management: 6th Edition, India, Pearson
Thompson, V.A. (1961), Modern Organization, New York, Knops