Classical human relations approach

Mayo and Roethlisberger in the 1920s and 1930s, of the Harvard University applied their
knowledge of sociology to industrial experiments at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne
plant. Their work showed that an organization should be viewed as a social system and that the
social setting could influence workers’ behaviors more than management’s rules. The result of
their experiments emphasized that workers are not simple tools. They are a rather complex set of
personalities interacting in a group situation that is often difficult for managers to understand.
Mayo and Roethlisberger believed that instead of trying to improve employee job performance
according to Taylor’s principles of scientific management, managers could improve performance
by humanizing the work situation. Thus, managers should adopt participative leadership styles
and pay attention to the social setting in which employee work.
McGregor in 1960s, Douglas McGregor introduced a powerful perspective of the behavior of
employees in organizations. This perspective has been labeled Theory X and Theory Y
Theory X implies an autocratic approach to managing people. According to Theory X, most
people dislike work and try to avoid it if possible. People are not willing to make a 100 percent
effort because they are lazy. They have little ambition and will avoid responsibility if they can.
They are self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs, and resistant to change. The ordinary
rewards given by organizations are not enough to overcome employees’ dislike for work. Thus,
the only way that management can get a high level of performance is to coerce, control, and
threaten employees. Some managers deny that they hold this view of people, but their actions
prove that Theory X represents their view of employees.
Theory Y implies a humanistic and supportive approach to managing people. According to
Theory Y, people are not lazy. If management were to provide the proper environment to release
the employees’ potential, work would become as natural to them as play or rest. People will
exercise self-direction and self-control to achieve goals to which they have become committed.
Therefore management’s role is to provide an environment in which this potential can be
released at work.

1
McGregor argued that management had been following an outmoded set of assumptions about
people. Management continued to adhere to Theory X assumptions in theory Y. managers did
not recognize that most employees have at least some theory Y potential for growth.
Consequently, their policies and practices failed to develop it .as a result, many people did not
regard work as an opportunity for growth and fulfillment. Thus McGregor stressed that
management needed to adopt a new theory, Theory Y, for working with people

System Approach
The traditional approach to understanding behavior is to assume that people do things for simple
(uncomplicated) reasons. The tendency to think only in causal terms is an example of simple
reasoning for example, the automobile accident was “caused” by driver carelessness or by
dangerous road conditions or by some other single factor. However, if we were to make a list –
and it would be a long one-of “single causes” of automobile accidents, it would clearly show that
many, if not all; the items on the list could play some role in any one accident. If the single –
cause assumption of the traditional approach is inadequate, an obvious substitute is the
assumption that events are caused by many complex and interrelated forces. To establish
conditions that would reduce the frequency of automobile accidents, we soul have to study the
primary factors associated with accidents and their interrelationships. The systems approach
emphasizes the interrelatedness of parts and suggests the importance of interpreting a single part
(person, work group, department, or organization) only in the context of the whole. The idea of a
system assumes multiple causation and complex interrelationships: everything is related to
everything else. You should think of organizations as numerous subsystems, such as flows,
reward structures, communication networks, and role structures. All of these subsystems,
functioning together, are what were commonly referred to as an organization. This approach
leads to a different understanding of organizational behavior than that presented by the
traditional approach

2
The basic elements of a systems approach –inputs, a transformation process, and outputs. Inputs
are the physical, human, financial, and information resources that an organization uses to
produce goods and services. The transformation process is the technology that the organization
uses to transform (change) inputs into outputs. Outputs include the goods and services that the
organization offers to its customers or clients. Outputs also include wastes. Feedback is
knowledge of results, which influence the selection of inputs for the next cycle of the process.
The environment surrounding the organization includes the political, social, and economic forces
that affect its goals and effectiveness. In a university, inputs include students, faculty, alumni
gifts, foundation support, research grants, buildings, and the like. The faculty and administrators
use the transformation process-teaching and other educational services-to change the student into
an educated person. Different faculty members us different transformation processes to achieve
their departments and university’s goals. For example, work experiential exercises are some of
the methods that faculty members use to teach. The output of the system is an educated person.

Contingency Approach
The contingency approach is based on the belief that there is no one way of managing that is best
in all situations. It rejects the notion that universal principles can be applied to managing
behavior in organizations. Further, it means that no situation falls into a neatly defined
classification. Thus, each situation must be analyzed separately and then managed accordingly.
However, principles can give managers insight I a vague, general way. They have their place in
the contingency approach and are used when the situation calls for them.

Advantages of the Contingency Approach: The contingency approach advocates selecting a

management response from among various alternatives, based on the characteristics of the
specific situation. It holds that the key to becoming a successful manager is the ability to
diagnose a situation correctly.
According to the contingency approach, the nature of the organization’s environment, its size, Its
technology, the character of its markets, its legal with problems but simultaneously offer
opportunities. Thus organizations should adapt to situations. The contingency approach holds
that different kinds of structures, reward systems, and change strategies are appropriate responses
to different situations.

3
An advantage of using the contingency approach comes from the recognition that an
organization’s environment is constantly changing. Managers must recognize and adapt to
changes occurring both inside and outside the organization. For example, managers who assume
a stable market for their goods and services will not be successful very long. Let’s read how
managers have learned to diagnose the situation and change their behaviors to fit the situation.

4
5