09/ 27/ 2007
by Charles R. McConnell
From the time when work activity became organized and one person first directed the work of others, relations with employees have continually evolved through three overlapping but separately identifiable management philosophies. These philosophies represent periods of time, stages or phases that overlap considerably and coexist in varying degrees among contemporary organizations. These management philosophies governing employee relations can be described as authoritarian, legalistic and humanistic.
The authoritarian approach to employee relations arose first, followed much later by legalistic and humanistic approaches. It's still possible today to identify organizations that continue to operate under an essentially authoritarian philosophy, although pure authoritarianism is rare in American business. There are many organizations in which a legalistic philosophy prevails, and in an increasing number of organizations, the humanistic philosophy is gradually replacing the others.
Authoritarian management
Authoritarian management minimizes the importance of people. It operates on the assumption that people have to be pushed and always told what to do get the most output or the best possible results from them. Authoritarian management was the generally accepted form for centuries. It's conceptually simple: a boss gives orders and the workers do what they're told—or else. A fundamental motivating force in authoritarian management is fear.
Not all authoritarian management is necessarily harsh or cruel. An authoritarian manager is autocratic, but can be anything from a cruel exploitative autocrat who literally exploits underlings for personal gain ("Attila the Hun" management) to a benevolent autocrat who is kind to underlings as long as they unquestionably do exactly as they're told ("Father-Knows-Best" management.) Regardless of where on the autocratic scale they stand, autocratic managers give orders, and employees can do as they're told or they can leave.
Many people presently in the workforce have worked under authoritarian managers. Pockets of authoritarianism still exist, but this management approach steadily diminished during the 20th century and continues to dwindle today. For many years, employees had few legal rights, so managers managed with no fear of resistance or legal repercussions. But then legalism intruded.
Legalistic management
Legalistic management began in the 1930s with the passage of wage and hour laws and labor laws. It blossomed with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and since then there has been a steady stream of legislation addressing employment and employees. Many managers who were once purely authoritarian have adjusted and changed, although their adaptation to a growing number of legal restrictions has not always occurred willingly.
Managers began to treat employees differently because the law was telling them what they could or couldn't do. This legalistic phase of employee relations has been shaped and defined by legislation. Managers must now interact with employees in a manner consistent with employee rights. The necessary changes haven't always been willingly internalized; they are often made grudgingly solely because the law requires. Under legalism, relations with employees changed because managers wished to keep themselves and their employers out of legal trouble.
Humanistic management
Two significant areas of influence have contributed to the growth of humanistic management. One is the still-expanding structure of legislation that ushered in legalistic management and mandated humane treatment of employees. The other is found in the effects of the human relations movement in management that have been felt with gradually increasing strength since the middle of the 20th century. The human relations movement recognized employee rights before they became legally mandated. It fostered the belief that contented employees who were dealt with fairly and equitably were invariably better producers and more loyal than those who weren't so well regarded.
Legalistic managers behave in a particular manner because the law requires such behavior. Humanistic managers behave in a similar manner, but do so because they believe it's the right way to manage. Legalistic management continues to be driven by somewhat pessimistic assumptions about people, but humanistic management holds the optimistic view that well-treated, trusted workers produce best. The progression from authoritarian to legalistic to humanistic management can be described in the transition from pushing people, to directing people, to finally leading people.
Residual authoritarianism
If managers know why laws addressing employee rights are to be respected and obeyed, and if they believe that satisfied employees are better producers, why does managerial authoritarianism continue? The answer is found in tradition. For centuries, autocratic management was the only management style, and it became deeply ingrained in the population's conception of management. From the beginning, management was authoritarianism by definition.
A great many managers learn about management through experience with managers, emulating role models who are at least partly authoritarian. Thus a strain of authoritarianism remains with us, although it's weakening with each new generation of managers.
