Partly for moralistic reasons, but at least partly to forestall unionism, management began to modify its approach to administration. Beginning first with manager own observations and later relying heavily on the results of the Hawthorne studies, the first large-scale social science experiments in industry, an emerging theory of administration began to treat employees as whole individuals who could not be broken down into component parts. Thus, programs were developed to satisfy more than an individual physical and security needs, including, in addition, his need to feel important as an individual and to feel a part of his work group and the larger organization.

It is important to note that neither managers nor scholars contributing to the development of this new administrative model tended to modify the widely held view that most organization members are incapable of self-direction and control. Those who advocated increased efforts to keep employees informed, help them see how their jobs fit in, and involve people in decisions about how they are treated did so primarily with the goal of reducing resistance to organizational practices rather than with the intent of utilizing a broader range of capabilities of lower level members.

Thus, the Human Relations in that the task of administration was not perceived to be solely the creation of an impersonal, smoothly efficient organizational machine. However, viewed in retrospect, the Human Relations model did not represent an entirely new solution to the administrative problem. Because of the utility of concepts such as rationality and stability, amply demonstrated by the traditionalists, administrators were naturally reluctant to give up many of the beliefs and techniques of the Traditional approach. Instead, the human relation tended to retain the structures and policies of the past and simply tried to make it less painful for employees to live with them. Human relation hoped-in vain, as it turns out-those employees who were satisfied with their working conditions would respond by being highly productive.

The Human Resources model extended some of the basic tenets of each of the two previous administrative approaches. However, these extensions were also accompanied by some notable changes in the philosophy of administration. Two of these changes were relatively straightforward. First, Human Resources theorists, applying the ideas of the late psychologist Abraham Maslow to the organizational arena, extended the list of human needs to which they felt administrators should be responsive from physical, security, and social needs to include self esteem and self actualization. Second, Human Resources theorists argued that many if not most organization members had far more capability for self direction and self control than their jobs demanded or allowed. Moreover, these theorists argued that this full range of individual needs should be met, to the extent possible, by adapting organizational structure, job design, control systems, etc., to fit the preferences of individuals and work groups and to make greater use of their capabilities. To argue that organization variables should give way to human variables, even for the purpose of improved organizational performance, represented a fundamental change in administrative thinking, and, as a consequence, the role of administration had to be reevaluated. According to the description of the Human Resources the most recent conceptualization of the administrator role is not so much one of controlling organization members as one of facilitating their performance. However, lest we convey the impression that the Human Resources approach argues for the breakdown of rationality, stability, and the other facets which the traditionalists saw so much need for, let us also point out that in the years since this model has become available, the understanding of alternative organizational forms and technologies has increased substantially. Therefore, at the same time that the theory of administration has allowed for an increasingly expanded role for the individual, choices among organization variables have increased to the point where administrators can put together different blends of these two sets of variables rather than forcing one set to conform to the other.

Author Bio: http://sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/ http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/

Category: Business Management
Keywords: Business,investing,company,organizing,organization,administrator,manager,leader,Motivation,Attitude