Human Relations School of Thought compared to a Taylorist Fordist perspective - Essay Example

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE HUMAN RELATIONS SCHOOL OF THOUGHT BE CONSIDERED A MORE EVOLVED APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT, AS COMPARED TO A TAYLORIST/FORDIST PERSPECTIVE? Name Course Date To what Extent can the Human Relations School of Thought be considered a more evolved approach to management, as compared to a Taylorist/Fordist perspective? The concept of management is highly dynamic and continues to evolve to the present day. The concepts embraced in the modern day era of management are significantly different from what was embraced several decades ago. There have been myriad approaches to management proposed by different schools of thought. While some of these schools of thought have partly received acceptance in the modern era of management, they have often been castigated for their inherent weaknesses. However, every school of thought had its significant contribution to the evolution of the management thought as seen today. The question whether the human relations approach to management is more evolved than the scientific management school of thought that was proposed by Taylor is highly debatable. While the human relations school of thought represents a greater portion of the management approaches embraced today with their centrality based on the people, Taylorism cannot exclusively be dismissed1. From the perspective of the modern practice of management, the Human Relations school of thought can significantly be considered a more evolved approach to management than the scientific management that was proposed by Taylor. In the modern era, the position of a motivated worker is highly valued by the organizations2. Productivity today is focused on the teams as opposed to individualism in attaining the organizational goals. Although attention is given to the efficiency of the processes, companies in the 21st-century focus on investing in the employee to attain high levels of performance1. The relationship between the managers and the workers has significantly been improved with managers no longer playing the role of a master in the organization. The worker is involved in the decision-making process today and the setting of the goals that they work to attain2. These concepts are founded on the human relations school of thought that was greatly concerned that productivity cannot entirely be increased through scientific methods with the social aspect of the worker being ignored. The scientific management approach to management as propounded by Taylor has several flaws that cannot be embraced in the modern practice of management3. Taylor unnecessarily attached a lot of focus on profitability and productivity to the extent that his proposed approach to management would result in the exploitation of the worker1. The scientific management thought did not take into consideration the effects of an elongated chain of command and the potential confusion that would result from the workers reporting to different supervisors. The unity of command is significantly compromised in Taylor’s approach to management4. The human elements role in the organization that Taylor ignored in his thought is worth recognition3. The business processes are made efficient by the very human element in the organization. Taylors approach to management is one that laid emphasis on the mechanical aspect of work by stressing the importance of efficiency with little concern for the human element. The scientific management thought sees workers as instruments that could speed up productivity at any cost and, therefore, lacks the motivational dimension3. The human relations school of thought is to a great extent superior to Taylorism given the value it attaches to people and the role of the motivated employee in the workplace. The approach changed Taylors view of the workers as machines and instead shifted the attention from the task to the worker. It is in the human relations approach to management that for the worker was viewed as being an important component of the organization4. The managers perception of the workers in the human relations school of thought was holistic as opposed to Taylors focus on the bundle of aptitudes and skills. The human relations approach was aimed at changing the attitudes of the managers towards their subordinates. Managers embrace such propositions today and are significantly concerned with how they relate to their workers2. The human relations school of thought proposed the need for managers to create a sense of satisfaction and belonging for their workers by demonstrating an interest in the welfare and personal success of the employees. Taylor’s misleading assumption that people could only be motivated by financial incentives and the individualistic approach he gave to work performance make the scientific management approach a lesser evolved management approach compared to the human relations approach1. The importance of a two-way communication approach between the manager and the subordinates is emphasised in the human relations school of thought. Taylorism’s weakness in this aspect is built on the perception of the unidirectional communication emanating from the manager only. The human relations school of thought views the productivity of the employees as being dependent on the satisfaction of the employee and the healthy relations between the workers and the supervisors. These aspects have a wide application in the workplace with the effect that manager-employee relations are improved for the benefit of the organization. The role of open relationships between managers and workers is highly emphasised for its importance4. Despite the weaknesses of the scientific management as was developed by Taylor, the importance of the management approach cannot completely be dismissed. The scientific management theory has its applications in the modern day practice of management as the efficiency of the processes and the training of workers still exist3. Fordism and Taylorism relate significantly in the approach they take towards mass production with less focus on the worker despite the arguments that these two approaches to management are different1. The perspective of scientific management primarily emanates from the insensitivity with which it views the position of the workers and the managers in the organization. Work must be done through people and people need motivation. The existence of healthy human relations has become a critical concern with organisations in the modern day attaching value to the role of human resource management. The human relations school of thought that is founded on the works of Elton Mayo and others appreciates the importance of both the task and the persons that perform these tasks. As a result, its superior management perspective is notable when compared to Taylorism. Bibliography Caldari, Katia. 2007. Alfred Marshall’s Critical Analysis of Scientific Management. European Journal: History of Economic Thought. 14 (1): 55-78. Locke, Edwin A. 1982. The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation. Academy Of Management Review 7 (1): 14-24. Roberts, John. 1984. THE MORAL CHARACTER OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE. Journal of Management Studies 21 (3): 1-17. Roethlisberger, F. J, and William J Dickson. 2003. Management and the Worker. London: Routledge. Read More