Theory and History of the Humanistic Management Culture in the Era of Industrialism

“Theory Y” reflects the shifts in the culture of management associated with the development of the human relations theory. It is based on the principles of integration, which means working together for the benefit of the organization and allows everyone to participate in the resulting reward. The principles of integration require the creation of a creative atmosphere in which members of the organization could successfully achieve their own goals, directing their efforts to achieve the organization success. In these conditions, control is replaced by self-control, and the goals of the organization are internalized and considered by employees as their own.

The difficulty of applying “Theory Y” in practice is due to the fact that people are accustomed to being controlled, and to meet their social, selfish needs, as well as the need for self-expression can only be outside the organization. Moreover, such an installation is typical for both management and employees.

D. McGregor noted that managers are not born. Accordingly, as organizational culture changes, it is necessary to make changes in the system of training managers. Instead of the traditional, “technical” method of training managers (courses, programs, business games, etc.), he proposed to use a new approach based on the detection and disclosure of hidden talents for management.

The American psychologist also made a significant contribution to the theory of the behavioral management culture Frederick Herzberg. His merit lies in the development of motivational and hygienic theory and the creation of the labor enrichment concept. The theory developed by F. Herzberg, also called the theory of “atmosphere-actualization” factors, borrows and synthesizes ideas from psychology, Darwinism and Christianity. It is based on a hierarchical approach to human needs and the study of biblical stories about Adam and Abraham. The starting point is the idea that a person has a complex hierarchical structure of needs, on top of which is the need for self-actualization, which can be met only in the process of work. The study of Christian histories has allowed the scientist to conclude that they express common to all mankind types of motivation.

F. Herzberg and his co-authors presented the results of the study in the book “The Motivation to Work”, which showed that the factors that cause job satisfaction are different from those that cause dissatisfaction. In addition, there are factors that always contribute to satisfaction, and there are those that always act negatively. Positive feelings were associated mainly with work experience and its content, and negative were with external conditions, with the context in which the work is carried out.

Eliminating the causes of dissatisfaction did not necessarily lead to increased satisfaction. Conversely, if a factor has contributed to the growth of satisfaction, then the weakening of its impact will not necessarily increase dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959, рр. 25-26). Therefore, satisfaction and dissatisfaction should not be assessed on the same scale.

Accordingly, the scientist divided the factors influencing employee behavior into two groups, which are differently related to the emergence of incentives to work. In the first group, he included ten factors that are external to work and called them hygienic (borrowing the word from medical terminology, where the term refers to factors that help maintain health): company policy and management style; technical guidance; interpersonal relationships with the immediate supervisor, colleagues, subordinates; salary; employment guarantees; private life; working conditions; status (Herzberg et al., 1959, р. 49). If at least one of these factors decreases to a level that is considered unacceptable by the employee, he will begin to feel dissatisfied with his work. Therefore, hygienic needs must be met as much as possible; otherwise there may be deterioration in performance. However, the use of these factors provides only temporary satisfaction.

Achieve a lasting change in individual human behavior in the process of work is possible only by meeting his or her need for self-actualization. The real motivators for this are the following six factors: personal success; recognition; promotion; work by itself; opportunity for growth; responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959, р. 91). In contrast to external stimuli, which are not able to force a person to work hard, internal motivators encourage you to apply all your strength and skills to work. It was found that the interests of the employee meet both groups of factors, but job satisfaction, which provides better performance, can only be determined by the action of motivators.

In his next book “Work and the Nature of Man” F. Herzberg tried to build a model of human behavior using two Old Testament images. He believed that on the one hand, a person has an image of Adam, whose goal is to avoid pain when interacting with the outside world, which corresponds to hygienic factors. On the other hand, the other side of human nature is the image of Abraham and it is aimed at self-realization, which corresponds to motivational factors. Herzberg emphasized that the dichotomy of Adam and Abraham is present in every person. However, individuals may have a propensity for hygiene or motivation. An individual prone to hygiene will be motivated by working conditions and will not get pleasure from the work done, and aimed at motivation will be motivated by the essence of the task, which will be the main source of satisfaction (1966, рр. 39-40).

According to F. Herzberg, caution should be exercised against employees who focus on hygienic motivation factors, as they are focused on achieving short-term results, and the main incentive for them is material reward. Even more blow to the future of the organization is likely to head, focused on hygiene. In view of this, he was quite critical of the existing management culture, as its attention is focused only on Adam's (hygienic) factors, which does not always lead to long-term staff motivation. In contrast to the supporters of the culture of mechanistic management, the scientist argued that material incentives alone do not motivate employees, but only allow them to come to terms with tedious work.

The consequence of the motivational and hygienic theory of management culture was the labor enrichment concept. The main elements of this concept are as follows: direct relationship with the client; personal responsibility of the employee and reporting; Feedback; the right of direct appeal; free schedule; control over employee resources; advanced training and getting a unique experience. In the article “One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees?” F. Herzberg (1968), along with proposals for individual enrichment of labor, identified three concepts of group projects of labor organization, which became very popular in Japan, the United States and Europe in the second half of the twentieth century: 1) participatory management, which allows employees to discuss with management some management problems and ways to solve them, as well as focuses the attention of managers on training staff in interpersonal skills; 2) socio-technical systems, an example of which is the brigade form of labor organization, in which the group is given the authority to determine the mode and schedule of work and the opportunity is given to rotate jobs within the group; 3) quality circles, where employees are responsible for accounting for product quality and developing proposals to improve production.

The scientist noted that although each of these projects of labor organization uses its own specific motivators, they all seek to manipulate the employees' behavior through social approval or disapproval, i.e. submission to group pressure, which leads to the averaging of personal potential in the group. Group work organization is more effective for short-term tasks than for long-term motivation for productive work.

Thus, F. Herzberg destroyed the dominant at that time in the culture of management ideas about human nature, based on mechanistic theories, according to which the increase in wages was reason enough to accept any working conditions and increase the efficiency of production tasks.

Conclusions

The phenomenon study of humanistic management in the cultural context and historical thought, which aimed to identify the basic determinants of the genesis and features of the development of this management culture in the conditions of industrialism, allowed us to draw the following conclusions:

1. The humanistic management culture involves the abandonment of a purely engineering approach to management, in which man is part of the production line. It has been proved that the employee cannot be considered as a mechanism that performs the specified purpose. The organization began to be considered not only as a technical but also as a social system. In contrast to the mechanistic concept of “economic man”, which responds only to material incentives, came to the fore the concept of “social man”, which assumes that, in addition to material gain, the worker seeks to meet moral needs.

2. In the culture of humanistic management, the main object of attention is the person with whom you need to communicate as a person. With standard rules and instructions, it is not possible to achieve standard behavior for all employees, so each of them requires an individual approach. In this case, any formal organization with officially established rules must be supplemented by an informal organization based on the moral aspects of interaction. Informal can have a significant impact on the formal effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance not only between technical and social systems, but also between formal and informal organizations.

3. In the context of humanistic management there was a transition from strict regulation to management democratization, humane relations with subordinates, respect for their opinions, group decision-making, and taking into account the emotional factor and the interests of employees, group attitudes and traditions. The analytical tools of management research using the achievements of such sciences as psychology, sociology, pedagogy, anthropology, cultural studies and others are expanding.

4. The culture of humanistic management rejects mechanistic behaviorism, which does not take into account the inner state of man and is based on the theory of X, D-leadership and Adam's (hygienic) factors of work. This culture is based on humanistic behaviorism, which in the causal relationship between external stimulus and reaction, includes an element that expresses the inner state of man and adjusts his behavior to personal needs. It is based on the theory of Y, B-leadership and the predominance of Abraham's factors in the work - motivators that direct human activity to self-realization.

5. Motivators of self-actualization, able to form a sense of devotion to their work are personal success, recognition, promotion; work itself, the possibility of growth, responsibility. In contrast to external (hygienic) incentives, which are not able to force a person to work hard, internal motivators encourage you to apply all your strength and skills to work. People may have a tendency to focus on hygiene or focus on motivation. A person prone to hygiene will be motivated by working conditions and will not get pleasure from the work done, and aimed at motivation will be motivated by the content of work, which will be the main source of its satisfaction.

Thus, since the second quarter of the twentieth century, management has acquired a socio-psychological orientation. The engineering approach, as well as the concepts of mechanistic management, began to be considered insufficient both from the theoretical, and from the practical points of view. It should be emphasized that theorists of the culture of humanistic management do not completely abandon the mechanistic methods of rationalization of management, and try to humanize and harmonize them.

The scientific novelty of the obtained results is to identify the objective preconditions that led to the emergence of humanistic management culture, as well as to generalize the features of the main directions of this management culture in an industrial society.

The practical significance of the research results is seen in the expansion of ideas about the theory and history of world culture, including previously unexplored in the cultural and historical context of the ideas of humanistic management of the industrial era.

Prospects for further scientific research in this direction may be the development of ways to integrate the above two areas of humanistic management into a single concept suitable for use in the new conditions of society.

humanistic management culture industrialism social

References:

Babbage, Ch. (1832; 2009). On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnard, Ch. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, Inc.

Drucker, P. F. (2008). Management. New York: Harper Business.

Emerson, H. (1912). The Twelve Principles of Efficiency. New York: The Engineering magazine.

Fayol, H. (1916; 2013). General and Industrial Management (Trans. in Fr.). Minneapolis: Martino Fine Books.

Florida, R. L. (2019). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books. Follett, M. P. (1928; 2014). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. Eastford: Martino Fine Books.

Follett, M. P. (1932; 2013). Freedom and Co-ordination: Lectures in Business Organization. London: Routledge.

Ford, H. (1922). My Life and Work. New York: Garden City Publishing Company.

Gantt, H. L. (1916; 2014). Industrial Leadership. New York: Nabu Press. Gilbreth, F. B., & Gilbreth, L. M. (1917; 2012). Applied Motion Study: A Collection of Papers on the Efficient Method to Industrial Preparedness. New York: Filiquarian Legacy Publishing.

Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free Press. Grozier, M. (1963). Le Phenomene Bureaucratique [The Phenomenon of Bureaucracy]. Paris: Ed. du Seuil (in Fr.).

Gulick, L. (1948). Administrative Reflections from World War II. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Hamel, G. (2007). The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. New York: The World Publishing Company.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, 46, 53-62.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959; 1993). The Motivation to Work. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Hobbes, Th. (1651; 2014). Leviathan. London: Wordsworth Editions.

Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2018). Evoliutsiia Teorii Menedzhmentu: vid Biurokratii do Adkhokratii [Evolution of Management Theory: from Bureaucracy to Adhocracy]. Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsional'noho Universytetu Kul'tury i Mystetstv. Seriia: Menedzhment Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Bulletin ofKyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity], 2, 26-62, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616- 7573.2.2018.149297 (in Ukr.).

Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2019). Teoriia ta Istoriia Kul'tury Mekhanistychnoho Menedzhmentu [Theory and History of Culture Mechanistic Management]. Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsional'noho Universytetu Kul'tury i Mystetstv. Seriia: Menedzhment Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity], 2(1), 32-63, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616- 7573.1.2019.170654 (in Ukr.).

Kovalenko, Ye., Khlystun, O., & Martynyshyn, Ya. (2019). Humanism as a Philosophical Category and Socio-Cultural Phenomenon in the Society's Life Management. Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity, 2(2), 3-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616-7573.2.2019.190553

Leibniz, G. W. (1685; 1989). Philosophical Essays (Trans. in Germ.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Khlystun, O. S. (2018). Fenomen Idej v Upravlinni Zhyttiediial'nistiu Suspil'stva [The Phenomenon of Ideas in the Management Activity of the Society]. Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsional'noho Universytetu Kul'tury i Mystetstv. Seriia: Menedzhment Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity], 2, 7-25, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616- 7573.2.2018.149294 (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Khlystun, O. S. (2019). Iierarkhiia iak Fenomen Orhanizatsijnoi Kul'tury [Hierarchy as a Phenomenon of Organizational Culture]. Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsional'noho Universytetu Kul'tury i Mystetstv. Seriia: Menedzhment Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity], 2(1), 7-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616- 7573.1.2019.170653 (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2017a). Menedzhment Doindustrial'noho Suspil'stva: Teoriia, Istoriia, Kul'tura ta Mystetstvo Upravlinnia [Management of Preindustrial Society: Theory, History, Culture and Art ofManagement]. Bila Tserkva: Publisher Pshonkivskyj O. V. (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2017b). Smysly v Kulburi Upravlinnia [The Measures in Culture of Management]. Visnyk Natsional'noi Akademii Kerivnykh Kadriv Kul'tury i Mystetstv [Herald National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts], 4, 26-31 (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2018a). Mystetstvo Upravlinnia j Osvitni Tekhnolohii Pidhotovky Menedzheriv Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Art of Management and Educational Technologies of Preparation of Managers of Social and Cultural Activity]. Bila Tserkva: Publisher Pshonkivskyj O. V. (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya. M., & Kovalenko, Ye. Ya. (2018b). Formuvannia Suchasnoi Systemy Upravlinnia Zhyttiediial'nistiu Suspil'stva [Formation of the Modern System Management of Life Society]. Visnyk Kyivs'koho Natsional'noho Universytetu Kul'tury i Mystetstv. Seriia: Menedzhment Sotsiokul'turnoi Diial'nosti [Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Management of Social and Cultural Activity], 1, 7-24, doi: https://doi.org/10.31866/2616-7573.L2018.143383 (in Ukr.).

Martynyshyn, Ya., & Kovalenko, Ye. (2016). Tsyvilizatsiia u Tochtsi Bifurkatsii: Zarodzhennia Novoho Sotsialnoho Poriadku i Suchasnoi Modeli Upravlinnia Politychnoiu, Ekonomichnoiu ta Sotsiokulturnoiu Sferamy [Civilization at the Point of Bifurcation: the Emergence of a New Social Order and the Modern Model of Management of Political, Economic and Socio - Cultural Spheres]. Ekonomika i Menedzhment Kul'tury [Economy and Management of Culture], 1, 5-32 (in Ukr.).

Maslow, A. H. (1954; 1997). Motivation and Personality. London: Pearson.

Maslow, A. H. (1965). EupsychianManagement. Los Angeles: Richard d Irwin.

Mayo, E. (1933; 2003). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London: Routledge.

Mayo, E. (1949; 2008). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London: Routledge.

McGregor, D. (1960; 2006). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGrawHill Education.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H. (2011). Managing. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Mooney, J., & Reiley, A. (1939). The Principles of Organization. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Mьnsterberg, H. (1913; 2011). Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. Atlanta: Serenity Publishers.

Newton, I. (1686; 2010). The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Trans. in Lat.). New York: Snowball Publishing.

Pink, D. H. (2015). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead Books.

Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). Management and Morale. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Roethlisberger, F. J. (1968). Man in Organization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2010). The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. Redfern: Currency Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1953; 2012). Science and Human Behavior. Glencoe: Free Press.

Smith, A. (1776; 2018). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Franklin: Franklin Classics Trade Press.

Taylor, F. W. (1911; 1997). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Ure, A. (1835). The Philosophy Manufactures. London: Charles Knight.

Urwick, L. (1944). The Elements of Administration. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Weber, M. (1905; 2013). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Trans. in Germ.). New York: Merchant Books.

Weber, M. (1922; 1978). Economy and Society (Trans. in Germ.). Oakland: University of California Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru