Human relation vs human resources

Classical management theory and human relations theory represent two views of management on the opposite ends of the spectrum. One view focuses on looking at workers solely as a means to get work done, while the other focuses on developing an organization and the behaviors and motivations of employees. Most managers find that a combination of the two theories serves them best in their businesses.

Human relation vs human resources

Human Resources For the fourth post, discuss the differences between the human relations and human resource approaches to management. Pay particular attention to how they approach the issue of worker participation.

Remember to define your concepts and provide quotes to substantiate your argument. Concrete examples also help. What is huma n relations? Human relations thinking emphasizes the interpersonal and social needs of individuals and marks a clean break from earlier points of view.

They examined the employee-manager relationship in an entirely new way. Their work provided the foundation for the human relations approach and became the precursor of contemporary thinking about management and leadership.

Mayo held that 1. Society comprises groups, not isolated individuals 2. Individual decisions are not entirely rational, but are also influenced by emotions. Chester Barnard asserted the importance of cooperation in organizations: This finding, that increased attention raised productivity, has come to be known as the Hawthorne effect.

Research that applies human relations thinking to the relationship between management and organizational effectiveness has been inconclusive and disappointing. Its underlying ideology has been interpreted as an unacceptable willingness to trade profitability for employee well-being.

What is human resources? While, incorporating most of the assumptions of human relations, the human resources approach is concerned with the total organization climate as well as with how an organization can encourage employee participation and dialogue.

If designed correctly, the workplace becomes a site where individuals can realize their full potential and remain continually motivated to do so. Douglas McGregor argued that classical approaches are based in part on an assumption that the average employee dislikes work and avoids responsibility in the absence of external control.

Because of [their]…dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, [or] threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives 3.

The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest 2. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement including the reward of self-actualization 4.

The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but [also] to seek responsibility 5.

Human relation vs human resources

The capacity to exercise…relatively high degree[s] of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population 6. University of Michigan professor Rensis Likert has contributed to our understanding of high-involvement organizations.

Moreover, while human resources emphasizes employee participation in organizational decision making, it does not explain the pragmatics or politics involved in establishing such a voice for employees.Both human relations and human resources manager might use the same kind of organisational behaviour but for very different reasons (Miller ).

Human relations approach emphasize on productivity where the management advocates better on treatment of subordinates in belief that it will lead to greater productivity. The human relations approach identifies many important issues but falls short of truly valuing employee perceptions, worldview, and voice (Eisenberg, Goodall Jr., Tretheway 87) The human resources approach is concerned with the total organizational climate as well as with how an organization can encourage employee participation and dialogue.

Sep 30,  · Human resources, on the other hand, is concerned with the total organization climate as well as with how an organization can encourage employee participation and dialogue. Although very similar, each approach to management focuses on one certain ideal. Human relations is that of increased productivity.

For their subordinates, managers prefer a human relations approach, aimed at improving morale and reducing resistance to formal authority. Nov 11,  · The human resources approach, not to be confused with the human relations department essentially combines both the classical and human relations approach in the fact that it recognizes that although individuals have needs and feelings that must be considered, individual labor must not be forgotten when it comes to .

Works to specify the details of the organizational form that will incorporate the ideals of the human resource movement. What does Likert use to differentiate between his four system types?

Human resources approach to management works on team building throughout a company. Human relations and human resource approaches to managements are additions to the workplace. Employees are given a high value in the company and their needs and wants are taken into consideration. Employee relations news and trends from The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 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.

Motivational factors, communication, decision making, goal setting, control, influence structure, and performance.

The Difference Between a Classical Management Theory & a Human Relations Theory |