Approaches to Management, as Embodied in the Human Relations and Scientific Management Schools of Thought, Were Only Relevant to Management in the Early 20th Century, When They First Hit the Headlines, and Have No

Approaches to management, as embodied in The Human Relations and Scientific Management schools of thought, were only relevant to management in the early 20th century, when they first hit the headlines, and have no relevance to management in the early 21st century”

Discuss using appropriate, referenced theory, and real-world examples to support your argument.

In this essay it will be argued that elements from the approaches to management, as embodied in the in the Scientific Management schools and human relations schools of thought, have not only been updated to remain relevant, but in cases have been merged together to form management theory for the 21st century. In this essay works by theorists such as G. Ritzier, P. Drucker, Stern, Peters and Waterman, and W. Ouchi will help me to back up my argument. In section one of this essay I will outline the main principles of Scientific Management and Human Relations theories. In section two, I will discuss the elements of scientific management that are still relevant to the 21st century, and outline the problems scientific management poses in the 21st century. In section three I will show how Human Relations management has remained relevant to the 21st century, and how it has been integrated with scientific management to influence management theory in the 21st century.

Section 1 - The main principles of scientific management and human relations management

Merkle(1980) cites Frederick Winslow Taylor as the starting point for scientific management; Taylor devised his theory whilst working as a foreman in a factory, it was published in 1911. Taylors work highlighted a tension between management and employee. Employees were not working as hard as they could, a factor Taylor coined as soldiering. Managers did not like soldiering as it meant wages were being paid for workers who were not producing as much as they could, as a result the business ended up with high labour costs. Management at the time however didn’t have an idea of how much work a worker should be able to do in a day. This is where Taylor came in, he thought that soldiering was caused by management not knowing what a fair days work was. To solve this he needed to find out what a fair days work, Taylor analysed the different ways of production in the factory and began to come up with the most efficient way of completing a task, and by extension how much output the ideal worker could achieve. This use of analysis became known as Scientific Management. His mantra was to separate tasks into small parts, and dictate the quickest way to carry them out.

Taylor’s view was that management were far more intellectually superior to the worker and therefore were responsible for determining the most efficient way of carrying out a task, which the employees then implemented. Taylor believed that he could get the workers to follow his method of thought by paying them more money for increased productivity, which he termed the ‘piece rate system’, he believed that financial incentive was the sole motivating and that this would irradiate soldiering.

Out of Taylorism came Fordism, another popular scientific management school of thought, Fordism is credited with introducing Taylorian principles to an assembly line. Fordism relied on managers defining the task and then workers doing them, like Taylorism, however all tasks were synchronised towards producing a product; this was one of the first examples and models of mass production on an assembly line (Hall, 1996, pp282-84)

The origins of Human Relations management lie in the Hawthorne experiments conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Western Electric Company. Andrej Huczynski and David Buchanan (2001. pp281) explain that the original aim of the experiment was to see if there was a difference in productivity, using scientific management, with the effect of lighting. However the results were so confusing there were plans to abandon the experiments – until George Elton Mayo was hired to take over the experiments. As consequence three new experiments ended up being carried out over the time period, these were called: The relay assembly test room, the interviewing programme, and the bank wiring observation room. The key finding from these experiments was that people’s behaviour changed whilst being monitored, this became coined as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’.

Although the observed people’s behaviour changed the experiments still underlined that social factors had an effect of productivity in an organisation. For example Crainer (1993. pp111) argues that the Hawthorne studies showed that the behaviour of the management had a positive effect on the motivation of employees and consequently improved performance. The human relations theory works towards providing an insight into psychological and social needs at work in regards to improving the management of the organisation. The attention the Hawthorne Experiments received prompted writers to speculate of the psychological aspects of work, these theories are known as neo-human relations management, and are an extension to human relations management.

Harold Koontz and Heinz Weihrich (2006. pp290) cite that one of the most famous Neo-Human Relations writers was Maslow; his theory was based upon a Hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy consisted of five levels; each level of the hierarchy had to be fulfilled to keep the worker satisfied. The five levels are (1 – 5, 1 being the first level):

1. Physiological needs: these were basic needs such as access to water, food, sleep etc.

2. Safety needs: the need for financial and personal security etc.

3. Love needs: such as the need for family, friendship and intimacy.

4. Esteem needs: such as confidence, achievement and confidence etc.

5. Self-actualisation needs: the need for problem solving, morality and creativity etc.

Section 2 - Scientific Management and its relevance in the 21st century.

Stern (2001. pp. 83-4) writes that lots of theories have been influenced by Taylorism. He says that Taylor’s his philosophies have been widely used. One modern day company that has adhered to Taylor’s philosophy is McDonalds; write Peters and Waterman (1988). This is because all McDonald’s outlets are similar to each other; they all practise the same methods, from cleaning to cooking, throughout the business. Ritzer (2000. Pp37-40) explains this in more detail by showing that McDonald’s give precise instructions to staff on cooking times and temperature settings for equipment. As well as dictating how fries should be cut and how hamburgers should be processed. They should first move from left to right on a grill, and then on to the process for adding lettuce and then sauce and then finally the buns. This specific methodology is an example of the Fordist idea of assembly lines applied to the Fast food environment. It also ties in to the Taylorian philosophy that workers should be given a strict and precise methodology of completing a task in the most efficient way. This philosophy however has its criticisms.

The criticisms of this philosophy as highlighted by George Morgan (1986 pp 313) is that by saying there is only one way of doing things, and by enforcing that one way, depicts and treats workers like machines. Rose. M (1988. Chapter 2) also adds a criticism to this philosophy stating that it is impossible to have one best method to complete a task, as everyone is different and therefore there is a best method for each person, and that some wasteful movement are necessary and help to dictate the rhythm of work. The works of Morgan however provides an explanation suggesting that Taylor may just have been ahead of his time. He claims that Taylorism can be seen in the way we “rationalise” and “routinize” our life and when you consider that production lines are increasing automated, Taylor’s ideas begin to make “superb sense”.

Call centres are another type of organisation in which Taylorian principles can be identified in. Call centres work their employees hard, with infrequent breaks, and the computers used to work on can actually be used as a means of monitoring production writes Peaucelle (2000 pp 461). This controlling nature is taken from the Taylorian principle of management to supervise the employee, as to abolish ‘soldiering’. Another similarity between call centres and Taylorism is the payment scheme. Call centres usually pay a base wage plus a level of commission based upon the level of performance and the meeting of either daily or weekly goals of a company, akin to Taylor’s piece rate idea. However this highlights one of the problems with Taylor’s theory in the 21st century. Maslow states that finance is only a safety need and that there are more social factors that need to be considered to motivate a person.

Another criticism relevant to the 21st century comes from Braverman (taken from Brian Furze, Pauline Savy, Robert Brym, John Lie, 2008, pp 131) he explains that separating tasks into small parts, with a one best way methodology, deskills the workforce as they no longer have to think for themselves. Although Taylorism enables a worker to become intensely specialised, thus making the job easier, modern day managers can find this impractical and overly complex according to Cengage (1998). When you become intensely specialised in a simple task there can be a loss of job satisfaction which according to Maslow is crucial to fulfilling the ‘esteem’ needs. In organisations today workers are encouraged to get involved in the business, and to work around different departments, this helps strengthen communication within the business, and make workers feel involved in the business, which can achieve the ‘esteem’ need. In fact business devotes whole days towards team building activities; with the emphasis placed on encouraging social interaction between departments. Another example of an element of Human Relations Management in the aforementioned McDonalds could be the fact that there are informal works groups, work may be carried out with a specific routine however there are many workers in and amongst the kitchen who can do the same thing, therefore creating unity.

Section 3 - How Human Relations management has evolved and been integrated with Scientific Management to form the basis for management theory in the 21st century.

In the previous paragraph I began to show how Human Relations Management Theory can be complimentary to scientific management and vice-versa in the 21st century an argument Duncan (1982. pp29) makes. Duncan goes on to say that elements from both Scientific and human relations management are visible in a 21st century management theory titled Organizational Behaviour Management (OBM). OBM is a theory based around the behaviour of the workers within an organisation, it takes into account behavioural analysis and how that can be used in the organisation. In OBM it is thought that the analysis can be applied to many areas of the organisation including, the management, training, and “performance improvement” (Pure D, Frederiksen M, Lee W, Bacon A. 1978) Duncan (1982. pp 30) says that the theory combines “methods of Science” with human behaviour patterns, showing its links to the early human relations thinkers. The elements of scientific management which can be seen in OBM are in the performance improvement aspect. Performance improvement relies on the measurement of production of a task, then changing aspects of the way in which it is produced to increase production and efficiency. This concept of finding a more efficient way of completing a task is very similar to Taylorian philosophy.

Taylorism is an evolving theory; statistical advancement has enabled Taylor’s principles to be adapted for the present time. Evolution of Taylorism can be seen in later theories such as the 1920’s theory of Quality management then to Operations research, followed by Total Quality Management, then to Reengineering. Today the evolution can perhaps be seen in a form of Japanese management called Six Sigma (Khurana A.2009. pp117-8). Six Sigma is a theory designed to identify and remove problems in the business as a means of improving it in the future, by cutting the occurrence of the errors down. Its’ basis is on in depth statistical data in order decide decisions with in the business. Much like quality management it relies on analysis of the production line. The scientific base of the business can be likened to Scientific Management (Blokdijk. 2008. Pp59). Six sigma also deploys a hierarchical scheme based around the martial-arts themed ranking systems.

The top of the organisation are made up of ‘Master Black Belts’ these are the leaders of project the ‘experts’ within the organisation. Master Black belts often have years of experience, usually from working within the organisation, they use their experience to act as consultants when problems occur. The next rank down is ‘Black Belts’ these have the power to lead projects under supervision of the higher rank, and have the ability to train and mentor lower ranks. Green Belts are below these, they help to supervise the proper implementation of Sigma Six, usually assisting black belts. Green belts however work on smaller projects in their area of the business. The lowest rank are ‘Yellow Belts’ these are the employees who do not have the power to run or make decisions on projects, these are your ‘everyday’ worker, it is essential however that they have a clear understanding of Sigma Six in the business (Blokdijk. 2008. pp 79). This understanding shows that the company want the employee to know how decisions in the company are made. This level of understanding is another example of Human relations management theory being used alongside of principles from Taylorism in the 21st century. It is possible for a ‘Yellow belt’ to rise up through the ranks, as Sigma Six gives the opportunities and trains lower ranks to reach black belts within the company (Blokdijk. 2008. pp81). This is another example of Human Relations Management thinking, as it gives the worked the chance to progress and broaden their knowledge and thus conforms to the Esteem need in Maslows hierarchy of needs

An example of how human Relations Management has been updated to remain relevant to the 21st century can be seen in Theory Z. Theory Z juxtaposes Japanese management with American Management and explains how American Organisations could be more efficient in the future. Theory Z philosophy is on long term employment, which makes a worker specialised within the culture of the organisation. It also aims to give employees an experience of working in different department of the organisation thus “integrating organisations internal parts” (Cecil R, Rothwell J. 2006. 192). Theory Z also has a personal nature, as the emphasis is on long term employment; superiors get to know an employee on a personal level. These are only 3 of the principles of Theory Z; however all of these principles owe its origin to human relations thinkers, and are very closely linked to Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. As long term employment fulfils Safety Needs, working around departments gives a sense of achievement in tune with ‘esteem needs’ and the personal feel to the business can fulfil the ‘love needs’.

Another example can be seen in the car company Toyota; there method of management is based on 14 principles, as explained by Liker (Liker J. 2004. Chapter 4). Like Theory Z Toyota prides itself on managing for the long term rather than the short term, this attitude sets out the first couple of principles. Some other principles of Toyota are to do with controlling the quality of output, whilst focusing on eliminating waste. Toyota enables any employee to stop the production line at any point in the process if the employee feels there is a fault. This is different to most theories and thoughts on management. This principle can empower an employee it can also make them feel part of the business as they are making decisions and are not just ‘manpower’, this can tie in to Maslow’s esteem needs where the employee might get a sense of achievement. Toyotas principles also focus on self-development; they encourage managers to promote their philosophy and team work. They rely on team work over individuality judging and rewarding team efforts. This principle can help an employee feel a part of the business; Human Relations Management claims that informal groups motivate an employee.

This essay has demonstrated that scientific management and human relations management are clearly relevant to management in the 21st century and that they have been adapted to fit the needs of the 21st century. There are organisations today who follow Scientific Management principles very closely, most notable that of McDonalds. Much like there are new theories whose origins can clearly be seen in human relations thinking, in this essay I have used Ouchi’s Theory Z to show this. This essay has also demonstrated that in most cases for successful use in the 21st century Scientific Management needs to be used with another form of management thinking, as it fails to take into consideration the social aspect of work. It is of my opinion that Human Relations Management works well with a scientific approach, as using elements of both gives the organisation both a sense of social aspects in the work place and a disciplined approach to getting the production done. The focus of this essay is however limited towards only considering and applying Maslow’s ideas on Human Relations Management theory to the argument. Perhaps a new area of research could look into whether principles of human relations and scientific management could be used in the next 10 to 20 years.

REFERENCES

Judith A. Merkle. 1980. Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement. University of California Press. Chapter One.

Stuart Hall. 1996. Modernity: an introduction to modern societies. Wiley-Blackwell. Pp 282 – 284.

Huczynski, A and Buchanan, D. 2001. Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. Prentice Hall. Pp 281

Crainer, S. 1993. Key management ideas: the thinkers who changed the management world, third edition. Financial times Prentice Hall. pp111

Harold Koontz and Heinz Weihrich. 2006. Essentials Of Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. pp290

Stern S. ‘Guru Guide ' Management today. 2001. Pp 83-4

Peters, Tom & Waterman, Robert. (1988) In Search Of Excellence. Harper & Row Publications

Ritzer, G. 2000. The McDonaldization New century edition, George Ritzer. Sage Publications Inc (USA). pp37-40.

Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organisations. Sage publications. pp 31-3.

Rose. M. 1988. Industrial Behaviour, Second Edition Penguin. Chapter 2

Peaucelle. 2000. From taylorism to post –taylorism - simultaneously pursuing Several management objectives, [Electronic version] Journal of Organisational Change vol. 13, no. 5. Pp 461

Furze B, Savy P, Brym R, Lie J. 2008. Sociology in Today 's. Cengage Learning Australia. pp 131

Cengage. 1998. Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism

Duncan P. (1982). Current Topics in Organizational Behavior Management, Volume 3. Routledge. pp 29, 30.

Pure D, Frederiksen M, Lee W, Bacon A. 1978. Journal of organizational behavior management, [electronic version] v. 1 (4)

Khurana A. 2009. Scientific management a management idea to reach a mass audience. Global India Publications. pp117-8

Blokdjik G. 2008. Six Sigma 100 Success Secrets: The Missing Six Sigma Green Belt, Black Belt Training, Certification, Design and Implementation Guide. pp 59, 79, 81.

Cecil R, Rothwell J. 2006. Next Generation Management Development: The Complete Guide and Resource. John Wiley and Sons. Pp 192.

Liker J. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world 's greatest manufacturer, McGraw-Hill Professional. Chapter 4

References: Judith A. Merkle. 1980. Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement. University of California Press. Chapter One. Stuart Hall. 1996. Modernity: an introduction to modern societies. Wiley-Blackwell. Pp 282 – 284. Huczynski, A and Buchanan, D. 2001. Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. Prentice Hall. Pp 281 Crainer, S Harold Koontz and Heinz Weihrich. 2006. Essentials Of Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. pp290 Stern S Peters, Tom & Waterman, Robert. (1988) In Search Of Excellence. Harper & Row Publications Ritzer, G Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organisations. Sage publications. pp 31-3. Rose. M. 1988. Industrial Behaviour, Second Edition Penguin. Chapter 2 Peaucelle Furze B, Savy P, Brym R, Lie J. 2008. Sociology in Today 's. Cengage Learning Australia. pp 131 Cengage Duncan P. (1982). Current Topics in Organizational Behavior Management, Volume 3. Routledge. pp 29, 30. Pure D, Frederiksen M, Lee W, Bacon A. 1978. Journal of organizational behavior management, [electronic version] v. 1 (4) Khurana A Blokdjik G. 2008. Six Sigma 100 Success Secrets: The Missing Six Sigma Green Belt, Black Belt Training, Certification, Design and Implementation Guide. pp 59, 79, 81. Cecil R, Rothwell J. 2006. Next Generation Management Development: The Complete Guide and Resource. John Wiley and Sons. Pp 192. Liker J. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world 's greatest manufacturer, McGraw-Hill Professional. Chapter 4