What is Elton Mayo's Human Relations Theory?

Elton Mayo developed the Human Relations Theory of Management. Mayo was
known for his book “The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (1933)
and Hawthorne Studies. In Elton Mayo theory of human relations, he states that
employees are motivated more by relational factors like camaraderie and attention
than environmental factors like humidity, lighting, etc., and monetary rewards. Elton
Mayo developed a milieu that he used to define the possibility that assigned tasks
will be completed successfully by the team.

In this blog, we described Elton Mayo’s Human Relations Theory. This blog talks
about the basics of this management tool. Let’s begin!

Understand the “Human Relations Theory of

Management” Developed by Elton Mayo’s
Elton Mayo has made an important role in management theory that helped make
preparations for the modern human relations management approach.

Mayo’s human relations theory was based on his Hawthorne experiments. Mayo's
theory was based on his employee observations of productivity levels under different
environmental conditions. His experiments described different conclusions about
the source of employee motivation. Mayo’s management theory describes that team
members are motivated by relational factors like camaraderie and attention than by
environmental factors and monetary rewards such as humidity, lighting, etc. as we
have discussed in the first paragraph.

Elton Mayo created a matrix that is being used to define the likelihood that ensures
that the assigned task to a team can successfully complete the task. The matrix
developed by Mayo explains the role that combines several group cohesiveness and
group norms maximum the effectiveness of the team.

Here are a few combinations of Mayo theory and its effect

on team dynamics:

• According to Mayo's theory, groups with low cohesiveness and low norms are

ineffective with no impact, since no members are motivated to excel.

• Groups having high cohesiveness and low norms have negative impacts since

team members buoy up negative behaviour.

 • Groups that have low cohesiveness and high norms have a few positive

effects through individual member actions.

• Groups with high cohesiveness and high norms come with the greatest

positive impact. Elton Mayo's Human Relation Approach to Management

theory envisages that group members reassure to excel each other.

How George Elton Mayo Contributed to Management?

George Elton Mayo was a professor who published the book – Human Problems of
an Industrial Civilisation in 1933, Social problems of an Industrial Civilisation in 1945,
Training for Human Relations 1949 et cetera. He also conducted “Hawthorne
Experiments” during 1927-1932. Experiments are illustrated below –

• Illumination Experiments: Under this experiment, it was known that

productivity can be maximized not only by developing a proper work

environment, but also by informal social relations between teams.

• Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment: Here, a homogeneous working team

was constituted where different elements were introduced, such as—proper

rest periods, shorter working hours, friendly supervision, improved physical

conditions, free social interaction, etc. At the time of the experiment, morale

and productivity increased. Morale and productivity were maintained even

when improvements were withdrawn even in the working conditions. The

experts come to conclude that socio-psychological factors like recognition,

feelings of being important, informal work group, participation, non-directive

supervision, and so on are the key factors for higher productivity.

• Mass Interviewing Programme In this programme, several workers were

interviewed in order to know their orientation and perceptions on the working

 life. The outcome again says that informal relation information, social, and

psychological needs impact the workers’ behaviour.

• Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment In this experiment, 14 workers

were observed depending on their work behaviour. As a result, it was revealed

the informal production norms were formulated by the workers, and also the

existence of the informal relation was seen.

Reading: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

The idea that a manager’s attitude has an impact on employee motivation was
originally proposed by Douglas McGregor, a management professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the 1950s and 1960s. In his 1960
book, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor proposed two theories by which
managers perceive and address employee motivation. He referred to these opposing
motivational methods as Theory X and Theory Y management. Each assumes that
the manager’s role is to organize resources, including people, to best benefit the
company. However, beyond this commonality, the attitudes and assumptions they
embody are quite different.

Theory X

According to McGregor, Theory X management assumes the following:

• Work is inherently distasteful to most people, and they will attempt to avoid
work whenever possible.
• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to
be directed.
• Most people have little aptitude for creativity in solving organizational
problems.
• Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs.
• Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and
often coerced to achieve organizational objectives.
• Most people resist change.
• Most people are gullible and unintelligent.

Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of employee motivation is

monetary, with security as a strong second. Under Theory X, one can take a hard or
soft approach to getting results.

The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats,

micromanagement, and tight controls— essentially an environment of command and
control. The soft approach, however, is to be permissive and seek harmony in the
hopes that, in return, employees will cooperate when asked. However, neither of
these extremes is optimal. The hard approach results in hostility, purposely low
output, and extreme union demands. The soft approach results in a growing desire
for greater reward in exchange for diminished work output.

It might seem that the optimal approach to human resource management would lie
somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts that neither
approach is appropriate, since the basic assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.

Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, McGregor argues that a need, once

satisfied, no longer motivates. The company uses monetary rewards and benefits to
satisfy employees’ lower-level needs. Once those needs have been satisfied, the
motivation disappears. Theory X management hinders the satisfaction of higher-level
needs because it doesn’t acknowledge that those needs are relevant in the
workplace. As a result, the only way that employees can attempt to meet higher-level
needs at work is to seek more compensation, so, predictably, they focus on
monetary rewards. While money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment,
it may be the only way available. People will use work to satisfy their lower needs
and seek to satisfy their higher needs during their leisure time. However, employees
can be most productive when their work goals align with their higher-level needs.

McGregor makes the point that a command-and-control environment is not effective

because it relies on lower needs for motivation, but in modern society those needs
are mostly satisfied and thus are no longer motivating. In this situation, one would
expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in
organizational goals, resist change, etc.—creating, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To McGregor, a steady supply of motivation seemed more likely to occur
under Theory Y management.

Theory Y

The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are ongoing needs that, for
most people, are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs
through which employees can best be motivated.

In strong contrast to Theory X, Theory Y management makes the following

assumptions:

• Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.

• People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational
objectives if they are committed to them.
• People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards
are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
• The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.
• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are
common in the population.
• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.

Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with

organizational goals by using the employee’s own need for fulfillment as the
motivator. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft
approach.

McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity
assumed by Theory Y and may initially need tighter controls that can be relaxed as
the employee develops.

If Theory Y holds true, an organization can apply the following principles of scientific
management to improve employee motivation:

• Decentralization and delegation: If firms decentralize control and reduce the

number of levels of management, managers will have more subordinates and
 consequently need to delegate some responsibility and decision making to
them.
• Job enlargement: Broadening the scope of an employee’s job adds variety
and opportunities to satisfy ego needs.
• Participative management: Consulting employees in the decision-making
process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over
their work environment.
• Performance appraisals: Having the employee set objectives and participate
in the process of self-evaluation increases engagement and dedication.

If properly implemented, such an environment can increase and continually

fuel motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher-level personal needs
through their jobs.

Ouchi’s Theory Z

During the 1980s, American business and industry experienced a tsunami of

demand for Japanese products and imports, particularly in the automotive industry.
Why were U.S. consumers clambering for cars, televisions, stereos, and electronics
from Japan? Two reasons: (1) high-quality products and (2) low prices. The
Japanese had discovered something that was giving them the competitive edge. The
secret to their success was not what they were producing but how they were
managing their people—Japanese employees were engaged, empowered, and
highly productive.
Management professor William Ouchi argued that Western organizations could
learn from their Japanese counterparts. Although born and educated in America,
Ouchi was of Japanese descent and spent a lot of time in Japan studying the
country’s approach to workplace teamwork and participative management. The
result was Theory Z—a development beyond Theory X and Theory Y that blended
the best of Eastern and Western management practices. Ouchi’s theory first
appeared in his 1981 book, Theory Z: How American Management Can Meet the
Japanese Challenge. The benefits of Theory Z, Ouchi claimed, would be reduced
employee turnover, increased commitment, improved morale and job satisfaction,
and drastic increases in productivity.

Theory Z stresses the need to help workers become generalists, rather than
specialists. It views job rotations and continual training as a means of increasing
employees’ knowledge of the company and its processes while building a variety of
skills and abilities. Since workers are given much more time to receive training,
rotate through jobs, and master the intricacies of the company’s operations,
promotions tend to be slower. The rationale for the drawn-out time frame is that it
helps develop a more dedicated, loyal, and permanent workforce, which benefits the
company; the employees, meanwhile, have the opportunity to fully develop their
careers at one company. When employees rise to a higher level of management, it is
expected that they will use Theory Z to “bring up,” train, and develop other
employees in a similar fashion.

Ouchi’s Theory Z makes certain assumptions about workers. One assumption is that
they seek to build cooperative and intimate working relationships with their
coworkers. In other words, employees have a strong desire for affiliation. Another
assumption is that workers expect reciprocity and support from the company.
According to Theory Z, people want to maintain a work-life balance, and they value a
working environment in which things like family, culture, and traditions are
considered to be just as important as the work itself. Under Theory Z management,
not only do workers have a sense of cohesion with their fellow workers, they also
develop a sense of order, discipline, and a moral obligation to work hard. Finally,
Theory Z assumes that given the right management support, workers can be trusted
to do their jobs to their utmost ability and look after for their own and others’ well-
being.

Theory Z also makes assumptions about company culture. If a company wants to

realize the benefits described above, it needs to have the following:

• A strong company philosophy and culture: The company philosophy and

culture need to be understood and embodied by all employees, and employees
need to believe in the work they’re doing.
• Long-term staff development and employment: The organization and
management team need to have measures and programs in place to develop
employees. Employment is usually long-term, and promotion is steady and
measured. This leads to loyalty from team members.
• Consensus in decisions: Employees are encouraged and expected to take
part in organizational decisions.
• Generalist employees: Because employees have a greater responsibility in
making decisions and understand all aspects of the organization, they ought
 to be generalists. However, employees are still expected to have specialized
career responsibilities.
• Concern for the happiness and well-being of workers: The organization
shows sincere concern for the health and happiness of its employees and their
families. It takes measures and creates programs to help foster this happiness
and well-being.
• Informal control with formalized measures: Employees are empowered to
perform tasks the way they see fit, and management is quite hands-off.
However, there should be formalized measures in place to assess work quality
and performance.
• Individual responsibility: The organization recognizes individual contributions
but always within the context of the team as a whole.

Theory Z is not the last word on management, however, as it does have its
limitations. It can be difficult for organizations and employees to make lifetime
employment commitments. Also, participative decision-making may not always be
feasible or successful due to the nature of the work or the willingness of the workers.
Slow promotions, group decision-making, and lifetime employment may not be a
good fit with companies operating in cultural, social, and economic environments
where those work practices are not the norm.