Elton Mayo and the Human Relations human relations theory arose from the need to counteract the

strong tendency toward dehumanization of work, beginning with th e application of rigorous scientific methods to which workers were forced to und ergo. Born in the United States as an immediate consequence of the results obtai ned on the experiences of Hawthorne, was basically a reaction and opposition to the classical theory of management. The classical theory of Taylor attempted to develop a new business philosophy: a n industrial civilization where technology and method of work is the most import ant concerns of the administrator. The basic assumptions of Taylor, on the other hand were those of his time - remained to be mechanistic and caused resentment among the workers, who considered the new business approach as a ploy to get mor e productivity at lower cost, this meant a threat collective unemployment or a s ubtle form of exploitation. If the man was a mechanism was sufficient economic i ncentives, provide better physical or environmental work, and monitor their heal th. That is, they had discovered the human factor amalgamating man and machine, but had forgotten the man as an entity separate from the machine. Despite not ha ving been questioned by any other major administrative theory in the first four decades of the last century, its principles are not always accepted by U.S. work ers and unions. In an eminently democratic country, workers and unions were and performed scientific management as a means of exploitation of employees in f avor of employers' interests. Human Relations refers to the study or improvement of human interaction and the effects that interaction has on thoughts, attitude s and behavior of individuals considered not as isolated entities, but in contac t with other individuals who influence and for those who are both influenced. Th e main function of the hierarchy is to integrate the workers, primarily looking at the human dimension of the work, because the main factor of production is the morale of the group and individuals. Business leaders should not be regarded si mply as the representatives of capital that should get the most out of using lab or as a tool to them to develop in the company an esprit de corps by recognizing and becoming known to all members of the company that share the same community of interests trying to gain adherence to its policy and not impose it. All these concepts borrowed human relations to social psychology. So, if we refer to the study of human interaction, we give an ambiguous character, for those located in the same plane as the social psychology without own specific field. But if we t ake into account the aspect relating to the improvement of this interaction, we are providing an ethical validity. Human relationships are a double-edged sword if it betrays his sense of ethics. They can not be applied for convenience, even for production needs. They should not be used to produce more, but to live bett er. When Human Relations are developed in the field of companies or institutions and their action interaction is directed toward the public, depending on the need for coexistence that has a company or institution with the community. The development of so-cal led human sciences, especially psychology and sociology, as well as its growing intellectual influence and its early attempts to implement the industrial organi zation. The human sciences came to demonstrate, gradually, the inadequacy of the principles of the classical theory. Need By highlighting the social, the human relations movement improved the classical view that productivity almost exclusiv ely considered as an engineering problem. In a way, Mayo rediscovered the old ma xim whereby Robert Owen, a genuine concern for workers, "vital machines" as Owen used to call them. Moreover, this theory emphasizes the importance of the manag er's style and thus revolutionized the training of administrators. The attention was increasingly focused on teaching management skills, as opposed to technical skills. Finally, his work revived interest in group dynamics. Administrators be gan to think in terms of processes and group awards to complement his previous a pproach on the individual.€Almost all studies Critica de Mayo are focused on Ha wthorne experiments that, although deeply influenced the way managers conceived of their work and how research was conducted after the administration, had many

flaws in the design, analysis and interpretation . The conclusions of Mayo and his colleagues with the data is still the subject of many debates and much confusion. In addition, the social environment of the wor kplace is just one of the interacting factors that influence productivity. There are several others such as wage levels, the degree of interest in the work, cul ture and organizational structure, relations between employees and managers. Not all happen in a predictable way from one level to another in the hierarchy of n eeds. For some, work is only a means to satisfy their lower needs. Others were j ust glad to see covered higher-order needs and sometimes opt for jobs that threa ten their security with such exclusive accomplish goals. According to Mayo, the employee's attitude in front of his work and the nature of the group in which pa rticipation are key factors in productivity. For these behavioral scientists, th e most realistic model of human motivation is the "complex man." The good manage r knows that no two people are exactly alike and adapts its attempts to influenc e people attending to their individual needs. May Maslow and Maslow, in his theo ry of hierarchy of needs, argues that people respond to five different types of needs, with them, first the basic (the physiological and safety), and the other, social needs (affection, esteem and self-actualization). In short according to Maslow, "in organizations, then appears as an obvious demand of their workers, t o satisfy the first four and aspire to fifth in the cases of people who can them selves determine its scope and generally and to influence the organizations in t he organization to influence them " In contrast to these, the main idea considers the employees as the key factor wi ll be perceiving them as open, collaborative, inclusive and independent and matu re. So the organization, its culture and establish participatory type of leaders hip. Conclusion Today the company is a social good and is required to ensure adherenc e to its objectives of its members and their improvement through a job that sati sfies them, not only material but what is more disturbing, psychologically or sp iritually . Not only works to meet biological needs, but to assert one's persona lity in an individual or social level. That is, within the mechanical concept of Taylor's time, the selection criterion was competition. Today we are still inte rested in capacity, but also that the new member may be integrated into a workgr oup. The issue of productivity and employee satisfaction is a more complex than initially thought. Finally we can deduce that the leader must foster a sense of belonging among its employees and to that end should be considered as its main a ssets. Bibliography â ¢ CHIAVENATO, Idalberto Introduction to the general theory of manag ement, Mexico: McGraw-Hill, 2006. â ¢ MAY, ELTON The Social Problems of an industrial civilization, Salem, New Hampshire: Ayer Co mpany, Publishers, 1988