Frederick Taylor, acknowledged by many as the “father or scientific management,” brought the ideas of task measurement, time measurement, and other mechanical measurement into organizations (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). His theories and concepts had little to do with the “human side” of workforce efficiency and employee motivation. This approach to scientific management was in stark contrast to the theories brought forward by Henri Fayol and Chester Barnard. Fayol and Barnard were early pioneers in the line of thinking that human relations should have a major role in management practices (Wren & Bedeian, 2009; Williamson, 1995).
Fayol, known as the “father of modern management,” presented 14 principles that he believed to be central attributes of a successful manager (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). His principles include many of the ideas that would one would think to be logically a part of solid managerial practices. However, his list of principles introduced elements of management that had not previously been considered vital by researchers and practitioners. These elements dealt with area of human relations as they relate to interpersonal interaction within the workplace, as well as positive motivational techniques. The principles that began a greater focus on the human element included unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interests to the general interest, order, equity, stability of tenure, initiative and esprit de corps (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).
Chester Barnard furthered Fayol’s recognition of the human relations elements in managerial thought and practice. Barnard introduced the concepts relating to the human interaction and response within a social system. Barnard built his concepts on the idea that organizations are “organic and evolving social systems (Williamson, 1995). He used the tenants of psychology, sociology and the study of group interactions in assessing the value of managing workers on a deeper, interpersonal level. Of all of Barnard’s ideas on sound human resources management, the one that stands out to me personally is the concept of bringing together the personal motivations and goals of the individual to that of the company (Williamson, 1995). He believed that managers should work with subordinates in a fashion as to get them to feel like the success of a company was their very own goal, and not just that of said company. As Barnard puts it, employees need to become “good stewards of the company.” Williamson, 1995). He proposed that one of the most important aspects of meeting this “buy-in,” was communication. Communication from all levels of a company had to flow as freely as possible across all boundaries, and be inclusive so that employees would feel important, worthwhile and appreciated. When this school of thought was adopted by managers and employees alike, the social systems within a company would work to both side’s benefit.
We see Fayol’s and Barnards concepts being practiced today and at even higher levels of complexity. Dealing with the human side of an employee, as opposed to looking at them as a mechanical cog in the wheel of the company machine, has continued to grow in practice and scope. With many of the innovative programs we see in the workplace today that truly focus on a worker as a person, we can say with a great deal of certainty that Fayol and Barnard’s influence on managerial practices is alive and well.
David, I really like your title and I think it really touches upon how management should be personal. Employers shouldn't look at their employees as cogs in the wheel of "the company machine." All people, whether as employers or employees should be treated with Fayol's Equity.
ReplyDeleteViewing situations from the "human side" is also a phenomenal statement by you. I totally agree with you. There is always a give-and-take approach, but we should always be grounded and understand that we are dealing with real people. Keep all lines of communication open.
Thomas, thanks for your comments. I think that the advent of managerial practices that deal with the human element really did change the workplace for the better. I am afraid, however, that from personal and anecdotal experience that some of the larger corporations may be moving away from their people-centered approach. I see this more and more in organizations that are being hit really hard by the economy. For instance, in the radio broadcasting business, there has been a movement of late to remake that business's approach to employee interaction more directed in a "cog in the wheel," mechanistic way. The economy has hit that business very hard, and inevitably, layoffs have occurred. As the layoffs have spread, more responsibility has been piled on those who are left. And at the same time, there is an unspoken fear that is allowed to permeate the employees' psyche by management that if you don't "grin and bear it," your job might be eliminated next. It has turned almost into a canabalistic environment. I hope that trend does not spread to other areas while we try to fight our way out of the terrible economic conditions we have.
DeleteHi David - I am glad this week's readings struck a chord with you. Here are some questions to push your thinking a bit: Do you think Taylor would agree with you that he ignored the human side of management? How would you apply these theories to your own organization? Are there specific examples of when you have seen these management practices usefully employed or employed incorrectly?
ReplyDeleteHi Courtney,
DeleteTaylor might not agree that he ignored the human side, but his argument about first class workers could certainly be taken as that he did have a very different view of some of the more forward-thinking management theorist of his time. He could also have been misunderstood just by his use of terminology, as he argued before the congressional hearings. But I think my issue with his concepts maybe the fact that we have the benefit of his comparing him to people who came after him with more of what I'd call mainstream ideas of human relations. I think Taylor had concern for the human element on one level, but when he boiled his theories down to the point of movement and time studies and his ideas on human motivation, those might not have gone to the level of what I would have expected and was shown by some of the other management scholars we read about.
As far as your question regarding seeing principals being applied in an inappropriate way, I gave an example of one that I have seen in my response to Thomas. As companies look for ways to cut costs and improve their bottom lines, the approach that I spoke about with Thomas is a scary road to take. And you have to ask yourself the question is all the company doing is feeding their bottom line, or are they truly improving their efficiency by making the deep cuts and not focusing on the psychological impact that their actions have on the remaining workforce. Some may say this could be the new norm. I have to disagree. We see examples of employee satisfaction improving productivity and efficiency in the readings we did on some of the other management scholars.
Hi David. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say about these two management pioneers. One question I have, though, is about employee buy-in and making employees feel important and appreciated. Do you think this could lead to a culture of entitlement among employees? If people are expecting information to just come their way, do you think it could lead to employees expecting to be notified of everything going on in the company, rather than going to the intranet or other communications resources to find out on their own? Maybe it's happy medium of both?
ReplyDeleteThank you Lauren. While there is that chance of building a culture of entitlement, I don't believe that will happen. I think today's employee is sophisticated enough to understand that there is a "win-win" situation. Or perhaps I give the human element too much credit or think of them in a perfect world. There will always be out-liers in any situation as we've all come to experience in our organizations. They will take advantage. But for the most part, members of the organization will know how to play the game and make it work for them, while meeting the expectations of the company.
DeleteI could agree, also, with your observation that an expectation could be derived out of the communication issue. And you are correct, there has to be a happy medium. I think that is where the motivation of the employee comes in. If you, as a manager, engage your direct reports to the point where you give them good information that will sustain their basic motivation, they will take additional steps to seek out information on their own to build their own stake in the company, to gather the rewards that they truly expect and will appreciate. And if that motivation of the grows to fruition and the employee truly excels, the company will get what they want and need to succeed as well.
Thanks again.
David