
		blacksacademy.net

Human Relations School

The Human Relations School

The human relations school rejects the classical theory of scientific management and takes the view that businesses are social systems in which psychological and emotional factors have a significant influence on productivity. The common elements in human relations theory are the beliefs that:

•		Performance can be improved by good human relations
•		Managers should consult employees in matters that affect staff
•		Leaders should be democratic rather than authoritarian
•		Employees are motivated by social and psychological rewards and are not just “economic animals&lrquo;
•		The work group plays an important part in influencing performance

The first research undertaken in this light was by Elton Mayo at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago (1923 to early 1930s). Mayo attempted various adjustments to the working environment (adjusting the lighting in certain areas, and so on) to study the impact on productivity. He found that whatever he did had a positive effect on productivity, and thereby concluded that the mere fact that management showed an interest in the comfort and welfare of the workers was enough to increase productivity. If work appears to have a meaning and purpose, and workers feel valued and appreciated, they will be more content and more productive.

This relationship between attention paid to workers and productivity is known as the “Hawthorne Effect”.

Mayo also discovered the importance of the working group as a factor influencing productivity. He found that strong group cohesion enhances the performance of the organisation if group objectives are compatible with organisational aims. Managers should be sensitive to such informal groupings and should strive to harness the efforts of these groups to achieve the firm's objectives.

The human relations school developed after the Second World War. It brought a deeper insight into the motivation of workers, relying on the work of psychologists to understand the reasons for work, and productivity.

Theory X and Theory Y

In his work The Human Side of Enterprise Douglas McGregor described two opposed theories about the psychology of workers. He called these theories: theory X and theory Y.

•		Theory X Workers are lazy and unambitious, they dislike responsibility and resist change. They do not identify with the overall aims of the organization. Consequence: workers need coercion and control. Equates to Classical Motivation Theory, and “carrot and stick” methods of motivation.

•		Theory Y Workers enjoy work and gain satisfaction through work. They want to grow through work and enjoy responsibility. They are prepared to adapt and will identify with organizational goals. They are capable of using their own initiative.

McGregor's distinction between the two theories implies a criticism of Theory X. By introducing the contrast between the two theories, he is implying that Theory X is dehumanizing in its approach, and will result in demotivation.

The implications of Theory Y are developed by Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Maslow writes, “Growth is, in itself, a rewarding and exciting process. ”

In other words, Maslow argues that human beings are creative individuals seeking to develop themselves in some way. The relevance of this to business motivation is that work is one area in which individuals seek growth.

He argues that we have a hierarchy of needs, which he portrays in a pyramid like diagram.

He claims that this hierarchy of needs involves a strict hierarchy — in other words, physiological needs have to be satisfied first, before safety needs, and safety needs must be satisfied before the need for love and belongingness, and so forth.

It is not necessary to agree with this strict hierarchical view of these needs in order to accept his claim that people seek growth. Ultimately, this growth takes the form of self-actualisation, but he can only offer a vague insight into what this might mean. Maslow writes:

Self-actualisation is idiosyncratic, since every person is different . . . The individual [must do] what he, individually, is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be.

Frederick Herzberg's Two-factor Theory

Herzberg sets out to debunk the “myth” that offering people incentives is motivating. His first aim is to attack the classical theory of motivation. Rather rudely, he refers to the classical incentive theory (corresponding to McGregor's theory X) as motivation by means of a “KITA”. “KITA” is short for “a kick in the arse”.

The KITA

KITA is short for “kick in the arse” physical KITA is an actual physical attack on an employee negative psychological KITA is a non-physical, verbal attack on an employee positive psychological KITA is an incentive to work

We also use the term “carrot and stick” to describe this theory of motivation.

Herzberg rejects the idea of 'motivating' with a KITA. The idea behind the KITA is that when people do not want to do what you want them to do, one direct method of getting them to act is the KITA. This can be taken literally as a physical attack but does have the disadvantage that a physical attack is illegal, and runs the risk that the recipient may attack back. The negative psychological KITA has the 'advantages' of being more cruel but also less visibly so. It can also be applied in more ways. There is also a “positive” KITA, which involves offering people incentives such as money. Americans tend to agree that a negative KITA is not motivating, although, contradictorily, they do think it gets people moving. On the other hand, Herzberg claims most Americans tend to believe that the positive KITA is motivating. Herzberg does not agree and argues that neither the positive nor the negative KITA are motivating, and that if you want motivated staff, then you should not KITA them.

Myths about Motivation

Herzberg claims that almost every initiative in modern times is an example of the positive KITA and can be shown not to motivate people.

(1)		Reducing time spent at work. Not motivating because motivated people seek to work more not less.
(2)		Spiraling wages. Wage rises motivate people to expect wage rises.
(3)		Fringe benefits. Benefits motivate people to expect more benefits. He remarks that benefits in America amount to 25% of wages.
(4)		Human relations training - it is a myth that people become more motivated if you try to relate to them politely.
(5)		Sensitivity training — it is a myth that people become more motivated if you work hard at getting them to understand themselves better.
(6)		Communications — it is a myth that people work harder if management listens to them more.
(7)		Two-way communication — it is a myth that motivation requires communication between a manager and his employees.
(8)		Job participation — it is a myth that jobs can be made exciting by creating bogus ways in which a sense of participation in the wider scheme of things is generated.
(9)		Employee counseling — it is a myth that counseling people and giving them the opportunity to air their problems is motivating.

Hygiene and Motivation

This is Herzberg's two-factor theory. He claims that his “insights” are drawn from empirical studies. He argues that the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction are different from those that lead to job satisfaction.

He claims that the following factors are motivating factors and that these are all intrinsic to the job itself: Achievement, Recognition, The work itself, Responsibility Advancement, Growth

He claims that the following factors are hygiene factors — that is factors that lead to job dissatisfaction: Company policy and administration, Supervision, Relationship with supervisor, Work conditions, Salary, Relationship with peers, Personal life, Relationship with subordinates, Status, Security.

Job enrichment

From a practical point of view, Herzberg argues that managers seek to increase motivation among employees “by manipulating motivator factors”. Practically speaking this involves “job enrichment”, which “provides the opportunity for employee's psychological growth”.

However, Herzberg attacks bogus attempts to enrich jobs, which go by the term “job enlargement” and “job loading”. It is not enriching the job to set productivity targets, it is not enriching a job to add another meaningless task to the existing one, or rotating boring assignments, or by removing difficult tasks so that the employee can concentrate on the more difficult ones. These are all examples of “horizontal loading” which is not motivating.

“Vertical loading”, however, is motivating. Examples of vertical loading, leading to job enrichment, could include: (1) removing some controls whilst retaining accountability; (2) increasing the accountability of employees for their own work; (3) giving employees control over a complete process in work; (4) reporting back regularly to the employee rather than to the supervisor; (5) introducing new and more difficult tasks; (6) upskilling the employee — giving him more and more specialized tasks, developing expertise.

Needs Theory and Maturity/immaturity

McClelland identified certain common factors in motivation. He was concerned with three needs: (1) The need for achievement (n-Ach); (2) The need for power (n-Pow); (3) The need for affiliation or belonging (n-Aff).

He maintains that scientific research suggests that n-Ach is developed by cultural and environmental factors, and this means that it can be fostered amongst the workforce. The drawback with n-Ach is that high achievers are often not team players.

Argyris proposed the idea that the human personality develops from immaturity and passive dependence to maturity and active independence. Employees who have not developed sufficient maturity will prefer authoritarian managers who control the work of the employee. Mature employees will prefer to work more independently.

Conclusion

All these theories reject what McGregor calls Theory X and advocate a form of Theory Y: Workers enjoy work and gain satisfaction through work. They want to grow through work and enjoy responsibility. They are prepared to adapt and will identify with organizational goals. They are capable of using their own initiative.