The Human Relations Approach

Some Early Developments The third strand in the development of modern management was the increase in attention to the human factors, which has become known as the 'human relations school of management.' The UK was served by some remarkable men, both of high reputation as managers as well as impressive in theoretical presentation. The small group that surrounded B. S. owntree, who did much to set out the arguments for an ethical approach to management responsibilities, was declaring sturdily that it was good business to look after the worker also. The enlightened paternalism that they offered was attractive to many in management, particularly those who saw it as a continuation of the comradeship of !irst "orld "ar. #t the $ational %nstitute of %ndustrial &sychology, 'r (. S. )yers ! S, the 'irector until *+,*, promoted empirical studies of industrial fatigue in particular, and employee problems in general. The inevitable professional body appeared, initially with the support of the ubi-uitous cocoa manufacturers, who were so active in promoting that combination of humanity with profit for which they have been .ustly famous. #fter many metamorphoses, the "elfare "orkers' #ssociation /*+*,0 was eventually to become the modern %nstitute of &ersonnel )anagement /%&)0. But ideas from the United States were also influential. 1lton )ayo's detailed and continuing work in the 2awthorne e3periments, widely publici4ed as it was, seemed to suggest that a new approach to motivation and employee care was both possible and sensible. #lthough aspects of this work were later to be -uestioned, they remained the largest and probably most influential work in this field into the *+56s. Thus by the Second "orld "ar a level of good management practice was established in the UK, principally in the professional bodies, a limited educational establishment, the body of thoughtful managers who surrounded B. S. owntree and an embryo consultant effort based on the Bedau3 (ompany and its successors, which although critici4ed had provided the most e3tensive contribution to scientific management. 7et it is easily possible to overestimate the influence of these pioneers on established practice. %n general, industrial managers remained pragmatic in outlook, suspicious of new ideas and wedded to the oversimplified notions of the past. !irms such as %(%, but without enthusiasm or success occasionally e3perimented with sophisticated organi4ational structures. $o revolution along the lines that #lfred Sloan /*89:;*+550, /Sloan /*+5,00 introduced at <eneral )otors was achieved. British industry preferred the simple 'one man control' system that it thought had served it so well in the past.

This remained as true for the successful firms like )orris and #ustin as for the failing giants in te3tiles and engineering. 2ence, notions of leadership became of great interest and efforts were made to develop the personal skills that it was thought might best contribute to the more effective operation of this system. The Second "orld "ar itself called for the display of unity and drive that was to achieve great things, but these successes were to overshadow many real faults that needed to be changed. #t the end, however, it was to establish, among other things, the vast superiority of #merican production capacity, and, by implication, its manufacturing methods and management. By *+== US# arms production was si3 times that of the UK, but whilst the British effort took nearly two>thirds of the <$& /as it did in <ermany0 the figure for #merica was never more than =, per cent. !ew 1uropean governments have been, or are, unaware of this overwhelming superiority. $e3t ? The postwar e3pansion