The 20th century has brought forward management theories which have had a huge impact in the way organizations are currently managing their human resources. The neo classical views of human relations approach and the scientific management that was first brought forth by Frederick Taylor are schools of thought that have been inexistence for years and meant to help organization to increase and also identify their potential (Waring, 2016). It is important to note that both schools of thoughts have conflicting ideologies and their means through which a business can maximize their potential is different. Simply the ideologies presented by Taylor also known as Taylorism can be termed as an approach that is meant at improving the potential of workers through having a strict management of their day to day undertakings within the organization (Forsythe, 2017). On the other hand, the human relations approach is more focused on workers plight through the improvement of the worker relationship with the management. Further this approach is aimed at recognizing the achievement of the workers which is meant at boosting their productivity. This paper will delve to highlight the best management approach that will ensure that Forsyth Travel will be productive not only in the short term but also in the long run. This analysis will be based on the extensive review of the advantages and drawbacks of the human relations approach embraced by Sunsoft and the scientific management model utilized by Kaye’s Travel. Finally, the best organization to acquire Forsyth Travel will be presented in the conclusion part of the paper.
It is important to note that scientific management has traditionally had a huge impact on the industry and as a result has gained a lot of support. The first person that can be accredited with this approach was Adams Smith who first presented the framework of this model back in the 18th century. He in specific advocated for organizations to embrace specialization as a way to ensure that workers become more efficient in their roles. This approach was further characterized by the division of labour where tasks were singled out and employees were managed on the particular tasks they were assigned (Weiss, 2014). However, in the 20th century, Fredrick Taylor expanded on this approach and his ideologies have since them had a huge impact on the field of managerial studies. He popularized this school of though and as a result he has over the years been recognized as the pioneer of the scientific management school of thought.
Taylor in his approach undertook many studies with the aim of improving the productivity of workers in organizations. He had a strong believe that workers were in no positon to manage themselves and therefore productivity was only attainable if there existed a manager who was intelligent enough to govern and direct the workers. Therefore, he delegated all the duties surrounding the planning and design of work from those that undertake them and transferred them to the managers who were mandated to focus their efforts in the deriving the maximum output from their workers (Goetsch, and Davis, 2014). He simply was of the opinion that the management had paid too much attention on the productivity and little on the processes that yield the productivity. The result of this is that there was a lot of waste in human effort. Therefore, Taylor undertook several studies aimed at analysing critically the workers to identify the most efficient techniques. It is important to note that the scientific model has a huge disregard on the plight of the workers and whether they are satisfied or not. However, at the time the principles were launched the timing was just perfect.
The scientific model became embraced by large companies such as general motors and Ford who were experiencing a huge growth and as a result they sought a management model that would best fit the company’s growth and expansion. As a result, Taylorism became embedded in the corporate culture as a way of increasing the output and worker’s efficiency. Despite the principles being successful in the onset due to increased productivity, the result was that many employees became dissatisfied. Ultimately this led to the growth for calls for the recognition of the human factor in the scientific model by the behavioural scientists. Since the productivity became to dwindle due to the increase in satisfaction levels, most companies resulted to shift their operations to the developing countries where they could apply the scientific principles extensively. In these countries there was cheap labour; a factor that completely favoured the scientific principles (Shafritz, Ott, and Jang, 2015). The result of its inapplicability in the western countries resulted to companies looking for ways that would look at the workers needs and at the same time bring about an increase in productivity. This marked the birth of the human relations approach
Kaye’s travel management is one that is based on the scientific management approach as the management has a close supervision of its employees and the hierarchy of communication is one that is well stipulated. The result is that the employees’ role is well determined and which further ensures that they are not involved in the decision making process (Forsythe, 2017). Despite there being well known disadvantage of the scientific management approach which many have come to determine as an outdated management model, there are some advantages of this model. One of the widely known advantages that Forsyth Travel may acquire from a take over from Kay’s travel is that there will be increased control in the company’s operations. It is important to note that this approach will provide the management with the ability to have control over the production of the Forsyth Travel. Further it will help employees in the company to become specialists in their field of operations as there is a clear division of roles which results to specialization. Therefore, through clearly determined employee responsibilities, the managers of the company will have proper control over what the employees are doing and as a result be in a position to determine whether the lagging employees in the company.
the second advantage that Forsyth Travel would gain would include some decrease in inaccuracies. It is important to note that the scientific management model is one that based on the observation and experiment of context specific solutions. Therefore, with proper planning upon the acquisition of Forsyth Travel, the accuracy will be achieved. The third benefit is that a lot of time would be saved in the decision making process as the decision making roles in Forsyth Travel will be restricted to the top management. Since the employees will not be involved in the decision making then the time that would be used in the decision making process would be redirected to other productive activities which therefore would increase the company’s productivity. The final advantage that can be realized is that this approach results to the reduction of the production time (Booth, and Erskine, 2016). Forsyth Travel would gain this advantage as the operations and schedules are well predetermined and the employees already know what is expected of them. This therefore means that little time is wasted and that increased productivity can be achieved. Based on the fact Kaye’s travel has been in the travel for a long time means that the knowledge they have gained over the years can be transferred to Forsyth Travel. Simply this is their area of specialization and therefore they are well versed with the travel market dynamics.
The human relations approach marked a departure from the inefficient principles that the scientific management model had presented. The human relations approach is a school of thought that concentrates more on the organization and individual change through human interactions which is a contrast of the scientific model that concentrates more on the technique and the output. Therefore, the human relations approach places more emphasis on team work as the core of organizational productivity and not the management dictating everything for the employees. It is important to note that this school of though was first brought forth by Mary Parker Follet. She was more inclined on introducing the humanistic dimension in the management and therefore she concentrated more on placing more value on the people rather than the techniques (Modaff, Butler, and DeWine, 2016). Simply companies are required to be socially responsible to their employees. This school of thought further places emphasis on conflict resolution, inclusion of workers in the decision making and the empowerment of the workers. Managers are therefore not required to issue orders but rather are required to possess leadership qualities which would help promoting workplace harmony and ensure that there is a harmonious relationship in the organization. It is important to note that despite the contributions that Mary Parker Follet had on this school of thought, the person that is mostly recognized for their impact is Elliot mayo. His studies in the 1920s known as the Hawthorn studies challenged the scientific form of management and as result marked the beginning of a new ideologies that companies had to embrace if they were to be productive.
Most of the current organizations have come to implement teams which are commonly known as working groups a departure from the larger normal working groups. That notwithstanding managers currently are leaders whose main task is to ensure that there is a two-way channel that exists between the upper and lower levels in the organizations (Forsythe, 2017). Further managers currently are more interested in their teams through ensuring there is regular employee appraisals and reviews. It is certain to note that this approach ensures that both the employees and the organizations are able to benefit as there is a better understanding of the overall goals, ideas and employee’s concerns (Burke, 2017). There is the recognition of employees as just being not machines who are required to perform tasks but people who have a huge impact on the organization success. It is certain to note that the business environment is fast changing where now the employees are being treated as the biggest asset to an organization whose potential needs to be tapped effectively.
The study of human behaviour is one that has gained extensive importance in the recent times and this can be accredited to Abraham Maslow who first discovered the importance of human behaviour. He came up with the hierarchy of needs which were needs that were arranged in the order of their importance. These needs included the physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging, self-esteem and finally the self-actualization. Abraham Maslow’s noted that each of the needs ought to be satisfied in the order of their ranking for there to be employee motivation. The physiological needs which were the basic level needs are necessary to be fulfilled first as they support life (Forsythe, 2017). The subsequent need is the need for security. It is important to note that the scientific management approach only supports the aforementioned two needs and completely avoids the other needs. Workers only tolerate the harsh working conditions and the restrictive management styles based on the fact they have to provide for their food and shelter (Forsythe, 2017). On the other hand, the human relations theory picks from where the scientific management approach only addresses the bottom needs and encompasses to the rest of the needs. It is important to note that by the human relations approach focusing on team work and social groupings it fulfils the love and belonging need which further is characterized by increased motivation which leads to higher productivity. The subsequent need which is the self-esteem is addressed through the presence of an attentive management which is more focused on addressing the plight of the employees. The final need is the self-actualization which is attained through the achievement of personal goals. The human relations approach allows a worker to set their own personal goals which they can achieve and as a result ensures that workers can progress in their corporate journey.
Does the job design which is a result human relations approach represent an improvement from that outlined by scientific management? Secondly, if workers are rewarded, appreciated, motivated and are further given a responsibility, does that mean that they will become innovative and more productive? The answers to this two question can be found in reviewing the work place approach that is utilized by some of the most successful companies (Jørgensen, 2017). The human relations approach represents a model that has heavily been utilized by some of the most successful companies. Google which began over a decade ago was founded by two college graduates; Sergey Brin and Larry page. Over the years the company has grown to become one of the most valuable companies in the world with approximately 7000 employees. Google’s success can be linked to its outstanding recognition of the impact of their employees to the organization. Further Larry page has over the years outlined that what matters most is the people and not the product (Forsythe, 2017). The result is that those that hired by Google get hefty pay checks coupled with other benefits. It is because of this that the Fortune magazine ranked it as the best company to work for due to the amenities such as swimming spas, free meals and other services that it provides to its employees. It is certain that the flexible working environment that Google provides its staff has been the hallmark of the company’s increased productivity over the years. Further this is a proper representation of human relations approach principles at work. It is certain that scientific management approaches have become outdated and as much there are those companies that successful relied on them over the years, the future is with the human relations approach.
Despite some of the best performing companies having embraced the human relations approach in managing their employees there are some disadvantages that Forsyth Travel ought to be cognizant of (Forsythe, 2017). One of the main drawbacks is based on the fact the human relations approach widely assumes that productivity of the employees is only determined by the satisfaction of the employees. It is important to note that the introduction of fringe benefits in originations hasn’t always translated to an improvement in the productivity of all companies. The other drawback of the approach utilized by SunSoft arises from the fact that their approach mainly assumes workers to be social beings who are only motivated by being given a flexible working environment and also rewards (Jørgensen, 2017). The drawback of this approach is that employees from Forsyth Travel once acquired would end up being lazy and using the system to their own personal advantage by doing other things that are not related to the company’s activities. The lack of close supervision would mean that the organization may not be in a position to closely evaluate the performance of their employees which means that it may affect the overall productivity. It is also important to note that the involvement of employees despite having an impact on the employee’s sense of belonging would mean that a lot of time would be wasted in the process. Finally based on the fact Sunsoft didn’t initially begin as a travel company may imply that the company may lack vast knowledge on the travel industry which may have a negative impact on the future performance of Forsyth Travel.
An evaluation of the Sunsoft and Kaye’s travels management philosophies which are based on the human relations approach and the scientific management approach has revealed advantages and disadvantages of both models. However, of the two Sunsoft would be the best acquiring company based on the fact their management model would be one that would allow for employee innovation and would positively impact on the satisfaction. It is important the business landscape has changed and as a result the research has outlined that some of the principles that presented by the scientific management approach as being outdated. The human factor is very critical in the performance and the productivity of any company now. It is important to note that many employees would be more motivated to work in an organization that provides flexibility and recognizes their needs. Sunsoft’s model certainly would allow for the maximum utilization of the Forsyth Travel’s employee potential and further would inculcate the culture of innovation. To further cement why Sunsoft provides the best management approach, can be based on the fact some of the best performing companies have realized the value of their employees and therefore have embraced a more flexible management style. Kaye’s travel model may fail to be applicable to Forsyth Travel in the future as it may result in the increase employee turnover rates as more and more employees move to those companies where their welfare is addressed extensively. The high employee turnover rates would mean that Forsyth Travel will have to constantly retrain the new employees to fit the management approach which would be costly and one that would cost the company a lot of time. Despite some of the drawbacks highlighted with regard to the human relations approach, Sunsoft provides the better alternative for Forsyth Travel.
- Booth, K. and Erskine, T. eds., 2016. International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons.
- Burke, W.W., 2017. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
- Forsythe, D.P., 2017. Human rights in international relations. Cambridge University Press.
- Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
- Jørgensen, K.E., 2017. International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer.
- Modaff, D.P., Butler, J.A. and DeWine, S.A., 2016. Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings. Pearson.
- Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015. Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning.
- Waring, S.P., 2016. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. UNC Press Books.
- Weiss, J.W., 2014. Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.