QUESTION: COMPARE THE CLASSICAL AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS APPROACHES TO

MANAGEMENT.
----

ANSWER:

The classical and human relations theories of management are both approaches to
increasing productivity in the workplace, but their methods/Approaches are in
contrast. The classical theory of management is an authoritative method with a top-
down management style, while the human relations theory focuses on improved
communication and worker's needs.

Classical management theory involves creating multiple levels of workers to improve

productivity. While some components of the theory, such as designing procedures
for completing a task and keeping personal issues out of business, help an
organization focus on the job at hand, the theory fails to recognize the differences
among employees. Human relations theory, also known as behavioral management
theory, focuses more on the individuals in a workplace than the rules, procedures
and processes.

Human Relations Theory of George Elton Mayo is basically built upon the successes
and not on the failures of classical theory i.e. it is not that the ideas of the structural
school of thought were totally discarded by the scholars of the Human Relations
Theory. Instead, the pillars of classical school i.e. order, rationality, structure of
organisation, equity etc., were only modified to suit the changed needs of the times.

The classical school created organisations that had been successful in satisfying the
basic economic needs of only the management. The Human Relations School of
Thought then focused attention on the social needs of the organisation.

The two theories are basically two shades of the feelings of the workers and are in
essence complementary to each-other. A worker’s feelings, it was observed, may
become prominent only when he has enough to eat. So far he does not have feeling of
job security and stability in life, generally his social needs do not come to the
surface.

Overall, it can be said that the classical school provides a first approximation to the
organisational development, while the Human Relations School of Thought provides a
second Approximation to the organisational development. Hence, generally speaking,
the two theories do not negate each other.

However, there are some basic differences between the two theories:

1. The Classical School of Thought rests on the basic assumption of the nature of
man as “Economic man” who is moved by economic rewards only. This theory
hence gave economic incentives to motivate the workers. The Human Relations
 School of Thought, however, believes that the social settings of the work place
shape the behaviour of the employees in the organisation. It hence rests on the
assumption of the nature of the man as “Social Man” and states that `Man does
not live by bread alone’. Therefore in order to motivate him, social factors
should be tackled.

2. The sole emphasis in the classical School of Thought was on the structural and
mechanical aspects of the organisation and hence it is said that it viewed
employees as merely the nuts and bolts in the organisational set up. Hence it is
said that in the classical approach, the sole point of emphasis was the
machine. The Human Relations School of Thought on the other hand
emphasized that not only the machine but the man behind the machine is also
as important as the machine.

3. The classical school tackled individual level behaviour and advocated for
authoritarian approach towards the management of organisational affairs i.e. it
advocated the use of formal channels of control. The Human Relations School
of Thought, however, tackled the organisational behaviour at the group level
behaviour and advocated ‘Group discipline’ i.e. it advocated formal control
methods as well as integration of social control (i.e. informal group control)
into the formal control channels.

4. Structural School (i.e. the Classical Approach) emphasised on the design of

formal structure of organisation. The Human Relations School of Thought
advocated the design of organisation in a manner such that it should integrate
informal channels of authority with the formal channels of the organisation.

5. While the classical school advocated the adoption of autocratic leadership

style, the Human Relations school favoured the use of Democratic or
participative leadership style where leaders consult the employees within the
organisation on every matter and give due weightage to their opinion in their
decisions.

6. The classical school of thought favoured the upgradation of techniques and

technology of the organisation to improve the efficiency of the organisation.
However, the Human Relations School of thought advocates the exploiting of
the ‘will’ of the employees i.e. it asks for motivating the employees through
social motivations for improving the efficiency of the organisation.

Overall, the classical school of thought represents the technical side of an enterprise
while the Human Relations Schools of Thought represents the Human side of the
Enterprise.

REFERENCES:

1. Lecture Note: BUAD 801

2. Web address: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/xy-management-theory-
55198.html

3. Web address: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/compare-and-

contrast-the-classical-and-human-599041