lOMoARcPSD| 26120228
GOVT 475 DB 6
Discuss the contributions to the human side of enterprise as articulated by
Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard, Abraham Maslow, and Douglas McGregor.
How does this organizational theory school of thought differ from the
classical and neoclassical schools of thought? In your opinion, which
school of thought is most applicable for public and/or nonprofit
organizations and why do you feel this way?
The classical management school of thought focused on the efficiency of an organization, assuming that
people were parts of the machinery of a formal organization. Its main concepts, which were largely
shaped by the industrial revolution, promoted that organizations exist to accomplish production related
and economic goals, production is maximized through the division of labor, people and organizations act
in accordance with rational economic principles, and that there is only one way through systematic
scientific inquiry that can meet the production needs of an organization. Classical organization theories
such as those espoused by the father of public administration, Woodrow Wilson, and Frederick Taylor
sought the hierarchical methods of management (Shafritz et al., 2017). It could be summarized as a
period of time which placed emphasis on disregarding the emotional aspects of individuals through
solely promoting the impact of economic motivations on employees. In fact, while it is not typically
discussed, Frederick Taylor’s view of the grunt worker would be considered degrading today as he often
referred to the worker as uneducated and ignorant of understanding the complex principles of
management like executives were (Peaucelle, 2013).
The neoclassical movement sought to incorporate the classical organization theories while improving
them and the movement represented the transition to the human relation school of thought in
management (Shafritz et al., 2017). The Neoclassical organizational school of thought revised classical
theory through minimizing issues related to the individual personalities of members, the coordination
needs among administrative units, and the processes used in decision making (Shafritz et al.,2017).
Elton Mayo, the father of the human relation school, began an intensive study of human relations known
as the Hawthorne Studies. While the studies were originally sought out to prove classical management
theories, they resulted in disproving them and the validity of scientific management instead (Shafritz et
al., 2017). Ultimately, they displayed the impact of social factors on the productivity of workers and the
importance of informal groups (Venkatest, 2014).
Chester Barnard was also a member of the faculty which sought to analyze organizational theory in the
Hawthorne Studies. He followed Mary Follett’s major themes with a far more comprehensive theory of
the functions of the executive and he discovered the importance of informal and formal groups within a
company (Shafritz et al., 2017). He advocated the responsibility for an executive is to create a sense of
purpose and moral code for the organization, establish systems of formal and informal communication,
and to ensure the willingness of people to cooperate.
The Hawthorne experiments of the 1930s had provided the first major empirical challenge to the
scientific management notion that the worker was primarily, and economic animal would work solely for
money (Shafritz et al., 2017, p. 87). Additionally, the Hawthorne studies reaffirmed what Follett had
lOMoARcPSD| 26120228
declared nearly a decade prior, the workers are more responsive to peer pressure than to management
controls (Shafritz et al., 2017). Abraham Maslow took the basic Hawthorne finding that workers are as
much social as economic creatures a step further when he first proposed that humans have five sets of
goals or basic needs arranged in a hierarchy of psychological needs (Shafritz et al., 2017).
Another major contributor of the rebirth of individual behavior within the neoclassical movement was
Douglas McGregor. McGregor pointed out the absurdity of maintaining universal principles of
organization arrangements and hypothesized that manager’s assumption about human behavior
predetermined their administrative style.
The strengths and differences of the neoclassical theory of thought is that it found logical inconsistencies
in the classical organizational theory and attempted to revise it. It also led to further research and
studying relation to the humanness of organizational members. The weakness of this school of thought;
however, is the fact that they were incapable of developing a body of theory that could adequately
replace the classical school and it attempted to blend assumptions of classical theory with concepts that
were subsequently used by later organization theorists from all perspectives.
Out of the two schools of thought, the best equipped to handle the production in public administration
is the neoclassical school of thought as it places emphasis on the importance of workers and their
emotions. The main reasoning of this decision is the fact that money does not equate to satisfaction in
the work place. For example, lawyers in big corporations who make over $400,000 per year typically
respond to surveys claiming they have basically no satisfaction with their jobs whereas, lawyers in the
public sector that are helping others but getting paid about $40,000 per year claim the opposite. As a
result, big corporation lawyers tend to leave their job after only a few short years, while public
administrative lawyers make a career out of the position (Wright, 2014).
Furthermore, Scripture seems to promote the aspects of the neoclassical school of thought as well. God
informs Christians that we ought no to look “to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
others” (Philippians 2:4). Christian public administrators who are managers of a group need to be
mindful of the human aspects that all of the workers possess and to improve the administration through
helping the interests of others.
References
Peaucelle, J. (2014). “From Taylorism to Post-Taylorism: Simultaneously Pursuing Several Management
Objectives”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(5).
Shafritz, J., & Hyde, A. (2017). “Classics of Public Administration”. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Venkatesh, T. (2014). “Neo-Classical Theory Explained”. Your Article Library.
Wright, M. (2014). “What is Big Law Doing About Lawyer Unhappiness?”
I really enjoyed reading your post, Jesse. I agree with your assertion that the classical management of
school utilized workers as interchangeable parts in an industrial machine whose parts were made of
flesh only when it was impractical to make them of steel. One of the greatest criticism of Frederich
Taylor’s scientific management is that he created some extreme hierarchal system where common
lOMoARcPSD| 26120228
laborers were seen as workhorses where their main objective was to simply follow orders (Peaucelle,
2014). This sentiment was criticized by Mary Follett, a professional apart of the neoclassical movement,
who wrote the essay, “The Giving of Orders” in 1926 (Shafritz et al., 2017).
I think Follett’s insight has been underestimated. Despite living during a time of Taylorism and during a
time where mainly men were working in business, she was the first to declare that people were not
animals that could be manipulated by pay alone. In fact, when the Mayo Clinic first started the
Hawthorne experiments ten years after Follett wrote “The Giving of Orders, they expected for the
experiments to support the sentiments of the classical era (Shafritz et al., 2017). However, the
Hawthorne experiments discovered that workers were more likely to be manipulated by personal
interactions with other peers rather than changing pay (Shafritz et al., 2017).
Through a biblical perspective, it is easy to see that the neoclassical view of management is more
appropriate for the teachings in Scripture. God tells us that, “He has filled [his children] with skill to do all
kinds of work as engravers, designers, embroiders in blue, purple, and scarlet yarn, and fine linen, and
weavers; all of them skilled workers and designers” (Exodus 35:35). Through this verse you can see that
God has given all individuals specific and different talents that are meant to be utilized. The classical
management school through Taylorism, does not account for the specific knowledge of workers, as they
are seen as uneducated work horses incapable of doing anything but taking orders. The Neoclassical
school of management, on the other hand, sees the workers as a vital part of the company that should
be encouraged rather than to just order them around.
References
Follett, M. (1926). "The giving of orders." Scientific foundations of business administration, pp. 29-37.
Peaucelle, J. (2014). “From Taylorism to Post-Taylorism: Simultaneously Pursuing Several Management
Objectives”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(5).
Shafritz, J., & Hyde, A. (2017). “Classics of Public Administration”. Boston: Cengage Learning.
I really enjoyed reading your post, Ray. Abraham Maslow hierarchy of needs is one that
continues to affect the way people view coworkers and how to increase productivity through
providing for their particular needs (Shafritz et al., 2017). One of the greatest criticisms of his
theory, however, is the fact that it seems that personal needs are not strictly hierarchical. For
example, even if the safety is not satisfied, people can still desire to fulfill their social needs. In
fact, there is little evidence of a definite hierarchical system at all. None of the hierarchical needs
are possible without social connection and collaboration (Surana, 2016). Regardless of whether
or not someone sees Maslow’s hierarchy as valid, it is without question that he significantly
contributed to the neoclassical school of management movement in the United States.
While the neoclassical movement ideology has revolutionized the way people are treated within
their occupation, we can see the effects of the classical school of management today. In fact, car
and computer manufacturing plants still follow many of the rules espoused by scientific
management.
lOMoARcPSD| 26120228
The antithesis of scientific management is the human relations movement established by Elton
Mayo. Mayo followed Taylor’s methods and was attempting to measure the impact on
productivity of improving the lighting conditions within the factory. He followed Taylor’s
scientific principles by testing the changes against a control, a section of the factory with
unchanged lighting (Kelly 1982) However, the study actually found the complete opposite of the
sentiments of Taylorism, where people were more motivated through peer relationships (Shafritz
et al., 2017).
References
Kelly, J. (1982). “Scientific Management, Job Redesign, & Work Performance”. Academic Press.
Shafritz, J., & Hyde, A. (2017). “Classics of Public Administration”. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Surana, P. (2016). “Is Maslow Relevant Today? What He Missed Out?” Reference from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/maslow-relevant-today-what-he-missed-out-dr-pratik-surana/.
