What are the similarities between the scientific theory and the human relations theory

The human relations theory (HRT) has evolved in the 1920s and 1930s (Grey, 2009, p.44). Studies by Elton Mayo at the Hawthorne plants of the Western Electric Company were the activator of HRT (Morgan, 1986, p.41). With the help of these studies the enterprise was able to analyze in which way the output of employees change due to diversifying the conditions of employment. Therefor, they established two focus groups which were exposed to different illumination levels. However, analysts noticed that the output in those test groups increased independently from lighting conditions (Pugh, 1990, p.345). Employees felt rather motivated by the particular attention they received. They got the feeling of being something special and not just a factor of producing products (Grey, 2009, p.45). In other words, only the actuality that workers were observed was the reason for this increased productivity. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the workforce can also be motivated by non economical factors. These non economical factors were the basic idea of the HRT (Thompson and McHugh, 2009, p.45). The HRT concerns with the aims, wishes and interests of the employees. Moreover, it supported measures to improve team work, cooperation between management and the workforce, internal communication and social relationships (Slattery, 2003, p.128). The idea was to create a social and friendly business environment to motivate the whole crew. Furthermore the employees should get in contact with each other to achieve a feeling of harmony in the organization. Development and integration of the workforce instead of oppression were further key elements (Slattery, 2003, p.128). These efforts pay off. Productivity and staff satisfaction increased. In addition the employees get a deeper relationship with the enterprise through a humanitarian working atmosphere. As a result, the informal side of the company is at least as fundamental as the formal side (Grey, 2009, p.46).

Explanation:

The third principle is about “cooperation between management and the workers to ensure that the work is done according to the science” (Thompson and McHugh, 2009, p.30). This principle has two aims. On the one hand Taylor wants to achieve that the whole workforce follows the defined processes. On the other hand management and workers should work together. It is essential that both parties realize that it is more profitable for the company and their selves when they work hand in hand. Furthermore this is a key determinant to translate scientific management from theory into practice (Taylor, 1911, p.26).

The relationship between men and management suffered another change referring work sharing. This is the topic of the final principle. In the past the workers themselves were responsible for every part of their job without support of the management. Taylor has changed this proportion. Collecting the whole knowledge of the workers, creating rules and regulations and form a science for each process was no duty for the men (Taylor, 1911, p.37). In other words the management had to ensure that each worker on each day knew exactly what he had to do how he had to do it and in what period of time (Taylor, 1911, p.39). Accordingly, this combination of work sharing and the change of the attitude to work are the factors for success of scientific management.