If reading about the classical management approach makes you want to protest that you’re a person, not a cog in a machine, you’re not alone. Critics of such organizational practices became more vocal during the Great Depression and World War II, times characterized by massive social and economic changes in the United States. For example, scholars Eric Eisenberg, Bud Goodall, and Angela Trethewey (2013) discuss the work of Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), a Boston social worker who developed new and seemingly radical ideas about leadership, community, and communication. She believed that “only cooperation among people working together in groups under a visionary leadership produced excellence in the workplace, the neighborhood and the community” (Eisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2013, pp. 77–78). That was a far cry from the classical management approach. Follett and others set the stage for the human relations approach to management, which considers the human needs of organizational members (enjoying interpersonal relationships, sharing ideas with others, feeling like a member of a group, and so on).

The benefits of this approach came into sharper focus in the 1930s when Harvard professors Elton Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger conducted an experiment at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in Cicero, Illinois, in order to discover why employees were dissatisfied and unproductive. The researchers separated workers into two different rooms. In one room, the researchers slowly increased the amount of light; in the other, the amount of light was held constant. Much to the researchers’ surprise, both groups of workers showed an increase in productivity, regardless of the amount of light they were exposed to. Why? It turns out that the employees were motivated by the increased attention they were receiving from management rather than the increased amount of light (Eisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2013).

In organizations managed with the human relations approach, managers express more interest in their employees (for example, asking them how they are doing or giving them praise). They provide incentives for good work and emphasize that “we’re all in this together,” so employees have a greater sense of belonging to a larger cause or purpose. Organizational members are also encouraged to interact with each other on a more personal level, allowing for greater satisfaction and connectedness with the organization.