Editor's Choice

Compare and contrast the classical and human relations theories of management.

Quick answer:

The classical and human relations theories of management are both approaches to increasing productivity in the workplace, but their methods 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. 

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Classical management theory and human relations theories contrast greatly. It can be said that classical theories were the earliest ones developed, while much of the human relations theories developed later as a reaction to them.

Classical theories align with McGregor's Theory X and also in some ways with Taylorism. They feature strict division of labor into different categories, including levels of management. Planning and communication are done in a "top down" fashion, meaning that information flows from top management downward. Many human relations theories, in contrast, allow for communication to come from the "front line" of workers up through the chain of management. The difference here is that, in classical management theory, workers are not considered to be very reliable. It is based on a theory of humanity that believe people are largely unmotivated and need things to be simple with much supervision. They also involve a great deal of specialization of labor, meaning that people are assigned only one simple task to perform repeatedly. Management's job is to help them find and adhere to the single most efficient way to do that task.

Human relations theories developed much later and are more complex, both in their view of people, as well as organizations. They fit with what McGregor called "Theory Y". These theories understand humans to be complex, and not just like "robots" who can do one task and be happy with it. These theories also value the input that workers have by making observations in their own work. It respects the individual by allowing for room to grow in the workplace, as well as to experience different tasks during the day. These theories are thought to produce better efficiency by motivating people because they feel part of the organization and understand its goals. It also recognizes that people are happier when their human needs are addressed and not just put aside for the good of the organization.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The classical management theory emphasizes the importance of sticking to procedures as a way to get things done more quickly and effectively. Workers are hired according to their skills and expertise and assigned a post. There are different hierarchies. Workers are supposed to listen to their supervisors and focus on achieving results.

The human relations theory emphasizes on the relationship between workers and their superiors. According to this theory, the best way for the company to increase productivity is to look after the individual needs of the employees.

Both theories are similar in that they are used in modern management as a way to encourage productivity. Most manufacturing plants use classical management theory because it works best in such an environment. On the other hand, human relations theory is used in modern office environments where teamwork is crucial to the overall productivity.

The two theories are also different from each other. According to classical management theory, the best way to motivate workers is to adjust their wages according to their level of productivity. On the other hand, human relations theory believes in making the worker happy as a way to motivate them.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Classical management theory is sometimes called "scientific management," an approach pioneered by Frederick Winslow Taylor (in fact, the approach is sometimes called "Taylorism". Taylor's focus was on industrial management. He was obsessed with fostering efficiency, and he suggested that managers do this in a number of different ways. First, he advocated specialization to the extreme. Workers should focus not just on a single job, but on a single task that was part of a rigid division of labor. He also suggested that workers should receive economic incentives to be more productive. From a management perspective, classical management was unitary. Management decisions, ranging from personnel to production, were made by one manager, whose dictates were implemented by a series of middle managers. Classical management theory is based on the assumption that people are driven by purely economic motives. This assumption, which can be traced back to the writings of eighteenth-century economists, does not take other factors into account. Human relations management theory is, on the other hand, based on these non-economic motives. It assumes that workers need to feel that their work has value (beyond the purely economic) and that the workplace should be a space where positive social interactions led to increased productivity. Rather than simply "scoring" workers and rewarding them for efficiency, an approach which tended to foster an atmosphere of relentless competition in the workplace, managers should encourage workers to adopt a cooperative approach, one which emphasized the importance of social interaction among workers. So, unlike classical, or "scientific" management, human relations management assumes that people were motivated by the need for social interactions. 

As for comparisons between the two approaches, it should be noted that both are, in the final analysis, intended to make more money for business owners. Human relations management techniques, no less than classical ones, are ways to make workers more efficient and easier to control and, for lack of a better word, manage. 

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Classical management theory and human relations management theory are similar in that both view incentives as a strong motivator towards better performance. The difference between the two is the type of incentives offered. In Classical management, better wages and salaries are expected to translate to better performance. On the other hand, human relations viewed administration interaction and improved communication with the workers as a better incentive.

Classical management and human relations management theory are similar in that they both sought to increase productivity. They, however, differ in the way improved productivity should be achieved. Classical management suggested that a standard method of performing the duties required would increase worker efficiency and translate to improved productivity. On the other hand, human relations suggested that collaboration and teamwork would increase productivity by meeting the workers’ social needs.

Classical management differs from human relation because it views the workers as machines or as part of an assembly line. Human relations views workers as human beings with social needs that need to be satisfied for the well-being of the working institution.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

How can I compare and contrast the behavioral or human relations approach and the classical approach to management?

The classical and behavioral approaches to management (the latter has also been called the "human relations" approach and the "neoclassical" approach; these are all basically the same thing, though some people consider the "human relations" form to be an older version whereas "behavioral" is the modern method) are similar in many ways. Both are intended to optimize productivity of workers, and hence profitability of companies. They both assume a hierarchy of managers over workers in which managers tell workers what they should do, and of course they both assume the context of a capitalist economy where companies own capital, hire workers, and make profits. (It's important to remember that neither of those things are actually a given; worker-owned co-ops are quite common in many places, and for most of history most of the world has not been capitalist.)

But the classical approach is extremely hierarchical; that is essentially its defining feature. The whole structure is based around ensuring discipline and an orderly chain of command. You have clearly defined objectives, quotas to meet, and rewards and punishments tied directly to whether or not you fulfill those objectives. By design, managers are not supposed to be friendly with their workers, as this is "unprofessional" and could undermine discipline. Rules must be followed exactly, and if they aren't, the punishment must be swift and severe. The place you'll see the classical approach used the most nowadays is actually the military---though even they are starting to figure out its shortcomings.

The behavioral approach relaxes the hierarchy a little bit, without eliminating it entirely. Based on empirical research showing that happy and motivated workers perform better (managers aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, for the most part; they expect higher profits to result), the behavioral approach involves providing workers with a pleasant, friendly environment and much heavier focus on teamwork and cooperation rather than cooperation and individual rewards.

The behavioral approach also encourages feedback from workers to managers about what is working and what isn't, making the system more flexible to change and better at improving itself when things go wrong. Whereas a classical manager would punish criticism as insubordination, a behavioral manager would try to understand the criticism, and either implement the proposed changes or at least do something to address the problems that the workers noticed.

Classical management also involves a lot more direct monetary incentives (e.g. a commission on sales or a bonus for exceeding quota), whereas behavioral management emphasizes non-monetary incentives (e.g. "Employee of the Month" and praise for a job well done). These tend to be cheaper for the company and can be just as motivating for workers, though it's legitimate to ask whether it is fair to workers for managers to reap all the monetary gains while workers just get a pat on the back.

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Last Updated on