Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Richard Pennington

The differences and similarities between a classical and human relations


management approach

Management styles have varied over time. In the early 1900s Scientific
Management was used by business men such as Fredrick Winslow Taylor and Henry
Ford. The Introduction of this thinking spurred the vocalization of what was at times
called the human factor. Walter Dill Scott and Hugo Mnsterberg became the
experts at the time on the principle of the human factor. Human relations theory
then emerged ln 1924. This coincided with the uncertain economy of the United
States in the 1930s that saw a working-class revolt and the Depression.
One principle difference between the two is the way workers are selected for
certain jobs. Scientific Management (SM) uses a scientific selection of the best
person for the job while Human Relations theory (HR) assumes traditional ideas of
ability have little to do with a workers performance. The treatment of workers under
SM was looked at as if they were machines whereas HR formulated ideas about the
so called human factor. Taylor felt he had to defend his work against the idea that he
treated workers like machines. He came up with an analogy Was the surgeon,
trained to work with precise motions and according to strict procedures, any less
human? (Taylor, 1947: 125)
SM states that workers are only interested in their own gain. Linking
productivity to wages therefore is the best way of motivating workers. Watson stated
about workers self-interest management simply has totie the monetary rewards
of the work to the level of output achieved by the individual (Watson, 1995: 44). HR
disagrees with this saying that workers have needs beyond their own gain and
organisations should try to cover these as workers act according to emotions too.
Managers are responsible for organising the most efficient way of working,
keeping the workers separate from the job-related thinking under SM. Watson called
workers an economic animal, a self-seeking non-social individual who prefers
managers to do their job-related thinking for them (Watson, 1995: 44). HR is
opposes this saying that the workplace should be a system of informal group
relations, alongside the formal.

Richard Pennington
Both management styles seek to maximise productivity of their staff. SM tries
to force the staff to be productive through the division of labour, surveillance etc.
while HR says that if you look after your workers needs they will increase productivity
naturally. Even Taylor had to admit that there is a lot more to SM than mechanism
and efficiency. The principles of SM, the precise routines, the reward system of
payment and the standardized tools are only possible with a complete mental
revolution (Taylor, 1947: 27).
There are mainly contrasts in the comparison between SM and HR. One
would like to treat each worker as if they are machines and the other thinks they
should be treated like human beings. They are opposed on the motivation of staff
and the way managers and workers should interact also. One important similarity is
the fact that they both wish to achieve the same goal, the maximum productivity from
their staff. In modern business it should be essential to balance a mix of the two
styles. With the management styles contrasting so much and both having their own
flaws, adaptation and negotiation of both styles to the needs of the business and
workers may be the only way to achieve their common goal.
(541 words)

Richard Pennington
Reference List

Taylor, F. W. 1947. Scientific management, comprising Shop management, The


principles of scientific management [and] Testimony before the special House
committee. New York: Harper.
Watson, T. 1995. Sociology, work and organisation. Routledge.

Вам также может понравиться