You are on page 1of 4

Under the Guidance of: Mr.

David Selvanathan

Presented By: Hemant Sharma (A30201911055)

Human Relations School

Page 1

57. the Hawthorne studies have been criticized extensively (e. Social psychologists like Maier (1952) and Katz (1951) and sociologists like Homans (1950) and Whyte (1959) were influential. Carey 1967) Informal Group Processes The Hawthore studies led to more study on the importance of informal group processes in organizations. mica-splitting. but surprisingly they found that production rose in both control and experimental rooms no matter what they did to the lighting.. Mayo and Roethlisberger came from the Taylor tradition. attention is gratifying" p. The formal systems were subverted by evolving informal systems of norms and relationships. Some of these are: Leadership Theory X and Theory Y Sensitivity and T-Group Training Job Redesign Worker Participation Human Relations School Page 2 . Other Hawthorne studies (relay-assembly group. and also act as members of social groups (where loyalties are often stronger than individual self-interests). Later they found that people simply worked harder because they were part of the experiment and they wanted to do the best they could for the researchers and the company. Outgrowths of the Human Relations School Many other important branches of organizational research sprung from the Human Relations efforts. "They are driven by feelings and sentiments as much as be facts and interests. 57. showing that socialpsychological effects were often stronger than economic effects. bank wiring) all showed that workers are not simply motivated by economic self-interest but have complex motives and values.. Scotts summarizes this as "change is interesting. The early work followed the scientific management approach.g.Human Relations School The famous Hawthorne studies formed the basis of the human relations school. and were studying fatique to optimize the length and spacing of rest periods for maximum productivity.. However." Scott p. and are described by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) and Mayo (1945) and Homans (1950).

so they must use coercision.consideration (trust. Theory X and Theory Y Human relation theorists emphasize the impact of individual characteristics like race. and wants security above all (paraphrase from McGregor p. Human Relations School Page 3 . Most of these studies ignored the formal authority vested in the positions of the leaders (Scott p. Under Theory X. leadership is a mechanism for influencing the behavior of individuals. Bales (1958) found that there two main types of leadership -. and various control schemes to get workers to make adequate efforts against objectives. has little ambition. They assume the average worker wants to be directed and prefers to avoid responsibility. friendship. sex. external control and threat isn't the only way to encourage productivity.socio-emotional leadership that supports group maintenance. class. threats. Theory Y. on the other hand. 33-34). managers assume workers dislike and avoid work if possible.Leadership Human Relations Perspective: From a human relations perspective. Another showed two basic dimensions of leadership -. and the most significant rewards are the "satisfaction of ego" and "self-actualization needs". and task leadership toward the group activities. Sensitivity training for supervisors (Bethel-type sensitivity training) (Blake and Mouton 1964) or T-Group training. Studies showed that participants performed better under democratic than authoritarian or lassez-faire leaders. Sensitivity and T-Group Training Human Relations researchers also sought to improve worker morale through personnel counselors. Furthermore. Douglas McGregor's book on "The Human Side of Enterprise" distiguished between Theory X (classical systems theory) and Theory Y (human relations theory). 58-59). cultural background on organizational and group behavior. and respect between leader and subordinate) and initiating structure (organizing capability of leader to get the work out). Later studies showed that leadership characteristics vary with the situation and the specific motivation needs of individual participants. assumes that individuals do not inherantly dislike work. but see it as natural as play or rest.

conflict was denied and "managed". People like Landsberger (1958) and Braverman (1974) noted that the human relations school was actually another methodology to increase worker productivity. 79-144). Worker's legitimate economic interests were being subverted and deemphasized. not to actually improve worker relations. and the new manager roles were just another form of elitism (Scott p. 1966). 1970) * leadership style and productivity (Hollander and Julian. 1969) In fact. "sociological work on organizations well into the 1950's was shaped primarily by the human relations model" Human Relations School Page 4 . There is no empirical relation between: * worker satisfaction and productivity (Schwab and Cummings. 61). p. 1969) * decision-making participation and satisfaction or productivity (Vroom. However. Worker Participation Kurt Lewin was one of the first to show that participation in decision-making can improve commitment and satisfication (Lewin. the relations might even be the opposite. Charles Perrow has a highly critical review in his Complex Organizations book (1986. the human relations school is also suspect.Job Redesign The Human Relations Group warned against the dangers of excessive formalization and specialization in causing alienation and low morale among workers. 1948). Criticism of Human Relations Theory Later many attacked the techniques espoused and developed by the human relations school as just a more indirect and covert attempt at manipulation and exploitation. They advocated job enrichment and job rotation programs to reduce alienation and increase committment and satisfaction of workers especially doing routine work (Herzberg. Empirically. Much of this work was elaborated in the work at Tavistock and other european sites.