Elton Mayo and the Human Relations human relations theory arose from the need to

counteract the strong tendency toward dehumanization of work, beginning with th

e application of rigorous scientific methods to which workers were forced to und
ergo. Born in the United States as an immediate consequence of the results obtai
ned on the experiences of Hawthorne, was basically a reaction and opposition to
the classical theory of management.
The classical theory of Taylor attempted to develop a new business philosophy: a
n industrial civilization where technology and method of work is the most import
ant concerns of the administrator. The basic assumptions of Taylor, on the other
hand were those of his time - remained to be mechanistic and caused resentment
among the workers, who considered the new business approach as a ploy to get mor
e productivity at lower cost, this meant a threat collective unemployment or a s
ubtle form of exploitation. If the man was a mechanism was sufficient economic i
ncentives, provide better physical or environmental work, and monitor their heal
th. That is, they had discovered the human factor amalgamating man and machine,
but had forgotten the man as an entity separate from the machine. Despite not ha
ving been questioned by any other major administrative theory in the first four
decades of the last century, its principles are not always accepted by U.S. work
ers and unions. In an eminently democratic country, workers and unions were
and performed scientific management as a means of exploitation of employees in f
avor of employers' interests. Human Relations refers to the study or improvement
of human interaction and the effects that interaction has on thoughts, attitude
s and behavior of individuals considered not as isolated entities, but in contac
t with other individuals who influence and for those who are both influenced. Th
e main function of the hierarchy is to integrate the workers, primarily looking
at the human dimension of the work, because the main factor of production is the
morale of the group and individuals. Business leaders should not be regarded si
mply as the representatives of capital that should get the most out of using lab
or as a tool to them to develop in the company an esprit de corps by recognizing
and becoming known to all members of the company that share the same community
of interests trying to gain adherence to its policy and not impose it. All these
concepts borrowed human relations to social psychology. So, if we refer to the
study of human interaction, we give an ambiguous character, for those located in
the same plane as the social psychology without own specific field. But if we t
ake into account the aspect relating to the improvement of this interaction, we
are providing an ethical validity. Human relationships are a double-edged sword
if it betrays his sense of ethics. They can not be applied for convenience, even
for production needs. They should not be used to produce more, but to live bett
er. When Human Relations are developed in the field of companies or institutions
and their action
interaction is directed toward the public, depending on the need for coexistence
that has a company or institution with the community. The development of so-cal
led human sciences, especially psychology and sociology, as well as its growing
intellectual influence and its early attempts to implement the industrial organi
zation. The human sciences came to demonstrate, gradually, the inadequacy of the
principles of the classical theory. Need By highlighting the social, the human
relations movement improved the classical view that productivity almost exclusiv
ely considered as an engineering problem. In a way, Mayo rediscovered the old ma
xim whereby Robert Owen, a genuine concern for workers, "vital machines" as Owen
used to call them. Moreover, this theory emphasizes the importance of the manag
er's style and thus revolutionized the training of administrators. The attention
was increasingly focused on teaching management skills, as opposed to technical
skills. Finally, his work revived interest in group dynamics. Administrators be
gan to think in terms of processes and group awards to complement his previous a
pproach on the individual.€Almost all studies Critica de Mayo are focused on Ha
wthorne experiments that, although deeply influenced the way managers conceived
of their work and how research was conducted after the administration, had many
flaws in the design, analysis and interpretation .
The conclusions of Mayo and his colleagues with the data is still the subject of
many debates and much confusion. In addition, the social environment of the wor
kplace is just one of the interacting factors that influence productivity. There
are several others such as wage levels, the degree of interest in the work, cul
ture and organizational structure, relations between employees and managers. Not
all happen in a predictable way from one level to another in the hierarchy of n
eeds. For some, work is only a means to satisfy their lower needs. Others were j
ust glad to see covered higher-order needs and sometimes opt for jobs that threa
ten their security with such exclusive accomplish goals. According to Mayo, the
employee's attitude in front of his work and the nature of the group in which pa
rticipation are key factors in productivity. For these behavioral scientists, th
e most realistic model of human motivation is the "complex man." The good manage
r knows that no two people are exactly alike and adapts its attempts to influenc
e people attending to their individual needs. May Maslow and Maslow, in his theo
ry of hierarchy of needs, argues that people respond to five different types of
needs, with them, first the basic (the physiological and safety), and the other,
social needs (affection, esteem and self-actualization). In short according to
Maslow, "in organizations, then appears as an obvious demand of their workers, t
o satisfy the first four and aspire to fifth in the cases of people who can them
selves determine its scope and generally and to influence the organizations in t
he organization to influence them "
In contrast to these, the main idea considers the employees as the key factor wi
ll be perceiving them as open, collaborative, inclusive and independent and matu
re. So the organization, its culture and establish participatory type of leaders
hip.
Conclusion Today the company is a social good and is required to ensure adherenc
e to its objectives of its members and their improvement through a job that sati
sfies them, not only material but what is more disturbing, psychologically or sp
iritually . Not only works to meet biological needs, but to assert one's persona
lity in an individual or social level. That is, within the mechanical concept of
Taylor's time, the selection criterion was competition. Today we are still inte
rested in capacity, but also that the new member may be integrated into a workgr
oup. The issue of productivity and employee satisfaction is a more complex than
initially thought. Finally we can deduce that the leader must foster a sense of
belonging among its employees and to that end should be considered as its main a
ssets.
Bibliography â ¢ CHIAVENATO, Idalberto Introduction to the general theory of manag
ement, Mexico: McGraw-Hill, 2006. â ¢ MAY, ELTON
The Social Problems of an industrial civilization, Salem, New Hampshire: Ayer Co
mpany, Publishers, 1988