The first thrust in management theory—planning and decision-making

to order the tasks and functions of an impersonal bureaucracy—put the

“rational man” into management. The second thrust concerned motivation
and morale, acknowledging the human order behind the machine. Yet it
did not significantly change this aspect of the manager image.

Human Relations in Industry

The 1930s and 1940s gave rise to another theory of management: the
human relations model. A group of researchers working with Elton Mayo
at Harvard Business School, beginning in the mid-1920s, discovered the
importance for productivity of primary, informal relations among workers
in the well-known experiments at the Hawthorne plant of Western
Electric.30 They developed the concept of “informal organization” to
include the emotional, non-rational, and sentimental aspects of human
behavior in organizations, the ties and loyalties that affected workers, the
social relations that could not be encompassed by the organization chart
but shaped behavior anyway. Other theorists influential in the development
of this perspective included Mary Parker Follett, whose interest in
management grew out of her experiences with the administration of social
welfare organization, a setting in which many women exercise their
managerial talents.31 In short, the human relations model assumed that
people were motivated by social as well as economic rewards and that
their behavior and attitudes were a function of group memberships. The
model emphasized the roles of participation, communication patterns, and
leadership style in affecting organizational outcomes.
 This theory introduced social and emotional considerations, focusing on
the human side of organization. The extent to which it affected managerial
practice is not known, but as ideology, it did not challenge the image of the
rational manager. Early human relations analysts supported the concept of
managerial authority and managerial rationality. In Mayo’s view workers
were controlled by sentiment, emotion, and social instincts, and this
phenomenon needed to be understood and taken into account in
organizational functioning. On the other hand, managers were rational,
logical, and able to control their emotions in the interests of organizational
design.
For managers in Mayo’s model, the workers’ emotionality offered
another set of important factors to take into account in rational planning,
and this should be added to the technical training of managers. However,
managerial elites were urged to develop their own logic to the fullest and
to control their own emotional reactions. In 1933 Mayo wrote that “the
administrator of the future must be able to understand the human-social
facts for what they actually are, unfettered by his own emotion or
prejudice. He cannot achieve this ability except by careful training—
training that must include knowledge of relevant technical skills, or the
systematic ordering of operations, and of the organization of cooperation.”
32 Reinhard Bendix argued that a consequence of this perspective was a

simplified version that viewed the successful manager as the man who
could control his emotions, whereas workers could not. According to a
1947 management manual, “He [the leader] knows that the master of men
has physical energies and skills and intellectual abilities, vision and
integrity, and he knows that, above all, the leader must have emotional
balance and control. The great leader is even-tempered when others rage,
brave when others fear, calm when others are excited, self-controlled when