Perbandingan karakter dari 3 model teori MSDM:

Model Traditional:

• Assumptions:
  1. Work is inherently distasteful to most people;
  2. What workers do is less important than what earn for doing it;
  3. Few want or can handle work which requires creativity, self-direction, or self-control;
• Policies:
  1. The manager’s task is to closely supervise and control his sub-ordinates;
  2. He must break task down into simple, repetitive, easily learned operations;
  3. He must establish detailed work routines and procedures and enforce these firmly but fairly;
• Expectations:
  1. People can tolerate work if the pay is decent and the boss is fair;
  2. If task are simple enough and people are closely controlled, they will produce up to standard.

Model Human Relations:

• Assumptions:
  1. People want to fell useful and important;
  2. People desire to belong and to be recognized as individuals;
  3. These needs are more important than money in motivating people to work;
• Policies:
  1. The manager’s basic task is to make each worker feel useful and important;
  2. He should keep his subordinates in formed and listen to their objections to his plans;
  3. The manager should allow his sub-ordinates to exercise some self-direction and self-control on routine matters;
• Expectations:
  1. Sharing information with subordinates and involving them in routine decisions will satisfy their basic needs to belong and feel important;
  2. Satisfying these needs will improve morale and reduce resistance to formal authority – subordinates will ‘willingly’ cooperate;

Model Human Resources

• Assumptions:
  1. Work is inherently distasteful. People want to contribute to meaningful goals which they have helped establish;
  2. Most people can exercise far more creative, responsible self-direction and self-control than their present jobs demand; 
• Policies:
  1. The manager’s basic task is to make use of his ‘untapped’ human resources;
  2. He must create an environment in which all members may contribute to the limits of their ability;
  3. He must encourage full participation on important matters, continually broadening subordinate self-direction and self-control;
• Expectations:
  1. Expanding subordinate influence, self-direction and self-control will lead to direct improvements in operating efficiency;
  2. Work satisfaction may improve as a ‘by product’ of subordinates making full use of their resources;