Differences between human relations and human resource approaches to management.

In a discussion of approaches to management in organizations, human relations and human resources are bound to come up. Many may confuse these two different approach styles due to their similar name and their styles being similar by nature. Both styles relate to one another because the human resources approach was born out of the human relations approach. The human relations approach is mainly based in the interpersonal and social needs of the individual worker. This view point was dramatically different from those which preceded it. The human relations approach paved the way for the human resource approach which I feel our textbook portrays best as a movement rather than an approach.

The human relations approach is based off of much research and the findings of a simple test in a small town in Illinois. Elton Mayo, a human relations researcher, was preceded by feminist Mary Parker Follett who really laid the ground work for research of the human relations approach. Because Mayo’s timing coincided with the movement to change scientific management he was able to greatly influence society. Mayo stressed the importance of interpersonal relations between managers and employees. Mayo’s theory held that effective management meant that managers should strive to communicate to encourage employees to identify with the organization.

In the Hawthorne plant of an AT&T subsidiary managers and researchers were testing worker reactions to change in lighting only to find they were reacting to something completely different. It was the increased attention on the workers that actually increased productivity. This and other experiments led to the conclusion that workers are actually quite complex beings with many motives, values and emotions. These psychological studies of human complexity helped researchers and managers better understand the worker and how best to manage and communicate.

As previously stated I feel that the human relations research was more of a movement than only one approach because there are so many theories that make up the “human resources approach.” First is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which categorizes human needs by order of importance, most of which are physiological needs to survival. This affects management because the workplace can become an environment where individuals mature from addressing their minimalistic needs to realizing their full potential or as Maslow would call it, “self actualization.”

The human resources approach was also influenced Douglas McGregor and his “Theory Y.” McGregor created this management style out of assumptions about the individual worker. McGregor believed working the body and brain is natural and that the average human learns to accept and seek responsibility. McGregor even went as far as to claim that on average people are only being partially utilized in the workplace.

The final piece of the human resource movement comes from Rensis Likert who held the principle of supportive relationships. This principle holds that all interactions within an organization should support individual self-worth and importance, emphasizing work groups and communication. This is where the human resources approach begins to truly differ from the human relations approach because human resources emphasizes employee participation in organizational decision making

When one perspective is born out of another they are bound to be similar in nature and related in many ways. The human relations approach and the human resources approach both moved away from the idea of treating the worker as a machine and moved towards understanding human behavior. The human resources approach encouraged much participation of the employee on organizational decision making while the human relations approach still contained a power distance between the worker and the manager. The human relations idea was really the first step into the future and way from scientific management. It was really the first time society experienced a meaning-centered approach to understanding human action. Human resources was able to further these ideas and give even more power to the worker.