1. Introduction
In these moments of accelerated change and emphasis on globalization and the culture of quality and customer service, it is frustrating for management scholars to see that the application of rigid models and Mechanists who are incompatible with the main variables, both in their environment and in their culture, processes or particular organizational structures, and which, in most cases, are in direct contradiction with the assumptions that these models support.
At the opposite extreme, however, it is also necessary to insist on the risks that decal carries in our Mexican environment, due to simple fashion or an innocent belief in its inherent benefits, from models developed in distant cultural and ideological environments, or that under the disguise of a false humanism are at bottom more rigid and exploitative of the human being than the previous ones. The first is as dangerous as the second.
Only the knowledge based on a serious and well-founded study of the models that we review here, as well as the particular conditions of each organization, can offer a good option to discriminate, with moderation and intelligence, the use of the most appropriate ones, and not fall in the trap of universal or paternalistic remedies, which have caused such disastrous results in the private and public organizations of our country.
2. The humanistic approach
The humanistic approach promotes a true conceptual revolution in administrative theory: if previously the emphasis was on the task (on the part of the scientific administration) and on the organizational structure (on the part of the classical theory of administration), now it is done in people who work or participate in organizations. In the humanistic approach, the concern for the machine and the working method, for the formal organization and the administration principles applicable to the organizational aspects give priority to the concern for man and his social group: technical and formal aspects. one passes to the psychological and sociological aspects.
The humanistic approach appears with the theory of human relations in the United States, beginning in the 1930s. Its birth was possible thanks to the development of the social sciences, mainly psychology, and in particular work psychology, which emerged in the first decade of the 20th century, which was mainly oriented towards two basic aspects that occupied as many stages of its development:
Analysis of work and adaptation of the worker to work. In this first stage, the merely productive aspect dominates. The objective of work psychology - or industrial psychology, for the majority - was the verification of the human characteristics that each task demanded by its performer, and the scientific selection of employees, based on those characteristics. This scientific selection was based on evidence. During this stage the predominant themes in industrial psychology were the selection of personnel, the professional orientation, the learning and work methods, the physiology of work and the study of accidents and fatigue.
Adaptation of work to the worker. This second stage is characterized by the increasing attention directed towards the individual and social aspects of work, with a certain predominance of these aspects over the productive, at least in theory. The predominant themes in this second stage were the study of the personality of the worker and the boss, the study of motivation and work incentives, leadership, communications, interpersonal and social relationships within the organization.
There is no doubt how valuable the contribution of industrial psychology was in demonstrating the limitations of the management principles adopted by classical theory. Furthermore, the profound changes that occurred in the social, economic, political, and technological scenarios contributed new variables to the study of the administration. While in the other countries the typical economic liberalism of the 19th century began, from the First World War, to be replaced by a growing interference of the state in the economy - with the emergence of some totalitarian governments (in which the classical theory found an extremely favorable environment) -, democratic principles were reaffirmed and developed in the United States. Also,With World War I begins the decline of central-western Europe in world leadership, and the spectacular rise of the United States as a world power.
The great economic depression that hit the world around 1929 intensified the search for efficiency in organizations. Although this crisis originated in the economic difficulties of the United States and in the dependence of most of the capitalist countries on the United States economy, it indirectly caused a real reworking of concepts and a reevaluation of the principles of administration hitherto accepted with its dogmatic and prescriptive character.
As will be discussed later, the administration's humanistic approach began shortly after Taylor's death; However, it only found enormous acceptance in the United States from the 1930s, mainly due to its eminently democratic characteristics. Its disclosure outside this country occurred long after the end of World War II.
| CHRONOLOGY OF THE MAIN EVENTS OF THE THEORY OF HUMAN RELATIONS | ||
| YEAR | AUTHORS | BOOKS |
| 1911 | Hug Munsterberg | Psychologie und Wirtshatleben |
| 1918 | Ordway tead | Instincts in Industry |
| 1920 | Mary Parker Follet | The New State |
| 1925 | William James | The Principles of Psychology |
| 1927 | John Dewey | The Public and its Problems |
| 1927-1932 | Hawthorne experiment | |
| 1929 | Ordway tead | Human Nature and Management |
| 1930 | John Dewey | Human Nature and Condut |
| 1932 | Morris Vellums | Industrial Psychology |
| 1933 | Elton Mayo | The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization |
| 1934 | Morris Vellums | The Science of Work |
| Jacob Moreno | Who Shall Survive? | |
| 1935 | Kurt Lewin | A Dynamic theory of Personality |
| Ordway tead | The Art of Leadership | |
| Vilfredo Pareto | The Mind and Society | |
| 1936 | TN Whitehead | Leadership in a Free Society |
| Kurt Lewin | Principles of Topological Psychology | |
| 1937 | Hit yoder | Labor Economics and Labor Relations |
| 1938 | TN Whitehead | The Industrial Worker |
| 1939 | FJ Roethlisberger and W. Dickson | Management and the Worker |
| P. Pigors, LC McKenney and TO Armstrong | Social Problems in Labor Relations | |
| 1940 | HC Metcalf and L. Urwick | The Collected Papers of Mary P. Follet |
| 1941 | FJ Roethlisberger | Management and Morale |
| Carl Rogers | Counseling and Psychotherapy | |
| 1942 | Joseph Tiffin | Industrial Psychology |
| 1943 | JB Fox and JF Scott | Absenteeism, Management's Problems |
| 1945 | Elton Mayo | The Social Problems of and Industrial Civilization |
| Burleigh B. Garder | Human Relations in Industry | |
| 1946 | Jacob Moreno | Psychodrama |
| Elton Mayo | The Political Problems in an Industrial Civilization | |
| Alex Bavelas | Role Playing and Management Training | |
| TM Newcomb and EL Hartley | Reading in Social Psychology | |
| P. Pigors and C. Myers | Personnel Administration | |
| 1948 | Kurt Lewin | Resolving social Conflicts |
| EE Ghiselli and CW Brown | Personal and Industrial Psychology | |
| 1949 | NRF Maier | Frustration |
| 1950 | George C. Homans | The Human Group |
| 1951 | Kurt Lewin | Field Theory in Social Science |
| Robert Dubin | Human Relations in Administration | |
| 1952 | NRF Maier | Principles of Human Relations |
| 1953 | D. Cartwright and A. Zander | Group Dynamics |
| 1958 | A. Zalesnik, CR Christensen and FJ Roethlisberger | The Motivation, Productivity and satisfaction of Workers |
| HA Landsberger | Hawthorne Revisited | |
| 1959 | JC Worthy and WF Whyte | Man and Organization |
| 1960 | R. Lippit and RK White | Autocracy and Democracy: And Experimental Inquiry |
| 1961 | R. Tannenbaum, I. Weschler and F. Massarik | Leadership and Organization |
| 1962 | RT Golembiewski | The Small Group |
| 1966 | WJ Dickson and FJ Roethlisberger | Counseling in an Organization |
| 1975 | EL Cass and Zimmer | Man and Works in Society |
3. Theory of human relations
The theory of human relations (also called the humanistic school of administration), developed by Elton Mayo and his collaborators, arose in the United States as an immediate consequence of the results obtained in the Hawthorne experiment. It was basically a movement of reaction and of opposition to classical management theory.
Classical theory sought to develop a new business philosophy, an industrial civilization in which technology and the working method are the administrator's most important concerns. Despite the hegemony of classical theory and the fact that it was not challenged by any other major administrative theory during the first four decades of this century, its principles were not always accepted quietly, specifically among American workers and unions. In an eminently democratic country like the United States, scientific management was seen and interpreted by workers and unions as a sophisticated means of exploiting employees in favor of employers' interests.Hoxie's research was one of the first warnings to the autocracy of the Taylor system, as it found that the administration was based on principles inappropriate for the American way of life.
Consequently, the theory of human relations arose from the need to counteract the strong tendency towards dehumanization of work, started with the application of rigorous, scientific and precise methods, to which workers had to submit.
4. Origins of the Theory of Human Relations
The four main causes of the emergence of the theory of human relations are:
- Need to humanize and democratize the administration, freeing it from the rigid and mechanistic concepts of classical theory and adapting it to the new life patterns of the American people. In this sense, the theory of human relations became a typically American movement aimed at the democratization of administrative concepts, the development of the so-called human sciences, especially psychology and sociology, as well as its growing intellectual influence and first attempts at application to industrial organization. The human sciences gradually came to demonstrate the inadequacy of the principles of classical theory. The ideas of John Dewey's pragmatic philosophy and the dynamic psychology of Kart Lewin were essential to humanism in administration.Elton Mayo is considered the founder of the school; Dewey, indirectly, and Lewin, more directly, contributed a lot to his conception. Likewise, Pareto's sociology was fundamental, despite the fact that none of the authors of the initial movement had direct contact with their works, but only with their greatest disseminator in the United States at that time. The conclusions of Hawthorne's experiment, Carried out between 1927 and 1932 under the coordination of Elton Mayo, they put in check the main postulates of the classical theory of administration.despite the fact that none of the authors of the initial movement had direct contact with their works, but only with their main disseminator in the United States at that time.The conclusions of the Hawthorne experiment, carried out between 1927 and 1932 under the coordination of Elton Mayo, put in check the main postulates of the classical theory of administration.despite the fact that none of the authors of the initial movement had direct contact with their works, but only with their main disseminator in the United States at that time.The conclusions of the Hawthorne experiment, carried out between 1927 and 1932 under the coordination of Elton Mayo, put in check the main postulates of the classical theory of administration.
5. The Hawthorne Experiment
Beginning in 1924, the United States National Academy of Sciences began some studies to verify the correlation between productivity and lighting in the workplace, within the classical assumptions of Taylor and Gilbreth.
A little earlier, in 1923, Mayo had conducted an investigation at a textile factory near Philadelphia. This company, which had production problems and an annual staff turnover of close to 250%, had unsuccessfully tried to implement various incentive schemes. In principle, Mayo introduced a rest period, left it up to the workers to decide when the machines should stop, and hired a nurse. Soon a spirit of solidarity arose in the group, increased production and decreased turnover.
In 1927 the National Research Council started an experiment in a factory of the Western Electric Company, located in Chicago, in the Hawthorne neighborhood, with the aim of determining the relationship between the intensity of lighting and the efficiency of workers in the production. That experiment, which would become famous, was coordinated by Elton Mayo; Then it was also applied to the study of fatigue, accidents at work, turnover and the effect of physical work conditions on employee productivity. The researchers verified that the results of the experiment were affected by psychological variables. So they tried to eliminate or neutralize the strange and irrelevant psychological factor, which forced them to prolong the experiment until 1932,when it was suspended by the crisis of 1929.
The literature related to the Hawthorne experiment is abundant. Western Electric, a manufacturing company for telephone equipment and components, at the time was developing a personnel policy directed towards the well-being of workers, paying satisfactory wages and providing good working conditions. In his factory, located in Hawthorne, there was a telephone relay assembly department, in which young employees (assemblers) worked, performing simple and respective tasks that required great speed. The assembly of relays was carried out on a base supported by four screws, in which the coils, the frames, the contact springs and the electrical insulators were placed. At the time, an employee mounted five relays every six minutes. The company was not interested in increasing production,but in getting to know your employees better.
First phase of the Hawthorne experiment.
During the first phase of the experiment, two groups of workers were selected who performed the same operation, under identical conditions: one observation group worked under variable light intensity, while the second control group worked under constant intensity. The aim was to find out what effect lighting had on the performance of the workers. The observers did not find a direct relationship between the variables, however, they verified with surprise the existence of other variables that are difficult to isolate, one of which was the psychological factor: the workers reacted to the experiment according to their personal assumptions, that is, they believed in the obligation to produce more when the intensity of the light increased, and to produce less when it decreased.This fact was obtained by changing the lamps for others of the same power, although the workers were led to believe that the intensity of the light varied, with which a level of performance was verified proportional to the intensity of the light under which those they assumed they worked. The primacy of the psychological factor over the physiological one was verified: the relationship between physical conditions and the efficiency of the workers can be affected by psychological conditions.the relationship between physical conditions and the efficiency of workers can be affected by psychological conditions.the relationship between physical conditions and the efficiency of workers can be affected by psychological conditions.
Recognizing the existence of the psychological factor, only in terms of its negative influence, the researchers sought to isolate it or remove it from the experiment, considering it inappropriate. Then they extended the experience to the verification of fatigue at work, to the change of schedules, to the introduction of rest periods, basically physiological aspects.
Second phase of the Hawthorne experiment.
(Test room for mounting relays)
The second phase began in April 1927. To form the observation group (or experimental group), six middle-level youths, neither novices nor experts, were selected: five mounted relays, while the sixth supplied the necessary parts to maintain continuous work.. The testing room was separated from the rest of the department (where the control group was located) by a wooden partition. The table and equipment were identical to those used in the department, but had an inclined plane with an individual parts counter that indicated, dwarf perforated tape, the production of each youth. The production, easily measurable, was constituted in the comparison index between the experimental group (subject to changes in working conditions) and the control group (made up of the rest of the department),who always continued working under the same conditions.
The experimental group had a common supervisor, like the control group, but also had an observer who remained in the room, ordered the work and was in charge of maintaining the spirit of cooperation of the young women. Later, the observer had the collaboration of some assistants, as the experiment became more complex. The young women summoned to participate in the research had their objectives fully clarified: to determine the effect of certain changes on working conditions (rest period, snacks, reduction in working hours, etc.). They were constantly informed of the results, and the modifications that were to be introduced were submitted to their approval. They insisted that they work normally and put will into the work.The research carried out with the experimental group was divided into twelve periods to observe which were the most satisfactory performance conditions.
- First period: the production of each worker in her original service area was registered, without her knowing it, and her productive capacity was established under normal working conditions. This average (2,400 units per youth) was compared with that of the other periods, the first of which lasted two weeks. Second period: the experimental group was isolated in the test room, conditions and working hours remained normal. and the rhythm of production was measured. This period lasted five weeks and served to verify the effect produced by the change of workplace. Third period: the payment system was modified. In the control group, group tasks were paid. As the groups were numerous - made up of more than 100 young people -The variations in production of each young person were diluted with the production of the group and were not reflected in their individual salary. In the experimental group, the payment of the young women was separated and, as the group was small, they perceived that their best individual efforts had a direct impact on their salary. In this eight-week period, production increased. Fourth period: marks the beginning of direct change in work. Five minutes of rest were introduced in the middle of the morning and another five in the middle of the afternoon. A new increase in production was presented. Fifth period: the rest intervals were increased to ten minutes each; again, production increased. Sixth period: three five-minute breaks were given in the morning and another three in the afternoon. It was observed that production did not increase,and there were complaints from the young women regarding the breaking of the work rhythm. Seventh period: they returned again at the intervals of ten minutes, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. During one of them a light snack was served. Once again, production increased. Eighth period: with the same conditions of the previous period, the experimental group began to work until 16:30 and not until 17:00, as the control group. There was a marked increase in production. Ninth period: the work of the experimental group ended at 4:00 p.m. Production remained stable. Tenth period: the experimental group returned to work until 17:00, as in the seventh period. Production increased considerably. Eleventh period: a five-day week was established; the experimental group was free on Saturday.The daily production of the young women was observed to continue to rise. Twelfth period: it returned to the conditions of the third period; The benefits granted during the experiment were removed, with the approval of the other young women. This last and decisive period lasted twelve weeks; unexpectedly, it was observed that the daily and weekly production reached an index never reached before (3,000 weekly units per young person in the experimental group).It was observed that the daily and weekly production reached an index never reached before (3,000 weekly units per young person in the experimental group).It was observed that the daily and weekly production reached an index never reached before (3,000 weekly units per young person in the experimental group).
Although the physical working conditions in the seventh, tenth, and twelfth periods were the same, production continuously increased from period to period. In the eleventh period, which passed in the summer of 1928, one year after the start of the experiment, the researchers perceived that the results were not as expected. There was a factor that could not be explained only through experimentally controlled working conditions, which had also previously appeared in the lighting experiment. There was no relationship between production and physical conditions, and variations made in the testing room did not affect the work rate of the young women. Then, the problem was to know with which factors to correlate the variations in the rhythm of production of the young women.
The relay assembly room experiment left some conclusions:
- The young women reported that they liked working in the test room because it was fun, and less rigid supervision (as opposed to rigid control supervision in the assembly room) allowed them to work more freely and less anxiously. Pressures allowed for retention, which increased job satisfaction. There was no fear of the supervisor. Although there was more supervision in the testing room than in the department (where there was only one supervisor for a larger number of workers), the characteristic and purpose of the supervision were different and the young women knew this very well. In particular, they felt that they were participating in an interesting experiment and that they should produce results that, although they did not know them well, would redound to the benefit of the other coworkers.The experimental group was developed in the social aspect. The young women became friends with each other, and these friendships extended beyond the work environment. The young women worried about the others, speeding up their production when a female partner was tired. This proved that they were a group. The group developed common goals and leadership. After two youths left the original group, one of the substitutes spontaneously became a leader, helping her female colleagues achieve the common goal of continually increasing the rate of production, even though they were constantly being asked to work normally.accelerating its production when a companion was tired. This proved that they were a group. The group developed common goals and leadership. After two youths left the original group, one of the substitutes spontaneously became a leader, helping her female colleagues achieve the common goal of continually increasing the rate of production, even though they were constantly being asked to work normally.accelerating its production when a companion was tired. This proved that they were a group. The group developed common goals and leadership. After two youths left the original group, one of the substitutes spontaneously became a leader, helping her female colleagues achieve the common goal of continually increasing the rate of production, even though they were constantly being asked to work normally.despite the fact that they were constantly being asked to work normally.despite the fact that they were constantly being asked to work normally.
Third phase of the Hawthorne experiment.
(Talk show)
Soon after, the researchers, concerned about the difference in attitudes between the young women in the experimental group and those in the control group, began to move away from the initial interest of seeking better physical working conditions and definitively devoted themselves to studying human relations at work. They found that, in the department, young women considered vigilant and coercive supervision humiliating. Above all, they verified that the company, despite its open personnel policy, knew little or nothing about the factors that determine workers' attitudes towards supervision, work teams and the company itself.
Thus, in September 1928 the interviewing program began. This program included interviews with employees to better understand their attitudes and feelings, listen to their opinions regarding their work and the treatment they received, and also receive suggestions that could be used in the training of supervisors. As the program was very well received among workers and supervisors, and the results were very encouraging, the company created the Industrial Investigations Division in February 1929 to direct and expand the interview program, in order to conduct them to all employees annually.. In the case of a company with more than 40,000 employees, such a plan was very ambitious. However, between 1928 and 1930 about 21,126 employees were interviewed.
In 1931, the interview system underwent modifications: the undirected interview technique was adopted, which allowed workers to speak freely without the interviewer diverting the issue or trying to establish prior guidelines.
Homans points out that the talk show revealed the existence of an informal organization of workers, formed to protect themselves from any threat from the administration against their well-being. Some manifestations of this informal organization are:
- Production controlled by standards established by the workers themselves, and which were not surpassed by any of them.Unformalized practices of penalization that the group applied to workers who exceeded those standards, considering them spoilers. Expressions that revealed dissatisfaction regarding the results. of the production incentive payment system. Informal leadership of certain workers who held groups together and ensured respect for the rules of conduct. Exaggerated signs of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the attitudes of the immediate superiors for the behavior of the workers.
This informal organization allowed the workers to be united and to maintain a certain loyalty among themselves. However, investigators noted that many times the worker also pretended to be loyal to the company. That divided loyalty between the group and the company could be a source of conflict, tension, concern and probably dissatisfaction. To study this phenomenon, the researchers developed a fourth phase of the experiment.
Fourth phase of the Hawthorne experiment.
(Observation hall of terminal assembly)
An experimental group - nine operators, nine welders and two inspectors - were chosen, all from the assembly section to finish them for telephone stations, who went to work in a special room whose conditions were identical to those of the department. There was an observer in the room; Outside of this, a person sporadically interviewed those workers. This experiment, which was intended to analyze the informal organization of the workers, lasted from November 1931 to May 1932.
The payment system was based on the group's production: there was an hourly wage, based on innumerable factors, and a minimum hourly wage in the case of interruptions in production. Wages could only be high if total production increased.
Once familiar with the experimental group, the observer was able to verify that the workers in the room used a set of tricks: when they reached what they judged to be their normal production, they reduced their work rate. They manipulated the production report, so that excess production from one day could be credited to another day when there was a deficit; also, they requested payment for excess production. It was found that these workers presented a certain uniformity of feelings and group solidarity, which was reflected in the methods that the group developed to legitimize their actions: they considered the member who harmed a colleague to be a betrayer and pressured the fastest, through penalties symbolic, to "stabilize" their production.This fourth phase allowed the study of the relationships between the informal organization of employees and the formal organization of the factory.
Hawthorne's experiment was suspended in 1932 for external reasons, but the influence of its results on administrative theory was fundamental to question the basic principles of the then-dominant classical theory.
6. Conclusions of the Hawthorne experiment
This experiment allowed to outline the basic principles of the school of human relations. The main conclusions may include the following:
The level of production depends on social integration.
It was found that the level of production is not determined by the physical or physiological capacity of the worker (as stated by classical theory), but by the social norms and expectations that surround him. It is their social capacity that establishes their level of competence and efficiency, and not their ability to correctly execute efficient movements in a previously established time. The more socially integrated you are in the work group, the greater the willingness to produce. If the worker meets excellent physical and physiological conditions for work and is not socially integrated, social maladjustment will be reflected in his efficiency.
The social behavior of workers.
Hawthorne's experiment showed that the behavior of the individual is completely supported by the group. In general, workers do not act or react in isolation as individuals, but as members of groups. In Hawthorne's experiment, individuals could not set their quota of production themselves, but had to let it be established and driven by the group. In the event of any violation of group norms, the individual received social or moral punishments from their peers to make them conform to the group's standards. Classical theory failed to perceive that employee behavior is influenced by the norms and values of the social groups in which they participate. Kurt Lewin later verified that the individual will resist change so as not to deviate from the parameters of the group,as long as they remain unchanged. Because the power of the group to bring about changes in individual behavior is so great, the administration cannot treat workers individually, as if they were isolated atoms, but as members of work groups, subject to the social influences of these groups.. Workers do not react as isolated individuals vis-à-vis the administration, its decisions, rules, rewards and punishments, but as members of social groups whose attitudes are influenced by group codes of conduct. It is the theory of social control over behavior. The friendship and social groups of the workers have transcendental meaning for the organization and, therefore, must be considered the important aspects in the theory of the administration.
The theory of human relations contrasts the social behavior of the worker with the mechanical behavior proposed by the classical theory, based on the atomistic conception of man.
Social rewards and penalties.
During the Hawthorne experiment it was found that workers who produced well above or well below the socially determined norm lost the affection and respect of their companions; Thus, the workers in the terminal assembly room preferred to produce less and, consequently, earn less than to risk friendly relations with their colleagues. Workers' behavior is conditioned by social norms or standards. Each social group develops beliefs and expectations in relation to the administration: those beliefs and expectations - real or imagined - influence not only the attitudes but also the norms or standards of behavior that the group defines as acceptable, through which it evaluates to its members. They are good companions and colleagues,if they conform to those norms and standards of behavior, and are lousy colleagues or unfair partners, if they violate those norms and standards.
For Taylor, and for most of the classical authors, the concept of economic man prevailed, according to which man is motivated and incentivized by salary and economic stimuli. From this derives the fact that almost all the forerunners of scientific administration have developed a salary incentive plan to evaluate efficiency and lower operational costs. Taylor affirmed that if a good method was chosen, the appropriate executor was selected –according to his physical characteristics- and a production-based remuneration scheme was offered - one that increased proportionally to the efficiency of the employee-, this would produce the maximum possible up to the limit of its physiological capacity, if the environmental conditions allowed it.
Mayo and his followers believed that this economic motivation was secondary in determining worker performance. According to the theory of human relations, people are mainly motivated by the need for recognition, social approval and participation in the activities of the social groups in which they live. From there arises the concept of social man.
Non-economic rewards and penalties significantly influence worker behavior and greatly limit the outcome of economic incentive plans. Although these social and moral rewards are symbolic and not material, they have a decisive impact on the motivation and happiness of the worker.
Informal groups.
While the classics were exclusively concerned with the formal aspects of organization (authority, responsibility, specialization, time and movement studies, general principles of administration, departmentalization, etc.), at Hawthorne the researchers focused almost entirely on the informal aspects. of the organization (informal groups, social behavior of employees, beliefs, attitudes, expectations, etc.). The company came to be seen as a social organization made up of various informal social groups, whose structure does not always coincide with the formal organization, that is, with the purposes and structure defined by the company.
Informal groups constitute the human organization of the company, which is often in contrast to the formal organization established by management. Informal groups define their rules of behavior, their forms of social rewards or sanctions, their objectives, their scale of social values, their beliefs and expectations, and each participant assimilates and integrates them in their attitudes and behavior.
The theory of human relations outlined the concept of informal organization: organization is not only made up of isolated people, but of the set of people who spontaneously relate to each other. Roethlisberger and Dickson found that “an industrial organization is more than just a multiplicity of individuals acting according to their economic interests. These individuals also experience affects and feelings, relate to each other, and in their daily dealings they tend to establish patterns of interaction. Most individuals who accept these patterns tend to accept them as true must-haves and obvious, and react according to what they determine.
Human relations.
In the organization, individuals participate in social groups and remain in constant social interaction. To explain and justify human behavior in organizations, the theory of human relations studied this social interaction in depth. Human relations are understood as the actions and attitudes resulting from contacts between people and groups.
Each individual is a highly differentiated personality, which influences the behavior and attitudes of the people with whom he maintains contact and, at the same time, receives a lot of influence from his peers. In the search for understanding, acceptance and participation, the individual tries to empathize with other defined individuals and groups, in order to satisfy her most immediate interests and aspirations. Their behavior is influenced by the environment and the various attitudes and informal norms existing in the different groups.
Opportunities to develop human relationships arise in the company due to the large number of groups and the interactions that necessarily arise. Only an understanding of the nature of such human relationships enables the administrator to obtain better results from his subordinates: an understanding of human relationships facilitates the creation of an atmosphere where each individual is encouraged to express himself freely and healthily.
The importance of the content of the post.
The most efficient form of division of labor is not its greater specialization (and, therefore, a greater fragmentation). Although they did not care much about this aspect, Mayo and his collaborators verified that extreme specialization - defended by classical theory - did not guarantee more efficiency in the organization. For example, they observed that workers in the terminal assembly room frequently changed positions to avoid monotony, contrary to the policy of the company administration. Those changes had negative effects on production, but they apparently raised morale for the entire group.
From these conjectures, it became clear that the content and nature of work greatly influence worker morale. Simple and repetitive jobs tend to become monotonous and mortifying, which negatively affects worker attitudes and reduces their efficiency and satisfaction.
The emphasis on the emotional aspects.
The unconscious - even irrational - emotional elements of human behavior attract almost all the forgers of the theory of human relations. Hence some authors call them sociologists of the organization.
7. Industrial civilization and man
The study of the oppression of man at the hands of the overwhelming development of industrial civilization was the priority of the theory of human relations. Elton Mayo, founder of the movement, dedicated his three books to examining the human, social and political problems derived from a civilization based almost exclusively on industrialization and technology.
Mayo points out that, while material efficiency increased powerfully in the last 200 years, the human capacity for collective work did not maintain the same rate of development. Recalling the sociologists Le Play and Durkheim, whose observations in the simplest communities showed that industrial progress was accompanied by a profound erosion of the spontaneous feeling of cooperation, Mayo asserts that the solution to this problem cannot be found in the return to traditional forms of organization, but should be sought in a new conception of human relations at work. It is evident that the subject of collaboration in industrial society cannot be left to chance, while looking only at the material and technological aspects of human progress.
The working methods tend to efficiency, none to cooperation. Human cooperation is not the result of legal determinations or organizational logic, but has deeper causes, as revealed by Hawthorne's experiment, which Mayo relies on to defend the following points of view:
- Work is a typically group activity. The first conclusion derived from the research suggests that the level of production is influenced more by group norms than by the wage and material incentives of production. According to Mayo, the employee's attitude towards his work and the nature of the group in which he participates are decisive factors in productivity. The worker does not act as an isolated individual but as a member of a social group. Technological changes tend to constantly break the informal ties of camaraderie and friendship within work and to deprive the worker of the social spirit because he must answer for his production. The basic task of the administration is to form an elite capable of understanding and communicating, composed of Democratic, persuasive bosses and appreciated by all staff.Rather than trying to get employees to understand the logic of company management, the new elite of managers must understand the limitations of that logic, and be able to understand that of workers.
Mayo states that “in fact, we have already left behind the state of human organization in which effective communication and collaboration were ensured by established routines for relating. Civilized society completely modified its postulates ”. We go from an immutable society to an adaptable society; however, we forget social ability. "Although we live in the time of greatest technology in history, we show total social incompetence." The education of a social elite capable of recovering a sense of cooperation is necessary.
- The human person is essentially motivated by the need to "be in company", to "be recognized", to access adequate communication. Mayo disagrees with Taylor's statement that the basic motivation of the worker is only wage (homo economicus), since he is concerned with producing the maximum possible -if his physical conditions allow it- to obtain a higher remuneration. According to Mayo, the efficient organization does not guarantee by itself greater production because it is incapable of increasing productivity, if the psychological needs of the worker are not properly identified, located and satisfied. Lodi tries to explain the differences in the positions of Taylor and Mayo by leaning on the fact that the former escalated positions in the company through hard and dedicated work - therefore,he believed that all the employees were motivated by the same interests-, while the second was a sociologist who lived almost exclusively in the university environment, disgusted by the conditions of the workers of his time and by the little possibility of satisfying their psychological needs and social.Industrial civilization causes the disintegration of the primary groups of society, such as the family, informal groups and religion. The factory, on the other hand, emerges as a new social unit that provides a new home, a place for the understanding and emotional security of individuals. Within this romantic vision, the worker will find in the factory a comprehensive and paternal administration, capable of fully satisfying his psychological and social needs.
Mayo questions the validity of democratic methods to solve the problems of industrial society, since it induces forced cooperation through state intervention. "The methods of democracy, far from providing the means for solving the problem of industrial society, proved to be completely inadequate for that task." Furthermore, Mayo affirms that "cooperation cannot be the product of state regulation, but the result of spontaneous growth."
Since all methods tend to efficiency and not human cooperation, much less human goals, social conflict arises in industrial society: the incompatibility between organizational goals and the personal goals of workers. Both objectives are not very compatible, especially since the exclusive concern for achieving efficiency overwhelms the worker. According to Mayo, social conflict must be avoided at all costs through a humanized administration that implements preventive and prophylactic treatment. Human relations and cooperation are the key to avoiding social conflict.
May sees no possibility of reaching a positive and constructive solution to the social conflict. According to him, this social conflict, cooperation represents social welfare.
8. Basic functions of the industrial organization
Hawthorne's experiment allowed the emergence of new literature and new concepts about administration. Roethlisberger and Dickson, two of the most renowned disseminators of the research results, clarify some representative concepts of the theory of human relations, and conceive of the factory as a social system. According to them, the industrial organization has two main functions: to produce goods or services (economic function that seeks external balance) and to provide satisfaction to its members (social function that seeks internal balance). The industrial organization must seek these two forms of equilibrium simultaneously. These two authors emphasize that the organization of that time, which was only concerned with achieving economic and external balance, is completely traced from classical theory,and it lacks sufficient maturity to obtain the cooperation of the personnel, a fundamental condition for achieving internal balance.
The industrial organization is made up of a technical organization (facilities, machines, equipment, products or services, raw materials, etc.) and a human organization (social organization). The human organization of the factory is based on individuals, each of whom evaluates the environment in which he lives, the circumstances that surround him, according to previous experiences, the result of his human interactions during life. However, the human organization of a factory is more than the simple sum of individuals, because the daily and constant interaction of these individuals at work originates a common element: the social organization of the factory.
Inside the factory, every event becomes the object of a system of feelings, ideas, beliefs and expectations that converts the facts into symbols that distinguish "good" or "bad" behavior and the "superior" or "inferior" social level. Every event, attitude or decision is the object of a system of feelings of approval, rejection, neutrality or resistance. Facts, attitudes and decisions always carry social values ("good" or "bad") and come to have a social meaning. Some of those ideas and beliefs represent more than expected in a given situation: they can lead to cooperation or confusion, depending on how they are interpreted and applied.
Technical organization and human organization, formal and informal organizations, are intertwined and interdependent subsystems: if one of them is modified, there are modifications in the others. Furthermore, these subsystems are considered to be in equilibrium, which is why a modification in some of their parts causes a reaction in the others to restore the equilibrium condition existing before the modification occurs. Lodi points out the influence of Pareto's notion of social balance on this conception.
Figure 1. Basic functions of the organization, according to Roethlisberger and Dickson
Human collaboration is determined by informal organization rather than formal organization. Collaboration is a strictly social, not logical, phenomenon, taken entirely from social codes, conventions, traditions, expectations and routine ways of reacting to situations. It is not a question of logic, but of psychology.
Thus, for most workers, psychological and social stimuli are more important than material or economic conditions. The conception of homo econicus does not adequately explain human behavior, and it is wrong to establish a logical and primary relationship between cause (physical conditions) and effect (cooperation). Fatigue is not only organic and physiological, but also subjective and psychological.
From the point of view, the theory of human relations brought new dimensions and new variables to the General Theory of Administration.
| CLASSICAL THEORY | THEORY OF HUMAN RELATIONS |
| Study the organization like a machine | Study the organization as groups of people |
| Emphasizes homework or technology | She emphasizes on people |
| Inspired by engineering systems | Inspired by psychology systems |
| Centralized authority | Full delegation of authority |
| Clear lines of authority | Worker autonomy |
| Specialization and technical competence | Trust and openness |
| Accentuated division of labor | Emphasis on human relationships between employees |
| Trust in rules and regulations | Trust in people |
| Clear separation between line and staff | Group and interpersonal dynamics |
9. Bibliography
CHIAVENATO, ldalberto: Introduction to the General Theory of Administration. Fifth Edition, Bogotá: Editorial McGraw-Hill Latinoamericana, SA, 2003.
______________
To finish, we suggest the following video-lesson, produced by Educatina, in which a tour of the main contributions of those who originated the Theory or the School of Human Relations is made, the ideas of Elton Mayo and his studies in Hawthorne, in addition the contributions of Mary Parker Follet, Douglas McGregor, George Strauss, Leonard R. Sayles, Chris Argirys and Rensis Likert are reviewed. (6 videos - 26 minutes)
Download the original file
