Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
This paper compares and contrasts two popular management schools of thought, Scientific
Management and the Human Relations Approach. Both methods are designed to maximise
business potential through better organisation, but they differ greatly in the way they seek
to achieve it. Scientific Management represents an organisation centred approach that is
based on improving worker output through optimised technical methods and strict
management. The Human Relations Approach focuses on the workers themselves and
suggests strong worker relationships, recognition and achievement are motivators for
increased productivity (Daft, 2006). This essay will define each management method and
consider the main contributors to these schools of thought. It will review several associated
theories and how they supported the principles of Scientific Management or the Human
Relations Approach. Finally the essay will consider the place of each management method
in modern day business before concluding to what extent the Human Relations Approach
represents an improvement over the principles of Scientific Management in the design of
work and management.
Scientific Management is the term given to the application of scientific principles to
factory or labour intensive work in order to improve efficiency and productivity of the
workforce. The science in management can be evidenced far back in history. The creation
of grand structures such as the Egyptian Great Pyramid, the Great Wall of China; the
Roman roads, aqueducts, and Hadrians Wall all required precision of a scientific nature
without computers, calculators or modern measuring equipment (Grimes, 2006).
Historically this approach has served industry well and the science of management has
been considered by several notable influencers. One contributor to the theory was Adam
Smith, who, in the 18th century, proposed specialization as a method for efficiency and
documented the merits of dividing labour, separating out tasks and focusing the workers on
these tasks (Grimes, 2006). One of the greatest influences on management theory during
the 20th century was Fredrick Winslow Taylor, who, aided by his book Principles of
Scientific Management (1911) popularised the scientific approach to such a degree he
earned the title father of scientific management (Daft, 2006).
Taylor performed groundbreaking studies in an effort to improve workplace productivity.
He believed that workers were incapable of managing themselves and productivity could
only be achieved if a more intelligent man (the manager) directed their every move. In
doing so he removed all responsibility for the design and planning of work from those who
perform it, and placed it in the hands of the managers whose role was focused on
extracting the maximum effort from the worker. Taylor believed managers placed too
much emphasis on productivity and not enough on the processes by which the work was
done and this led to wastage in human effort. Taylor performed a series of studies
scrutinising workers to discover the most efficient techniques (Freedman, 1992).
In one study, Taylor analysed the efficiency of shovelling. In addition to worker technique,
optimum shovel loads were calculated and shovels were redesigned for each material.
Workers could now shift greater loads for a longer duration with less fatigue. This Science
of Shovelling allowed for a dramatic reduction in factory staff whilst maintaining
productivity (NetMBA.com, 2000). Productivity may have been increased, but at the
expense of the employees. In contrast to the Human Relations Approach there was
practically no regard for the employees themselves. Taylors principles of Scientific
Management had replaced skilled labour with unskilled labour and workers were selected
on strength, speed and not much else (Taylor, 1911). Where the Human Relations approach
promotes employee empowerment, the scientific approach reduces the employee to a
series of repetitive tasks and strips them of any sense of worth (Taylor, 1911).
Despite the disregard for the worker, the timing of Taylors principles of Scientific
Management was perfect. Large manufacturing businesses such as Ford and General
Motors were experiencing rapid expansion and were looking to management methods to
increase output and focus the efficiency of their workers. Many of Taylors principles were
adopted in factory production and throughout the 20th century the application of scientific
principles had a marked affect on productivity. Ironically, as a result of increased
production, the general standard of living improved and so did worker dissatisfaction with
the method. Union-management and a popular interest in the human factor (by behavioural
scientists) resulted in a productivity slowdown. This prompted organisations to relocate
their work force to developing countries with cheaper labour, a mirror of the original
conditions that allowed scientific management to thrive in the west (Oman, 2000).
Organisations were now looking to new management methods to satisfy the increasing
needs of their workforce and regain productivity and many found it in the form of the
Human Relations Approach (Wilson 1990).
The Human Relations Approach represents a significant departure from the automated and
dehumanized approach of Scientific Management. Where Scientific Management
concentrates on technique and output, the Human Relations Approach focuses on the
individual and organisational change through human interactions (Baldridge 1972). It
challenges the concept of managers think and workers do and places teamwork and
motivation at the heart of any productive organisation (Daft 2006).
An early contributor to Human-Relations theory is Mary Parker Follett who added a
humanistic dimension to the study of organisations. Follet placed more value on people
rather than techniques and believed that organisations had a social responsibility to their
workers. Many of her ideas on conflict resolution, inclusivity and worker empowerment
continue to be used in modern management today (Tonn 2003). Another contributor to the
theory was Chester Barnard who believed organisations were systems of co-ordinated
