Difference Between Classical Management And The Human Relation Approach

When compared to Classical Management theory, the Human Relations approach is what may be best described as the polar opposite. Human Relations theory (also known as behavioral management theory) was actually created in response to the outdated methods and leadership style of Classical Management theory. With classical management, its top priority was efficiency and high productivity but as a result, led to poor working conditions and employee fulfillment as a consequence of putting resources ahead of employees.

With the Human Relations approach however, its focus was more so on the employees than anything else. Instead of viewing employees as ‘machines’, they would “treat employees as important assets to achieve goals” (Kadian-Baumeyer, no date). By doing so, it would give the workers a sense of purpose and a feeling that their place within the company matters, as opposed to the classical approach, where employees would be seen as expendable, simply used as tools to drive forward production with money as their only real motivation and incentive to work harder.

This way of management, with the Human Relations approach would result in higher productivity through improved working conditions and employee satisfaction.

A theorist named Elton Mayo undertook extensive research on employee productivity levels by observing the different working conditions that employees were exposed to in order to establish a relationship. This research took place around the beginning of the