INTRODUCTION: The limitations of the structural approach led the emergence of human relations approach. We will examine various development and trials in this field. Since the contribution of Elton Mayo is very important, we shall study his studies in detail and evaluate the theory and the contribution of Elton Mayo.
OBJECTIVE:
- the meaning and content of human relations approach
- the significance of Hawthorne Studies
- the features of human relations approach and
- critically evaluate the human relations approach.
MEANING AND EMERGENCE: The term human relations mostly refers to relations between workers and employers which are not regulated by legal norms. These relations are concerned with moral and psychological rather than legal factors. However, the term industrial relations which embraces both the above mentioned concepts.
- The human relations concept is concerned with devising concrete methods for ideological orientation of workers in the factory.
- Human relations approach lays emphasis on people and their motivation; unlike classical theorists who emphasized on structure and principles.
- It believes in analyzing the multi-dimensional nature of human beings and their interactions, to understand the working of organizations.
- It also emphasizes on the study of informal organizations to understand the working of formal organizations.
Several socio-economic factors influenced the emergence of the theory and practice of human relations, such as: Economic depression, Capital intensive industry, Technological progress, Reaction to Taylorism, Class antagonisms.
1 Economic depression: The theory look shape in the twenties and thirties of this century when there was a general crisis in the capitalist countries. The unprecedented economic crisis of 1929-32.The problem became acute due to increased production as a result of mechanization which had increased mental strain. Employers found themselves compelled to focus their attention on the psychological or human factor in industry. The interest of the employees in their work began to determine the productivity levels to an increasing degree. Growing concentration and specialization of production demanded better coordination in the work of all sections of an enterprise. Researchers and executives established that the relations between members of production teams were important with regard to the attainment of this end.
2 Capital Intensive Industry: During this period, industry was becoming more capital intensive. A breakdown of equipment, strikes and high labor turnover used to cause the monopolies enormous losses. It is thus not surprising that the giants of monopoly capital started showing much more interest in ensuring that the workers showed a 'dedicated' attitude to their work and the interests of the company.
3 Technological Progress: Technological progress led to rise of the level of education and professional skills of workers. Consequently the worker's sense of personal dignity had asserted itself and their material and cultural aspirations had changed beyond recognition. Thus the workers started demanding more and more resolutely and insistently that they be treated as human beings.
4 Reaction to Taylor-ism: The human relations approach was also partly a reaction to the one sided nature of the Taylor system which dominated the scene in the twenties and thirties. It was criticized as a design to intensify exploitation by raising productivity levels through improved organisation of production and the maximum utilization of the worker's physical capacities. Taylor openly started that "each shop exists for the purpose of paying dividends to its owners". He regarded the worker as an appendage to the machine blindly carrying out a specific set of mechanical operations.
Although the Taylor system did result in a certain rise in productivity of labor, eventually the system found itself at a dead end. In the thirties, apathy among the workers, depression tightened irritability and a complete loss of interest in work etc.; became widespread. These phenomenon could not but arouse uneasiness among employer since they led to a drop in labor productivity, to absenteeism and high labor turnover. In addition, it led to a deterioration in relations between the workers on the one hand and the owners and the management on the other.
5 Class Antagonism: The worsening of class antagonisms and the resolute character of the Trade Union movement in the United Stales accelerated the introduction of the human relations approach.
A few critics stated that the interest of the monopolists can be explained largely by the growth of the labor movement and the expansion of the trade unions.
The emergence and evolution of the human relations approach must be viewed in the light of the correlation of the class forces in an international context. Here mention must be made of the influence of the October Revolution of the Soviet Union on the world. In order to retain their dominant position capitalists have found it more and more essential to evolve their own measures in answer to the challenge of socialism.
EARLY EXPERIMENTS OF MAYO:
The basic tenets of human relations doctrine were formulated by the American Sociologist, Elton Mayo, in the late twenties and early thirties. His studies on Industrial Sociology and Industrial Psychology are so profound that he has been considered one of the pioneers of the human relations approach to the organization. Mayo concentrated his attention on the behavior of the workers and their productive capacity. He called this approach a clinical method. He published a few scholarly articles and a few books on the basis of his research.
1 The First Inquiry: At the time of Mayo's research work, the industry in America was undergoing a crisis(1920-30s). Therefore like his contemporaries, Mayo focused his attention on fatigue, accidents, production levels, rest periods, working conditions etc., of the industrial worker in the factories. He started his first experiment in a textile mill near Philadelphia in 1923. In the circumstances prevailing at that time, the mill provided all the facilities to the labour, was well organised, and was considered to be a model organisation. The company president who had been a colonel in the US army gained respect from the employees since several of them were under his command before and during the First World War in France. The management was progressive and human but at the same time it faced some serious problems in a particular section of the mill. The general turn over of the employees was estimated at 5 per cent per year in all the branches except in mule-spinning section where the turnover was nearly 250 per cent. None was able to find out the reason for this large turnover.
All possible incentives were introduced to minimize this large turn over but did not yield any good result. As a last resort the matter was referred to Harvard University. This was the first major research study undertaken by Elton Mayo after joining Harvard and he named it "The First Enquiry". He studied the problems of the mule-spinning department intensely from various angles and with the help of management started experiments. To begin with, he introduced rest periods with every team of piecers. The results were encouraging. The scheme was extended to all the workers to eliminate the problems of fatigue. The workers evinced interest in the scheme and were pleased with the results. The symptoms of uneasiness disappeared, the labor turnover almost came to an end, production rose and the morale generally improves. This was the beginning for Mayo to proceed further.
He suggested a number of new schemes whereby the workers had to earn their rest periods and bonus by producing more than a certain percentage. Some more new schemes like stopping the spinning section completely for ten minutes brought a new change in the outlook of supervisors and employees and all of them were satisfied with this new work culture. The management had placed the control of rest periods squarely in the hands of workers which led to consultations along the workers. A new awakening began whereby the assumption of rabble hypothesis which assumes "mankind as a herd of unorganized individuals by self-interest" has gradually given place to group interest etc.
HAWTHORNE STUDIES:
The next phase of the experiments conducted by Elton Mayo-The Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric company which employed 25,000 workers at the time became center of intense research activity. Beginning from 1924 it was conducted in different places. At that time it was felt that there was a clear-cut cause and effect relationship between the physical work, environment, and the well being on the one hand and the productivity of worker on the other. Therefore, the management assumed that given proper ventilation, room temperature, lighting and other physical working conditions, and wage incentives the worker could produce more. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences decided to examine the exact relationship between illumination and the efficiency of the worker. The research began in 1924.
1. The Great Illumination: 1924-27 Two groups of female workers each consisting of six, were selected and located in two separate rooms, performing the same tasks. The rooms were equally illuminated to examine the level of production on the basis of varying levels of illumination. In the beginning, the working conditions were stabilized. Then slowly the conditions of work were changed to mark the effect of this change on the output. This research established that regardless of level of illumination, production in both the control and experimental groups increased this made them to give up the illumination theory.
1. The Great Illumination: 1924-27 Two groups of female workers each consisting of six, were selected and located in two separate rooms, performing the same tasks. The rooms were equally illuminated to examine the level of production on the basis of varying levels of illumination. In the beginning, the working conditions were stabilized. Then slowly the conditions of work were changed to mark the effect of this change on the output. This research established that regardless of level of illumination, production in both the control and experimental groups increased this made them to give up the illumination theory.
Mayo, established that the test room girls became a social unit and because of the increased attention of research team in them they developed a sense of participation in the project.
From 1924 to 1927, various experiments were conducted in the Hawthorne plant. In fact, Mayo was involved in the experiments after some initial probings by a research failed come to any definite conclusions. On the basis of the results derived by the team, Mayo felt that mental attitude of the workers was perhaps responsible in the behavior of workers. Certain hypotheses were proposed to explain the failure of the original illumination project. But all the hypotheses were rejected. Mayo felt that work satisfaction depends to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the working group. He thought that the supervisor could be trained to play a different role which would help him to take personal interest in the subordinates and discharge his duties better than earlier. Mayo also noted that the worker should be made to come out openly with their needs, interact freely and without fear with company officials. Improving morale to be closely assorted with the style of supervision. This link between supervision, morale and productivity became the foundation stone of the human relations movement. This network of experiments had been hailed as the "Great Illumination" because it had thrown light on the new areas of industrial relations.
2 Human Attitudes and Sentiments: In 1928, the Harvard study team conducted an in-depth study in the same plant on human attitudes and sentiments. The workers were asked to express freely and frankly their likes and dislikes on the programmes and policies of the management, working conditions, treatment by the management etc. After some initial difficulties, it was realized at there was a change in the mental attitude of the workers although no reforms were introduced. It appeared as if the workers were involved in the management and also felt that there was An opportunity to "let off steam" which made them feel better even though there was no material change in the environment.
When the data was analyzed, it was found out that there was no correlation between the complaints and the facts. The research team realized that there were two types of complaints. They were material complaints and psychological complaints.
The team felt that the preoccupation of the worker with personal problem, many a time inhibited his performance in the industry. The study identified the following three aspects:
First, the workers appreciated the method of collecting information on the problems of the company from them. They thought they had valuable comments to offer and felt happy because they were allowed to express freely.
Second, there was a change in the supervisors because their work was closely observed by the research team and subordinates were allowed to talk freely.
Third, the research team also realized that they had acquired new skills in understanding and dealing with their fellow beings.
3 Social Organization: In 1931-32, Mayo and his team conducted the final phase of the research programme at Western Electric Company. It was conducted mainly to observe a group of workers performing a task in a natural setting. Formal methods were discarded. Observation method was followed by analysis of group behavior. A number of employees consisting of three groups of workers whose work was inter-related were selected for the study. Their job was to solder, fix the terminals and finish the wiring. Wages were paid on the basis of a group incentive plan and each members got his share on the basis of the total output of the group. It was found that the workers had a clear cut standard of output which was lower than the target fixed by the management. The workers according to their standard plan did not allow its members to increase or decrease the output. Although they were capable of producing more, the output was held down to maintain uniform rate of output. They were highly integrated with their social structure and informal pressure was used to set right the erring members. A code of conduct was also maintained by the group.
Mayo and his team found out that the behavior of the group had nothing to do with the management or general economic condition of the plant. The workers resented the interference of the supervisors and technologists who were supposed to increase efficiency, as disturbance. The workers thought that the experts follow logic of efficiency with constraint on their group activity. Further, the supervisor as a separate category represented authority to discipline the workers. The logic of efficiency did not go well with the logic of sentiments which had become the cornerstone of the social system.
Thus, the study concluded that one should not ignore the human aspect of organisations. Instead of over emphasizing technical and economic aspects of the organisation; the management should also concentrate on human situations, motivation, communication with the workers. The concept of authority, Mayo felt, should be based on social skills in securing cooperation rather than expertise
ABSENTEEISM IN INDUSTRIES:
The study undertaken by Mayo in 1943 may be considered as the final one. Mayo came across a typical problem faced by an industrialist during the Second World War. The war situation created an all round dislocation in all walks of life. Industry was no exception. In this particular situation the turnover of the labor was more than 70 per cent and absenteeism was chronic. The management was perplexed at the situation and approached Mayo to find out the reason and suggest remedies. Mayo began his work in 1943.
On the basis of the previous experience, Mayo and his team found out that in the industry with alarming turnover and absenteeism, there were neither informal groups nor natural leaders to knit the workers into a team.
They were unable to form a team because of certain personal eccentricities, as they were not given an opportunity to form an informal term. Hence, there was heavy turnover and absenteeism of the labor. Mayo suggested that to the extent possible the management should encourage formation of informal groups and treat the problems of the workers with human understanding. He stated that the worker should be treated as human beings but not as cogs in the machine. The labor should not develop a feeling that they were subject to exploitation by the management.
Thus, Mayo suggested the formation of informal groups,so that the cooperation of the employees could be developed in organizations. His studies also led to an increased understanding of the human factor in work situations and a greater degree of communication system between employers and employees.
CRITICISM: Mayo and his research findings were subject to bitter criticism.
First of all, they were criticized on the ground that the theory tried to substitute human relations-oriented supervisors for union representation. He was criticized for not understanding the role of unions in a free society. It was argued that Mayo never tried to integrate unions into his thinking. Hence, Loren Baritz and others criticized 'Mayoists' as anti-union and pro-management. In fact in 194Y, United Auto Workers in America lashed out at the Mayoism with bitter criticism and branded the Hawthorne researchers as 'cow sociologists'. Some Critics pointed out that sweeping conclusions were drawn from a relatively few studies which were, full of pitfalls. Critics like Carey pointed out that the Hawthorne group selected in their first experiment 'cooperative' girls who were willing to participate in the research programme and this type of research was "worthless", since a sample of five or six could not be taken as a reliable sample to make generalizations. Carey also observed that the evidence obtained from the experiments does not support any of the conclusions derived by the Hawthorne investigators. There exists a vast discrepancy between the evidence and the conclusions. On the other hand, the data only supports, according to Carey, the old view of monetary incentives, leadership and discipline as motivating factors for better performance. He also criticized Hawthorne investigations for their lack of scientific base. Peter F. Drucker, the well known management expert, criticized human relationists for their lack of awareness of economic dimension. He felt that the Harvard group neglected the nature of work and instead focused on interpersonal relations. Mayo was criticized for his sentimental concentration on the members of an organisation to the neglect of its work and purposes, and a general softness and lack of direction. Mayo also has been criticized as encouraging a paternalistic domination of the private lives and even the private thoughts of individuals by their employers. The critics argue that there was no place in Mayo's philosophy for conflict, and he sought to achieve organisational harmony by subordinating individual and group interests to the administrative elite. Bendics and Fisher have argued that Mayo's failure as a social scientist arises in large measure from his failure to define sharply the ethical presuppositions of his scientific work. Without these pre-suppositions made clear, the knowledge and skill which Mayo finds so undervalued in democratic societies deserve no higher rating than they get. Daniel Sell was one of the bitter critics of the human relations theory propounded by Mayo and his colleagues. He said the methodology adopted by the Harvard group was defective. Others pointed out that to think that a conflict-free state and worker-contentment would lead to success of the company was not tenable because some tensions and conflicts were inevitable in every human situation. The goal should be to provide healthy outlets instead of indulging in Utopian ideals of conflict-free society. Therefore, the critics stated that the team displayed a lack of total awareness of larger social and technological systems.
First of all, they were criticized on the ground that the theory tried to substitute human relations-oriented supervisors for union representation. He was criticized for not understanding the role of unions in a free society. It was argued that Mayo never tried to integrate unions into his thinking. Hence, Loren Baritz and others criticized 'Mayoists' as anti-union and pro-management. In fact in 194Y, United Auto Workers in America lashed out at the Mayoism with bitter criticism and branded the Hawthorne researchers as 'cow sociologists'. Some Critics pointed out that sweeping conclusions were drawn from a relatively few studies which were, full of pitfalls. Critics like Carey pointed out that the Hawthorne group selected in their first experiment 'cooperative' girls who were willing to participate in the research programme and this type of research was "worthless", since a sample of five or six could not be taken as a reliable sample to make generalizations. Carey also observed that the evidence obtained from the experiments does not support any of the conclusions derived by the Hawthorne investigators. There exists a vast discrepancy between the evidence and the conclusions. On the other hand, the data only supports, according to Carey, the old view of monetary incentives, leadership and discipline as motivating factors for better performance. He also criticized Hawthorne investigations for their lack of scientific base. Peter F. Drucker, the well known management expert, criticized human relationists for their lack of awareness of economic dimension. He felt that the Harvard group neglected the nature of work and instead focused on interpersonal relations. Mayo was criticized for his sentimental concentration on the members of an organisation to the neglect of its work and purposes, and a general softness and lack of direction. Mayo also has been criticized as encouraging a paternalistic domination of the private lives and even the private thoughts of individuals by their employers. The critics argue that there was no place in Mayo's philosophy for conflict, and he sought to achieve organisational harmony by subordinating individual and group interests to the administrative elite. Bendics and Fisher have argued that Mayo's failure as a social scientist arises in large measure from his failure to define sharply the ethical presuppositions of his scientific work. Without these pre-suppositions made clear, the knowledge and skill which Mayo finds so undervalued in democratic societies deserve no higher rating than they get. Daniel Sell was one of the bitter critics of the human relations theory propounded by Mayo and his colleagues. He said the methodology adopted by the Harvard group was defective. Others pointed out that to think that a conflict-free state and worker-contentment would lead to success of the company was not tenable because some tensions and conflicts were inevitable in every human situation. The goal should be to provide healthy outlets instead of indulging in Utopian ideals of conflict-free society. Therefore, the critics stated that the team displayed a lack of total awareness of larger social and technological systems.
CONCLUSION: contribution of Mayo to administrative organisation has been a great innovation of the modern times. For the first time, he made an attempt to understand the problems of the industrial labor from an angle different from the traditional approach of scientific management era. In addition to human relations in the organisation, Mayo critically examined the employee-employer relations in a capitalist society, stability of the labor, supervision, etc., of the industrial workers. Although the detailed analysis of work was conducted by his associates in the Hawthorne Plant and elsewhere, he was the moving spirit behind all these attempts at various stages. The Hawthorne studies soon became a historic landmark in administrative thought. The studies as Drucker has put it, are still the best, the most advanced and the most complete works in the field of human relations. Indeed, it is debatable, whether the many refinements added since by the labor of countless people in industry, labor unions and academic life have clarified or observed the original insight. The contribution of Mayo is immensely useful not only in the industrial sector but also in the administrative system of a state, particularly in the case of bureaucracy. His work also paved the way for adequate communication system between the lower rungs of the organisation and the higher levels. His main emphasis was on the individual well being with the help of social skills in any organisation. Mayo is regarded as one of the founding fathers of human relations concept in the administrative thought. He was a behavioral scientist long before the team became popular. Taken as a whole, the significance of Hawthorne investigation was in discovering the informal organisation which it is now realized exists in all organisations. The importance of group affecting the behavior of workers at work was brilliantly analysed through these experiments.
You made good points on Human Relations Theory.
ReplyDelete