The management we know today in organizations and companies around the world have roots that must be stated. The most significant figure among the representatives of the classical school outside the United States is undoubtedly Henry Fayol (1841-1925). And he, like most of the representatives of the classical school, makes his theoretical summaries and conclusions based on extensive management experience.
The article is intended for Human resources managers and Human resources specialists. Description of these professional roles can be found here: What is the difference between a Human Resources Manager and a Human Resources Specialist (https://www.worldforgemagazine.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-human-resources-manager-and-a-human-resources-specialist/)
He published his book General and Industrial Administration in 1916, i. 28 years after running the major French mining and metallurgical company Comambo. Faiol strives to formulate provisions and principles that are universal and can be applied to all areas of public and private life. According to Fayol, all activities and operations in an enterprise can be divided into six groups:
- Social security (protection of goods and personalities)
- Reporting operations
- Administrative activities
To clarify the latter group of activities, Fayol states that to administer means:
- To predict
- To organize
- To order
- To coordinate
- To control.
14 principles of management
In order to ensure the proper functioning of organizations, Fayol formulates 14 principles of management:
1. Specialization of functions and division of powers with a view to ensuring the necessary division of labor.
2. There can be no power without responsibility, ie without any penalty or penalty or damages.
3. Discipline obeying rules and procedures.
4. Commandement: For any job, an agent must receive orders from only one supervisor.
5. Direction: a single supervisor and one program for the whole set of activities pursuing the same goals, etc.
And many more.
History of Human Resources and Human Capital
The emergence of the School of Human Resources and Capital is associated with the name of Elton Mayo Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and the results of the Hutter experiments conducted under his direction. In 1926, a special department for industrial research was established with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation at Harvard University. Here, in 1927, continued studies of the factors affecting labor productivity began in 1924. At the request of the company Western Electric Company.
For 5 years, Professor Mayo’s group has been conducting a series of experiments at the company’s plants in Hawthorn, Chicago. The results of these experiments and Mayo’s basic ideas are set out in his book Human Problems of Industrial Civilization (New York, 1933).
The work was manual, semi-skilled, repetitive and done by women. The pace of work was not determined by the machines and the volume of production depended on the workers themselves. The first attempts were made to check the effect of lighting power on the volume of production produced. Two groups of workers were selected, one of which, as is usually done, was a control. It did not change the illumination during the whole experiment, while in the experimental group the illumination gradually increased. As expected, the productivity of the experimental group increased.
But what surprised and embarrassed the experts was that labor productivity and the control group had increased. It was clear that an unknown factor was affecting here. In order to further investigate the paradoxical phenomenon, a new experimental group was formed. The approach to its formation was different. Two female workers were selected and each was given the right to choose two female friends. Reference: Human resources policies in the field of social protection
In these experiments everything was precisely controlled:
- physical condition
- of workers, etc.
In addition, during the experiment, a female observer from the experimental team was constantly present at the workers, who informed them of the progress of the experiment, asked them for advice and listened to their complaints. During the experiment, various changes were made, each with an experimental period of four to twelve weeks.
First stage, normal working conditions (six days, 48 hours a week). Production volume 2400 relays per week. Second stage, transition to a random system. Productivity is increasing.
Stage Three, Introducing two five-minute breaks. Productivity is increasing.
Stage Four, Extending the breaks to ten minutes. Productivity increases sharply.
Stage Five, Introducing six breaks of five minutes. Productivity drops.
Stage Six, Return to Two Holidays, the first being accompanied by warm food provided by the company. Productivity is increasing.
Seventh stage, Completion of work at 16.30 instead of 17 hours. Productivity is increasing.
Eighth stage, Termination of work at 16 hours. Productivity remains the same.
Stage 9, Remove all enhancements and switch to conditions at the beginning of the experiment.
The main conclusions of Mayo and his colleagues in the analysis of the results of the Hawthorn experiments are as follows:
First, human labor is a group, not an individual activity, and the productivity of each depends on its relationship with the other members of the group.
Second, the social life of the elderly person concentrates on his work activity; A person lives when he labors, that is his real life, and he does not merely work to earn a living. Therefore, the rigid hierarchy of subordination and the rigorous formalization of labor processes are incompatible with human nature.
Third, the need for recognition and belonging to a particular group are factors that affect labor productivity more strongly than the physical conditions of work.
Fourth, complaints do not always objectively reflect the facts. In many cases, they are merely a symptom of an impaired social status of the individual in an organization.
Fifth, informal groups exert strong social control over work habits and the attitude of workers to their work Informal structures are deeply embedded in the system of formal units.
The problem of leadership in management
Early adopters of the School of Human Resources and Capital assessed the manager’s leadership primarily in terms of its impact on labor productivity. But in the further development of the forefront, the social needs of workers are emphasized. Regardless of whether a leader is selected or appointed, two approaches to leadership research can be applied. Before continuing you may want to familiarize with Human resource and the Human resources Manager role
First, a personal approach. It is based on the personal qualities of the leader (charm, physical qualities, industriousness, perseverance, honesty, etc.) In this approach, the focus is mainly on leadership of a charismatic kind (from charisma – a gift, in the sense of godsend).
Second, a behavioral approach. In this case, the leadership typology in fulfilling their functions is used as criteria for typologizing leadership. This approach seeks to identify types of behavior that lead to an increase in workers’ productivity or their job satisfaction. One of the pioneers of the study of leadership is Kurt Levin (1890-1947). He is a professor at the University of Berlin (1926-1933), who emigrated to the United States after Hitler came to power. In 1945, Levin organized and headed the Group Dynamics Research Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each group leader experimented with a different style, and then compared the performance of the three groups. Chen and laissez-faire Kurt Levin proceeded from the degree of influence of subordinates or manager in decision-making. Accordingly, he distinguished between two types of leadership: manager-oriented and subordinate-oriented. Later, two factors emerged at the University of Michigan: Worker orientation and Production orientation, On that basis in 1964.
Blake and Mouth are developing so-called Control matrix. They recommend it as a means of changing the behavior of an organization by changing its value orientation: the staff and management style of the managers. Blake and Mouth’s control matrix has the following example:
On the abscissa 1 to 9, the manager’s attention to production is graded. The ordinance reflects his attention to people. At a value of 1.9. almost all of his attention will be paid to his relationships with people. Therefore, it cannot pay sufficient attention to production problems. In this case, the effectiveness of management depends solely on the skills and goodwill of the workers. Some call this type of management club (or Country club management). almost all attention is focused on production issues, and his attention to people is minimized. This is debt management (Leadership Subordination). The ideal leader according to Blake and Mouth is rated 9.9, meaning maximum attention to both production and people, called group management (or leadership type of Management Team). In practice, however, this is difficult to achieve and leaders who seek to do so usually fall around the 5.5 area, ie. Intermediate Management (Leadership Middle of the Road). Naturally, the most inappropriate management, called exhausted or failed, is coordinates 1.1.
Human Resources Theories X and Y
A prominent representative of the School of Human Resources is Professor at the School of Management at the University of Michigan Douglas McGregor (1906-1964).
In his book The Human Side of the Enterprise, he describes his views on two alternatives in dealing with people he calls Theory X and Theory W. Theory X, which according to McGregor is traditional, is based on several fundamental assumptions.
First, a person by nature is lazy, innately hostile to work, and if he can avoid it, which is why he always works as little as possible.
Second, in order to make sufficient efforts to achieve the goals, people must be forced, controlled, and threatened with punishment. Third, one lacks ambition and prefers to be guided, strives to avoid responsibility, has no great ambitions and prefers security.
Fourth, a person in his deep self is conservative, prefers stability and opposes change.
Fifth, he is gullible, not very smart and can be an easy prey to demagogy.
According to McGregor, Theory X is not a theoretical construction, but a real theory that has a significant influence on management strategies. Most organizations view their staff in a negative light. and openly blame people for their bad work. Since Theory X requires people to be forced to do what is necessary for the company, attention is drawn to the procedures and methods of prescribing, regulation and control. supervision and control. And this will create an atmosphere where creative work would be impossible.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of the organization’s activities will be significantly reduced by not fully utilizing the intellectual potential of the organization’s staff. Theory Y is based on positive views about the individual. According to her supporters, the manager makes the following assumptions when interacting with people:
First, the physical and mental effort involved in the labor process is as natural to man as it is to rest and to play. Disgust with work is not intrinsic to the average person. Second, external control and the threat of punishment are not the only or most effective means of motivating people. Third, one expects some kind of reward, encouragement, recognition for his efforts, and the satisfaction of his own self, the feeling that he has manifested himself, is the best reward for his efforts. Fourth, the average person learns and convenes under the right conditions not only to take responsibility but also to strive for it. Fifth, the ability to express imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving organizational problems is widespread among people.
According to McGregor, the intellectual potential of people is being used to a small degree precisely because of the adherence of many leaders to the tenets of Theory H. But this is where the greatest reserves lie. An important task of management is to create conditions in which everyone is motivated to achieve their own goals only on condition that they focus their efforts on achieving the goals of the organization.