Understanding Humanistic Management
The following contribution comes from the Springer portal, which defines itself as follows: With a portfolio of more than 2,700 journals and more than 220,000 books, Springer is a world leader in scholarly and scientific publishing. We enable authors to share impactful research, provide readers with access to trusted content, and collaborate with institutions and communities to advance knowledge worldwide. Whether you publish cutting-edge science or foundational texts, Springer offers the reach, credibility, and support needed for your work to make a lasting difference.
Author: Domenec Melé
Humanistic management is a people-oriented management approach that seeks benefits for human purposes.
It contrasts with other types of management that are essentially profit-oriented, where people are seen as mere resources to achieve this goal.
This article reviews the historical development of humanistic management and the growing literature on the concept, as well as the different meanings attributed to it by academics. Next, it explores the form that genuine humanism could take by presenting seven propositions:
1) integrity
2) holistic knowledge
3) human dignity
4) development
5) common good
6) transcendence
7) sustainable management.
It then analyzes four characteristics of a humanistic ethos for business management: the vision of the individual and human work, the role of the individual in society and in their interaction with nature, the company, and the company’s purpose in society.
Finally, it presents some perspectives for the practice of humanistic management.
Introduction
Humanistic Management (HM), understood in a broad sense, focuses on the concern for people and the human aspects of managing organizations. It is oriented not only toward achieving results through people, but also, and above all, toward the people themselves, focusing on their development and well-being.
As we will see later, some have approached human management by introducing human psychology into management or by considering the centrality of people as essential to the success of business management.
Others advocate for a change in the dominant economic paradigm and for placing people, their development, and well-being at the heart of management.
This latter perspective underlies the Humanistic Management Movement, which emerged in the first decade of the 21st century, with important precedents in the last third of the 20th century. This movement has gained momentum since 2010, and a growing number of academics and business executives are showing interest in humanistic management.
Although many would likely agree with the general description of humanistic management presented at the beginning of this article, as a concern for people and the human aspects of managing organizations, this is too generic.
Therefore, a question arises:
What do academics mean by humanistic management?
Our first objective is to explore this very question. To this end, we will begin by presenting a brief overview of the historical development of ideas on humanistic management (HM) and then analyze the meaning of the concept from the perspective of several relevant scholars.
A second question we will also attempt to answer is what characteristics might define genuine humanism and how this can be applied to HM. After presenting a set of proposals for describing humanism, we will outline four key elements of a humanistic ethos for business management and present some perspectives for the practice of humanistic management.
The Historical Development of Humanistic Management
Humanistic Management as an Alternative to Mechanistic Management
As an antecedent to the current Humanistic Management movement, we could mention some academics in management thought who focus more on people than on management techniques. In the early decades of management thought, many authors defended the importance of the human side of management, even without using the expression «humanistic management.» Some emphasized the importance of human needs and motivations (Maslow, McGregor, Herzberg, Likert, Bennis, and others), while others presented a view of management that did not separate the technical aspects from the human ones or that emphasized the centrality of people (Follett, Barnard, Drucker).
Thus, Mary Parker Follett, a renowned pioneer in management studies, wrote: «We can never completely separate the human problem from the mechanical one. (…) But you all see daily that the study of human relations in business and the study of operational technique are closely linked.» Chester I. Barnard, for his part, emphasized the importance of cooperation in business and the manager’s responsibility to respect people and promote cooperation among them (Wolf 1974). Peter Drucker, the great management guru, maintained that management is about people, emphasizing the importance of the whole person, along with power, values, structure, and responsibilities (Linkletter and Maciariello 2011; Maciariello 2014).
Humanism and Management
The first time the terms «humanistic» and «management» appeared together was most likely in a book published in 1967, written by David E. Lilienthal, entitled «Management: A Humanistic Art» (Lilienthal, 1967).
The view of this book is that management is not a science, but an art. This contrasts with scientific management, proposed by Taylor (1911), and other conventional «mechanistic» approaches, very popular at the time. Lilienthal did not deny the importance of techniques and skills in management, but emphasized that managers must understand people and their motivations, and help them achieve their goals.
Following the ideas of the so-called «Human Relations School,» Lilienthal
defended the idea that the manager is essentially a motivator and facilitator for others. He emphasized the uniqueness of each employee, the uniqueness of each situation, and the need to manage «like an artist» rather than using a set of learned guidelines.
Swart (1973) used the term «humanistic management» to refer to a set of innovative proposals of the time to overcome the monotonous repetition of tasks established by scientific management to improve productivity, but without considering the motivation of the workers.
He stated: «Humanistic management, often called job enrichment, is a new way of addressing old problems: motivation, job satisfaction, morale, and productivity» (Swart, 1973, p. 41). Building on Herzberg (1968), this scholar suggested that humanistic management involves giving employees more responsibility and variety in their jobs to motivate them and increase their satisfaction and productivity.
In the mid-1980s, interpreting what might then have been a common understanding of humanistic management, Daley observed: «Many consider humanistic management as a means to both productivity and the development of human potential.» (1986, p. 131)
In his research, Daley (1986) uses several «humanistic» characteristics related to dealing with people in the production process as indicators, including job challenge, role clarity, fairness in performance evaluation (job design and performance appraisal), personal relevance, the supervisory relationship, and employee freedom (work environment).
More recently, several authors, even without presenting themselves as proponents of human-centered leadership, have emphasized the centrality of people within organizations and the consideration of the human being as a whole.
To mention a few, Plas (1996) proposed person-centered leadership, in which participation is essential. Ghoshal and Bartlett (1997) focused on people-centered policies, purpose, and corporate culture, rather than the conventional «industrial machine»; going beyond the traditional rigidity of structures and systems, they proposed the creation of «organizations of individuals» where, in addition to seeking results, organizations could be a forum for human interaction and personal fulfillment. For his part, Pfeffer (1998) suggested prioritizing people to achieve organizational success.
Humanizing Companies
From an ethical perspective, various voices have advocated for the humanization of companies. One of the first to do so was Pope Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century. He condemned the situations in workshops and factories where “employers imposed unjust burdens on their workers or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings” (Leo XIII, 1891, no. 36).
In positive terms, he exhorted employers to “respect in every person the dignity of the human person” (Leo XIII, 1891, no. 20). Several documents of Catholic social doctrine have continued along the same lines (see a 20th-century compendium in PCJP, 2004).
The United Nations and other international organizations have also urged businesses to be more ethical and humane. Focusing on labor, the International Labour Organization has promoted numerous conventions to humanize work in the business context.
Since the mid-1970s, several management scholars have advocated for the humanization of businesses. Among others, Mire (1976) proposed humanizing the workplace, and Meltzer and Wickert (1976) focused on humanizing organizational behavior. Cunningham and Tichy (1983) supported reforms within the business community, including changes in business relationships, attitudes, and methods that influence and shape people’s lives through corporate culture. French and Bell (1984) pointed to the need to introduce humanistic values into organizational development. They emphasized the importance of people, respect for freedom, and the importance of avoiding the abuse of power. Anderson (1997) suggested «values-based management,» and Argandoña (2003) analyzed how to foster values in organizations.
In the late 1970s, the business ethics movement emerged (De George, 2006), advocating for the humanization of businesses and the promotion of integrity in management. Humanism and business ethics should go hand in hand if we accept that ethics is “rooted in our humanity” (Kleinfeld et al., 2003, p. 1). This idea is not new—it is essential in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, for example—but it has not always been sufficiently valued. Among those who defend this approach are Dierksmeier et al. (2011), who have analyzed the concept of “humanistic ethics” in the context of a globalized world.
Humanism in Economics and Business
Lutz and Lux (1979, 1988) proposed a shift in perspective in economics and put forward what they called “Humanistic Economics,” based on a new and more precise view of the person in economic theory. They observed that “this [old] theory is largely a legacy of 18th- and 19th-century British philosophy, with its hedonistic, mechanistic, and narrow view of the person” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1). In contrast to a dominant economy based on self-interest as the sole motive for action, they do not deny that people seek personal gain, but they add: “if there is another facet of human nature that operates alongside self-interest, then to reduce human beings solely to the former is to distort reality” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 18).
Following this line of thought, they proposed a humanist vision of economics that “aspires to a more complete image of the person” (Ibid.). In their own words: “We need an economy with an inspiring and constructive vision, an economy that allows us to live fully” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1). On the one hand, we need an economy that works, an economy that “can sustain and support us physically,” but on the other hand, “we also need an economy that ennobles us, with which we can identify and proudly proclaim” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1).
From a different and more radical perspective, Aktouf (1992) advocated for a change in the current business paradigm.
He criticized dominant, and even innovative, management approaches for being based on the functionalist tradition. “Most proponents of new management trends,” he wrote, “focus current debates and concerns on the employee (human capital and resources). This is a clear sign of renewed interest in the human factor. However, by implicitly maintaining the status quo in all matters concerning power, profit control, and the division of labor, the new trend is a false and stunted humanism” (Aktouf, 1992, p. 412).
As an alternative, he advocated a radical humanist conceptualization of organizations and suggested a proposal based on neo-Marxist humanism, which entails a holistic view of humanity and emphasizes the concept of alienation.
In his view, management theorists and practitioners should integrate this concept to better understand how to transform the passive/obedient Taylorist employee into an active-cooperative one. This radical humanism with Marxist roots, focused not on the individual but on humanity, can be criticized (Gómez Pérez 1977, pp. 185 ff.), but its observation on the limited humanism of those who see human beings solely as human capital or resources seems quite valid.
A New Manifesto for Management
Ghoshal, Bartlett, and Moran (1999) published “
A New Manifesto for Management,” in which they advocated for management focused on creating value for society and individuals.
The concern for humanizing business and the management profession is also found in several scholars, including those included in a book edited by Ricart and Rosanas (2012). Furthermore, Andreu and Rosanas (2012) published a “Manifesto for Better Management,” which adopted a rational and humanistic perspective.
Humanistic Management
The following contribution comes from the Lumen Waymaker portal, which defines itself as: Deeper Connections.
Powerful Technology. Learning for All.
At Lumen Learning, we believe that a welcoming environment facilitates learning for all students. And this starts with educators. That’s why our easy-to-use suite of tools, including digital courses, teaching resources, and professional development tools, gives you what you need to build deeper connections with your students. Our products are designed to help you promote equity and are affordably priced. We take an agile approach to product development, carefully selecting open educational resources (OER) and continuously updating our learning materials. At every step of the process, our team is here, ready to listen and support you.
Authorship by the team.
Learning Outcomes
Explain the concept of humanistic management.
Summarize the work of Mary Parker Follett.
Explain the importance of Elton Mayo’s work (Hawthorne studies). As you have probably gathered from the name, humanistic management theory places great emphasis on interpersonal relationships. A previous section discussed scientific management and how it focused on productivity and cost reduction by developing efficiency standards based on time and motion studies. Its critics questioned scientific management’s emphasis on quotas and uniform standards for all workers.
There is very little evidence that the new quotas set for workers were unreasonable or that those who failed to meet them were systematically dismissed. However, workers did express concern about the low quality standards and lower wages under the so-called piece-rate system.
Trade unions began to address the growing fear among workers that all but a small elite would soon be out of work. Even the U.S. government became involved in the conflict between managers and workers, summoning Frederick Taylor to testify before Congress about the objectives of his proposals.
It was in this context that a new theory of management developed, one that examined social rather than economic factors. The humanistic approach focused on the individual worker and group dynamics, rather than on authoritarian managers, to achieve effective control.
Mary Parker Follett is now considered the «Mother of Modern Management.»
Mary Parker Follett’s teachings, many of which were published in articles in well-known women’s magazines, were popular among businesspeople during her lifetime.
However, she was virtually ignored by the male-dominated academic world, despite attending Radcliffe College and Yale University, and being invited to speak at the London School of Economics. In recent years, her writings have been rediscovered by American management scholars, and she is now considered the «Mother of Modern Management.»
Follett developed numerous concepts that he applied to business and management, including the following:
A better understanding of lateral processes within organizational hierarchies.
Th
