Elton Mayo's Social Psychology

and Human Relations

BERNARD SARACHEK
University of Missouri
at Kansas City

Two key .assumptions which Elton

Mayo employed to build his concept of
sociai psychology still linger on in much
of the modern human relations thought.
This article mentions some of the basic
differences which appear when a Freud-
ian rather than a Mayoist social psy-
chology is employed in human relations.

Elton Mayo's writings lent a particular bent to administrative human

relations by tying personal dignity and man's social propensities to the
furtherance of productive performance. Mayo invested human relations
with a moralistic tinge which has yet to be discarded.

MAYO'S TWO ASSUMPTIONS

Mayo based his vision of the world on at least two important assump-
tions: 1) most men are impelled by their own natures to seek some bases
for social alliance and productive cooperation with one another,^ and 2) ap-
propriate alterations in the individual's current environment can foster im-
proved mental health and individual satisfactions, as well as calling forth
more productive cooperation between individuals and between the groups
to which they feel affiliations.^ Conflict is not the result of human nature,
but rather the consequence of faulty social organization.
Today writers in the area of human relations are increasingly less apt
to intone the name of Elton Mayo when citing their inspirational sources,
yet these two assumptions are still accepted more often than they are

^Cf Elton Mayo, The Poiiticai Probiem of Industrial Civilization (Boston: Harvard
University, 1947) and Human Problems of an Industrial Civiiization (New York: Viking
Press, 1960), esp. 136.
Vbid., esp. 111-112.
789
 190 Academy of Management Journal June

questioned.^ Human relations could find no better world. Mayo's two as-
sumptions, if true, would make human relations psychologically and eco-
nomically feasible for it would be possible to simultaneously satisfy the
individual's and society's needs while satisfying the needs of economic
performance. Furthermore, more harmonious cooperation could arise by
adjusting existing environmental and organizational arrangements on the
job, without fundamentally reshaping the individual's life off the job or the
personality structure of the individual, with all its conditioned associations,
experiences and beliefs ingrained over the course of a lifetime. In short,
the human relations expert neither has to pervert human nature, nor at-
tempt the exhaustive task of psychoanalysis or extended psychotherapy in
order to achieve his objectives.'*

These two assumptions are not the only possible set of reasonable as-
sumptions which might prescribe the limits of normal behavior. A Freudian
image of human nature, for example, would yield a profoundly different
vision. In such a world there would be no guarantee that the individual will
seek or achieve cooperative or socially acceptable outlets despite the
social adaptions and internalized repressions of the ego and super-ego.
Socially acceptable outlets may not permit sufficient dissipation of psychic
energy originating in the id to allow suppression of anti-social releases.^

This Freudian possibility sounds closer to the mark than Mayo's two
assumptions. Sociability and cooperation are standards built around the
needs of society. There is no reason to assume that the internal nature of
man as a self-entity is so constructed that he suitably meets all the stan-
dards set up with reference not to his own internal self, but with reference
to his external relationships to society. The probability is greater that man
is but partly social and partly non- and anti-social, depending on how that
which lies outside him accidentally coincides with that which dwells within
him, and how he has through experience learned to relate his internal
urges to external demands.

'Mayo's vision of "universal cooperation" is a confiict-free static ideai. In recent

years various human relations writers have become increasingiy intrigued with the
phenomenon of organizational conflict. To date, however, most administrative confiict
theory does not seem to reject in any fundamental way Mayo's two assumptions. With
respect to the inevitabiiity or desirability of conflict it should be remembered that Mayo
wrote more as a propagandist for his ideal state of "universai cooperation" rather than as
a strict scientist. Furthermore, he himseif aci<nowiedged that it is sometimes essentiai
to generate conflict in the process of heroicaiiy innovating new group relations rapidly
within society (see Poiiticai Problem).
•Elton Mayo, "Research in Human Reiations," Personnel, XVil (May, 1941), 264-269.
"On this score it is interesting to note that Mayo took a rather ambiguous and am-
bivaient attitude toward Freud. He accepted that portion of Freud which verifies the notion
that human behavior is socially conditioned. At the same time he was quite critical of the
method of approach of Freudian psychiatry and psychoanalysis, and appeared noncom-
mittai on most other aspects of Freudian psychoiogy. See Human Probiems, esp 126-
129, and "Psychiatry and Socioiogy In Relation to Social Disorganization," American
Journai of Socioiogy, XLII (May, 1937), 825-831.
 1968 Elton Mayo's Sociai Psychoiogy and Human Relations 191

Jose Ortega y Gasset has built a strong case for the proposition that
man by nature suspects others." The "stranger" is a present or potential
danger. If man seeks social interaction and cooperation, he must do so
cautiously, approaching the stranger haltingly and with his guard raised.
Elaborate systems of law, working rules, ritual and etiquette have been
developed to fence off the threat potentials of the stranger while permitting
us to avoid or cautiously approach him. These rituals of social distance
and social approach can become frozen and even dysfunctional to the
extent that they continue to keep the stranger at a distance (i.e., perpetuate
a condition of distrust or limited trust), and thereby limit the degree of
cooperation we can undertake.
Like Ortega, Freud was aware of man's fears of the outside which
cause him to generate his repressions, his taboos and his rituals.'^ Indeed,
Freud was even aware that man may fear and resist the primal urges seek-
ing expression from within him (the id) and so establish controls to repress
and command his own energy potentials (the super-ego).*
Management must be the stranger to those who stand in subordinate
positions. Upper management must always be considered less personal,
less predictable, and more changeable than those fellows with whom lower
level subordinates have continuous and intimate contact.® Thus, human
nature limits what can be done to improve cooperation and subordinate
relations. By contrast, Mayo's goal of "universal cooperation" simply does
not admit of the possibility that man can never be fully rid of his fear of
"the stranger."

The fact that man is not naturally prone to be purely social, nor
purely cooperative, nor devoid of an independent sense of self does not
prove to be an insurmountable difficulty to the practice of human relations.
It still remains true that we can seek for improvements that yield more
satisfactory results with respect to the individual, his social groups, and
economic productivity. However, abandoning the Mayoist theory of social
psychology holds forth less certainty of success to the human relations
experts for at least three reasons.

"Jose Ortega-y-Gasset, Man and Peopie, trans W. R. Trask (New York: W. W. Norton,
1957).
'Sigmund Freud, "Totem and Taboo," Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, trans. A. A.
Brill (New York: Modern Library, 1938).
^Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the id, trans. J. Riviere (New York: W. W. Norton,
1960), p. 26.
°A. Zaieznik, C. R. Christensen, F. J. Roethiisberger, Motivation, Productivity, and
Satisfaction of Workers: A Prediction Study (Boston: Harvard University, 1958). These
authors present a case In which workers appear more interested in the internal rewards
that derive from informai group membership (i.e., a coilection of "nonstrangers") than
from the externai rewards afforded them by management (i.e., the more distant "stranger").
The work groups which were reiatively successful internaily tended to ward off the
potential threat of management by informaliy controiiing their own rates of output (i.e.,
limiting the rewards receivable from management in the interests of internal qroui>
solidarity). "^
192 Academy of Management Journal June

1) Suppose management sought in fullest sincerity and by the most

effective means to improve its relations with lower levels in the organi-
zation and to permit these lower levels to achieve greater satisfaction and
self-actualization. In a Freudian world we have to be prepared for the
possibility that these efforts may be rebuffed with some greater or less
degree of apathy and hostility. Childhood and later conditioning of sub-
ordinates as well as any inabiiity to fully sublimate primal non- or anti-social
urges could thwart management's efforts despite its good intentions.i*'
Even in Heaven Satan found cause to rebel, and many an angel sided with
him.
2) If, as Mayo suggests, the desire for social cooperation of some
sort is innate in man, then a state of cooperation which would permit both
parties to gain mutually should be mutually satisfying. If, on the other
hand, we admit of man's capacity for non- or anti-social behavior, even
when the environmental opportunities for fruitful cooperation are present,
then cooperation alone is not necessarily a sufficient goal for management.
Enhanced cooperation could thwart management's needs to express such
-feelings as dominance, aggressiveness, self-esteem, etc. For example, the
notion of participative management, employee centered management,
decentralized management and the like, might give increased expression
to subordinates, but it may be purchased at the expense of intensified in-
securities and restricted self-expression by superiors."
To consult subordinates and to listen to their view of the situation
implies a sharing of power and the overt assumption of a somewhat more
passive dependent roie by the superior. For all the explanations suggesting
that such an employee oriented approach actually enlarges the manager's
effectiveness and capabilities, the fact remains that cooperation implies
a reduction in the superior's abiiity to "let off steam" and dissipate some
of his own more aggressive non- or anti-social energies. Some managers,
when forced to repress their aggressiveness and tendencies to over control,
learn how to grow emotionally as a result.^^ Some find the task too much
and respond by building their internal repressions until they not only re-
press their aggressive anti-social tendencies, they also repress, punish
and destroy what is left of their capabilities for leadership. They may be-
come laissez faire managers incapable of giving guidance.^^ Some may

"Chris Argyris, Personaiity and Organization (New York: Harper & Bros.), esp. 200-208.
"This point has been made rather forcefuily by Abraham Zaieznik, Human Dilemmas
•of Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 7-8, 212-214. Zaieznik is rather unique
among the better known human relations writers in that he frankly explores the implica-
tions of Freudian psychoiogy with respect to administration. The sort of social psychoiogy
we trace back to Mayo's two assumptions, Zaieznik has characterized as the "Utopian
view" of man in organization (pp. 5-9).
"Paui R. Lawrence, The Changing of Organizational Behavior Patterns (Boston:
Harvard University, 1958).
"A. Zaieznik, Worker Satisfaction and Development (Boston: Harvard University,
1956), pp. 103-109. Cf. William J. Dickson and F. J. Roethiisberger, Counseling in an
Organization (Boston: Harvard University, 1966), pp. 181-182.
1968 Eiton Mayo's Social Psychology and Human Relations 193

become bureaupaths who "guide" only by pointing to directives and higher

authority. Others may not surrender, but rather go underground, moving
through the motions of acting like decentralized, participative, employee
oriented managers, while actually continuing to be manipulative or
dictatorial."
3) When we acknowledge that man has some non- or anti-social
inclinations, we can no longer reject the unadjusted deviant as one who
"needs help." If man's only urge is social cooperation, then one who is
disruptive to the group and may even refuse to accept the norms of the
group is indeed not acting in an effective manner. If we can alter the
deviant's relationships to some work group so that he conforms and the
group acknowledges his membership, then we can say that this has been
a "healthy" and "effective" change. If, however, some men place a lower
value on social solidarity than Mayo assumed, adjusting the deviant to
society and its norms may mean undermining the deviant's creative urges.
Along with the repression of his non- and anti-social urges, "adjustment"
to the group may mean repression of the deviant's own peculiar style of
creative expression.^^

ADMINISTRATIVE PATHOLOGY
Mayo's two assumptions clearly link mental health with the suit-
ability of social arrangements of the individuai's environment. Suitable
environmental arrangements evolve by seeking for cooperative Iinkings
of different individuals to groups and different groups to one another. Out
of this cooperative linking emerges more effective task productivity. We
may applaud Mayo's ethical regard for mental health, productive coopera-
tion and social structure. The greatness of the man is reflected in the
greatness of his vision. Yet his focus on this ideal leaves unclear the
varieties of administrative relationships which might occur short of the
ideal.16
Freud might be accused of developing concepts of mental health by
examining the behavior of the mentally ill and neurotic rather than those
who appear to be more effective in their behavior. Perhaps Mayo, how-
ever, can be accused of the reverse error. Focusing on the ideal of social
and mental health, he leaves inadequately differentiated those states of
"Argyris, Personality and Organization, pp. 139-156. Eii Ginzberg and Ewing W.
Reiiiey, Effecting Change in Large Organizations (New York: Coiumbia University, 1957),
esp. 44-48.
"Cf. Robert Lindner, Prescription for Rebellion (New York: Aifred A. Knopf, 1947) and
Zaieznik, Christensen, Roethiisberger, Motivation Productivity and Satisfaction, esp. 360.
"Mayo actually set forth four models of human interaction: 1) the noniogical tradi-
tionaiist society; 2) the irrationai society with its exterisive social disorganization; 3) the
jogicai society based on conscious structuring to facilitate "universai cooperation" and
individuai satisfaction; 4) the centraiized "heroic" society designed to transform the social
system rapidly from nonlogicai traditionalism to the integrated state of iogical society.
See Human Probiems, esp. 157-160 and Poiiticai Problem.
194 Academy of Management Journal June

social interaction which fall short of the ideal. If, as Freudian psychology
would suggest, some of the keys to healthy effective behavior lie in the
suppressed covert remembrances of the individual's earlier life, then
adjusting managerial behavior closer to the Mayoist ideal of "universal
cooperation" is not just a matter of rearranging the furniture in man's
current environment. This realization leads to the further conclusion that
cataloguing and comparing types of administrative interaction falling with-
in the range of behavior Mayo described as irrational might be useful for
purposes of understanding such relationships. The task and approach of
human relations must vary with the particular type of nonhealthy admin-
istrative relationship being addressed.

In Table I a number of possible administrative relationships are listed,

including the Mayoist ideal of healthy cooperation. In the simplest terms,
these different types of administrative relationships can be characterized
according to the degree of cooperation and conflict, and the degree of
personality dependence implied by each.

TABLE I

Type of Relationship Degree of Nature of Dependence

Betvi/een Superior and Cooperation Between Superior and
Subordinate and Conflict Subordinate

Max Weber's Model Intense willingness to cooper- Close to complete submer-

of Charismatic ate. Absence of conflict. Ex- gence of follower's will and
Leadership treme ioyaity. personality. Complete fusion of
the Charismatic Ideal and the
personality of the leader.
Sadist-Masochist Degree of cooperation does Extreme dependence on one
Reiationship" not depend on the importance another. Superficially, this is
of fulfilling the task, but rath- most apparent when the overt
er on the extent to which the relationship is one of strict
task enhances continuance of discipline and obedience of
this relationship. Overt conflict higher command.
frequently masks covert co-
operation to perpetuate the
relationship.
Paternalism Whether paternaiism is benign Subordinate alternately or si-
(i.e., the superior or authoritarian, cooperation is multaneously accepts depend-
believes he is best incompiete and conflict Is pres- ent role and struggles for per-
equipped to deter- ent. Subordinate attempts to sonality identity and independ-
mine the proper control his performance to pro- ence. He is in an uncertain
interests of his vide oniy the minimum accep- amblvaient position, feeling a
subordinate) table obiigation to his superior, sense of inadequacy in the
for he eventually discovers that face of the apparently stronger
he is not permitted to escape personality of the superior. The
domination or grow to fuli ma- superior needs the subordin-
turity by either over-producing ate to act as a recessive per-
or increasing his cooperation. sonality to his self ego.

"Cf. Freud, "Three Contributions to The Theory of Sex," Basic Writings, pp. 569-571
and Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Rinehart & Co., 1941).
1968 Eiton Mayo's Social Psychology and Human Relations 195

TABLE I (Continued)

Type of Relationship Degree of Nature of Dependence

Between Superior and Cooperation Between Superior and
Subordinate and Conflict Subordinate

Laissez Faire Superior neither cooperates There Is some task depend-

Supervision nor conflicts, having abandoned ence of the superior on the
the field to his subordinate's subordinate, but primarily a-
discretion. The subordinate bandonment of interaction or
may, however, attempt to en- emotional involvement. The
gage the superior in conflict to subordinate feeis frustration
reiieve his sense of guldeless- having been denied the guid-
ness. ance necessary to establish
his independence and depend-
ence needs.
Bureaupathic Minimal emotional contact be- Littie retention of personality
Reiationship tween superior and subordin- independence. All that remains
ate. Both rely on formal spec- of their egos are their official
ifications of the task and of tities, authorities and responsi-
the organization to guide all bilities. Thus, they are ex-
activities. tremely dependent on the ab-
straction of the formal organi-
zation for the shadow that re-
mains to the integrity of their
personalities.
"Gamesmanship" Overt cooperation on assigned Both superior and subordinate
tasks, with thinly disguised or retain strong sense of person-
overt distrust and hostiiity. ality identity derived from the
Each beiieves his gain depends awareness that they must rely
largely on undercutting and on their own ingenuity and
outwitting the other. aiertness. They communicate
via logical discussions at-
tempting to minimize the shar-
ing or communicating of emo-
tions, attitudes and motives.
Innovational Either the superior or subor- The deviant is aware of a
Deviation dinate breaks with the pres- strong sense of independent
sures to conform, and strikes identity, but he may also ex-
out with new standards and perience the unhappy loneli-
goals. This generates confiict ness of social isolation.
between the deviant and con-
formists.
Mayo's "Universal Full commitment to coopera- Strong retention of the In-
Cooperation" tion. Differences of percep- tegrity and identity of each
tions and interests are amiabiy man's personality. A wiiling-
worked out by men of good ness to acknowledge depend-
wiil seeking to resoive their ence on others as a step to-
problems without conflict. ward greater opportunity and
independence for one's own
seif.

Reviewing Table I, we begin to perceive some limitations of the job

of human relations and social engineering. For example, in the case of the
Weberian model of charismatic leadership, the problem is not one of im-
proving the degree of cooperation between superior and subordinate, nor
is it one of improving personal satisfactions. Rather, the problem may well
be one of protecting social and organizational interests outside of the
charismatic relationship between the leader and his followers. The charis-
196 Academy of Management Journal June

matic mystique might weii wreak havoc on society because it turns a

blind eye toward the interests and imperatives of current world reaiity and
seeks instead to create a new reaiity.
A sadist-masochist relationship is less susceptible to change via
human relations counseling or training, and much more apt to require
some sort of ongoing psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. That is, it is iess
apt to be altered by deaiing with organizationai and group relationships,
and more apt to require focus on the particuiar deep-rooted personality
problems and distortions of individuals. Furthermore, whether it wouid be
desirable to attempt to alter such relationships depends on the relative
vaiues ascribed to individuai mental health and satisfaction, sociai stabiiity
and cooperation, and task performance. Uniike the Mayoist ideal of "uni-
versal cooperation," a sadist-masochist relationship need not imply that
improved social cooperation simultaneously leads to improved mental
heaith and more productive task performance. Although task fulfillment
is more of a by-product of this type of relationship rather than the primary
purpose, it is quite possible for production to be quite high in particular
cases simply because of the nature of the relationship.

Often paternalistic approaches to administration can be altered by the

usual counseling and training remedies mentioned in the literature of hu-
man relations. The superior might be brought closer to the realization that
his sense of independence and personai effectiveness can be increased by
accepting and encouraging the growth of the mature independence of his
subordinates. On the other hand, traits of paternalistic dominance might
be so ingrained in the superior's personality that he is incapable of chang-
ing and still remain an effective ieader. As we previously mentioned,
laissez faire supervision and bureaupathic supervision may frequentiy be
{though not aiways) merely the ashes of supervision which can no longer
remain paternalistic, but cannot adjust to more democratic styles of ad-
ministration.
"Gamesmanship" is simply a matter of superior-subordinate relations
based on distrust and an overawareness of differing rather than common
interests. Here particuiarly, human relations counseling and training could
do an effective job of eliminating unnecessary conflict by repairing break-
downs in communication that have eroded mutual trust and disrupted the
realization of the creative results which might follow from freer cooperative
interdependence.
Innovational deviation is particularly difficult to recognize as a con-
structive variety of social deviation. This type of relationship necessitates
asking whether or not inducing the deviant to assume a role of greater
conformity will disrupt his creativity, and if so, is the loss of that creativity
worth more or less than the gain that comes from eliminating conflict by
"adjusting" the deviant?
1968 Elton Mayo's Social Psychology and Human Relations 197

CONCLUSION
Undoubtedly, practitioners in administration as well as students of
human relations already sense the limitations of Mayo's two assumptions
even though these limitations do not show up clearly in their writings. In
this respect this article actually says nothing new. Instead it is an attempt
to take care of some "unfinished business" by bluntly spelling out the
limitations. The tendency in the past history of human relations and man-
agerial thought appears to have been one of not halting to reject old
fashions of thought, but rather of permitting them to "faii away" as newer
ways of perceiving things emerge. Due possibly to their ethical appeal,
Mayo's two assumptions seem to linger on, however. It is hoped that a
blunt specification of the iimitations of Mayo's assumptions wili sharpen
focus on the dividing lines between that reality which can and that which
cannot be altered to conform closer to the Mayoist i

ANNOUNCEMENT: BACK ISSUES

In the December, 1966 issue on page 376 reference was made

to negotiations then under way for the handling of back issues of
the Academy of Management Journal. Arrangements have now been
completed. Interested individuals may secure back issues from:

Johnson Reprint Corporation

111 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003

Singie copies of Volumes 1 through 5 are priced at $4.00 per number.

Copies of issues in Volumes 6 through 9 are priced at $3.00 per num-
ber. The Academy, through its Journal, wiil no longer sell back
issues.

"At least one writer has been quite careful to point out that the ideal does not ex-
haust the totality of reality. That writer is Abraham H. Maslow whose ideal of Eupsychian
Management (Homewood: Dorsey Press, 1965) is strikingly simiiar to Mayo's ideal of
cooperation.