Human Relation

Approach
Presenter- Newton Lamsal
Roll no. 7
MAPS, TU
 What is Human Relation Approach?
• This theory is concerned with:
- the relationship between social factors and
productivity,
-informal aspects of organization,
-human behavior and psychological processes,
-how the relation between employer and
employee should be?, and
-how employees relate and interact within a
group?
• Elton Mayo, an organizational psychologist, propounded
this theory on the bases of Hawthorn experiments.
• It consists of 4 different experiments concluded in
different time period by Elton Mayo and his colleagues
which are:
a. Illumination experiment
b. Relay test room experiment
c. Interviewing experiment
d. Bank wiring experiment
 Illumination experiment (1924-27)
• Objective: To find the impact of illumination on working capacity
of workers.
• Hypothesis: Lower the illumination, lower will be the productivity.
• Experiment: Two groups “Test group” and “Control group” were
made. Test group was exposed to varying intensity of light and in
control group light intensity was kept constant.
• Result: It turned out that, regardless of the amount and duration
of lighting, this had a positive effect on their performances. The
performances stopped only when the light level reached
moonlight intensity.
• Conclusion: Illumination doesn’t affect productivity rather human
factor does. (But which aspect of human factor?)
 Relay Test room experiment (1927-1928)
• Objective: To determine the effect of changes in various job
conditions on group productivity.
• Hypothesis: Improvement in working conditions will have positive
effect on productivity.
• Experiment: Two girls were chosen and asked to choose themselves
for more girls as co-workers.They were exposed to varying working
conditions and then withdrawn.
-Incentives (Each girl’s pay based on 5 others’)
-Length of work day and week(5 pm- 4:30- 4:00 Pm, weekly holiday)
-Rest periods(2-5 mins. Break)
- Company sponsered meals
• Result: Productivity increased even when the working conditions
were withdrawn instead of going down.
• Conclusion: Socio-psychological factors such as sense of group pride
and belongings, social relationship exercise a greater influence on
productivity than working hours.
 Interviewing experiment (1928-1930)
• Objective: To explore information to improve supervision.
• Experiment: With about 20,000 employees, Initially used the
method of direct questioning and later changed to non-
directive(simply listening to them) as the replies were guarded.
• Result: - Giving an opportunity to talk and freely express,
increased the morale.
-Complaints were seen as symptom of deep rooted
disturbances.
• Conclusion: Workes should be allowed to talk freely, express
grievances to increase productivity. This confirmed the
importance of social factors at work.
 Bank wiring experiment (1931-1932)
• Objective: To find out the impact of small groups on the
individuals.
• Hypothesis: Highly efficient workers would bring pressure on
less efficient workers to increase output and take advantage of
group incentive plan.
• Experiment:A group of 14 male workers were formed into a
small work group. Limited changes to work conditions:
- No management visit
- observer would record data only
-Group pay incentive
• Result: Workers established their own standard of output.
Reason: social pressure like fear of unemployment, fear of
increase in output desire to protect slow workers etc.
• Conclusion: Group attitudes and group psychology affects
productivity more than economic needs.
Main conclusions of Human Relation Approach:
• Socio-psychological factors have a greater influence on productivity.
Only good physical working conditions are not enough.
• Friendly supervision has a favourable influence on human efficiency at
work.
• A typical group behaviour or group psychology can dominate or even
supersede individual propensities.
• Free flow of communication, in the organisation makes for good
human relations.
• Employees would like to participate in decision making.
• Workers want freedom.
• Human and social motivation can play even a greater role than mere
monitory incentives.
• Group attitudes and group psychology affects productivity.
• Job security and satisfaction leads to increase in productivity.
 Criticism:
• Experiments were based on a sample of workers taken from the U.S.A.;
which is a very rich country. The work behaviour differs in other countries.
• Not conducted in a scientific manner. No system involved in selecting the
work, workers and the environment.
• Workers who were experimented with did not exhibit their natural work-
behaviour; the feeling of their being the subject matter of experiments
made them feel more important than others and induced them to
demonstrate unusual work behaviour. ( Hawthorne effect, Henry A.
Landsberger, 1958)
• They did not recognize forces as the role of unions, collective bargaining.
• Excludes technological factors. Only focuses on humans.
• Too much emphasis on group decision-making. In real situation, individual
decision-making cannot be totally neglected especially when quick
decisions are required and there is no time to consult others.
• Over Importance to Freedom of Workers. Discards constructive role of
supervisors.
Scientific Management Human Relation Approach
theory
Treated employee like Treated human like humans
robotic machines and concerned their need
Motivation: Monetary Social relationship
incentives
Tied employees to follow Encourage in decision
rules making
Encourage working Working as a group
individually
Strict observance Less supervision
 Nepalese Administration context:
• Assurance of Job security,
• Neglegence of socio-psychological factors.
• Motivation level: Very low. (Low salary in the one hand, angry backlash of
public all the time, pressure from politics on the other)
• Inclusive decision-making but too many layers. However, In many cases
frontline workers and implementation unit are excluded in decision making.
• Nepotism and favouritism. Not all employees are equally treated.
• Lackluster leadership in bureaucrats.
• Excessive groupism between the employees and powerful influence of
unions.
• No strict supervision but this is not leading to productivity. Work evaluation
and supervision are limited to paperworks. Administrative culture is not
performance oriented.
Whatsoever, the major concern is motivating
the employees and increasing productivity;
any theories can be applied as suitable to the
context.

Thank you!