Human Relations Thinking – A break from the past
Introduction
Human Relations in an organization is the attitude and interaction that the employees and employers exhibit towards each other. Human Relations thinking and studies have gained significance in the current atmosphere of tough competition and transformation of business methods. There are certain indications that organisational behaviour modifications can affect performances to a large extent. Human relations in workplace is a part of organisational behaviour and invited the attention of scholars as a tool to improve workplace environment and thereby individual and group performances.
Before the introduction of Taylor’s scientific management, the humanitarian aspect of labour was neglected completely. Labour was just another factor input which could be bought with money, like other resources. (Mayo, 1923) pointed out that organisations that treated their work force like commodities may give rise to over fatigue and stress and behavioural abnormalities. With the development of new theories on Motivation and Organizational behaviour, Human Resource Management has come a long way from past practices. This paper intends to address the evolution of Human relations in the workplace and how it has acquired a new outlook which is completely different from the past.
Evolution of Human relations thinking
Human relations in workplace mainly constitute relations between line management and between individuals in same ranks. If we examine the relations thinking between different ranks in the past we find a vast difference in behaviour between then and now. A description of past HRM practices is given below for understanding the key differences
Human Relations Thinking in the past
Before the emergence of Taylor’s scientific principles, human resources were treated like commodities which could be bought in exchange of money. The human side of work force was ignored and as a result, relations between employees and employers were strained. F.W. Taylor established through his principles of Scientific Principles, the fact that a more systematic approach towards productivity which considered the average worker’s capacity and developing incentives for the above average performance induced them to perform better. Improving the physical and psychological working conditions further increased productivity levels. Although Taylor’s principles addressed the factors associated with human elements for improving performance it was not intended to improve employer employee relations directly. In measuring and fixing the standards for average performance, Taylor had ignored the fact that performances can be affected by mental conditions like appreciation and encouragement. Moreover the general environment was not in favour of acknowledging worker’s existence as individuals. The general idea was that common workers were duty bound to obey those in authority because of charismatic endowments (Weber, 1978). According to Weber, industrial owners were believed to be endowed with authority and leadership attributes termed as charisma, which compelled their subordinates to obey them unconditionally. The laws were in favour of employers and workers hardly had any rights. Weber called it a legitimate domination of industrial circumstances and in the circumstances Taylor’s principles were abandoned by many firms. Taylorism received criticism from many scholars as it could not be implemented in many firms because of the ambiguity presented in its time and motion study which gave rise to conflicts in the workplace (Edwards and Edwards, 1979). Taylor’s generalisation of results neglected the fact that it was not possible for an average worker to humanly perform every day at the same rate (Stewart, M., 2009) and so it failed to achieve the expected results. However, it cannot be denied that it was Taylor’s scientific principles of management designed with the intention of increasing productivity was the first to acknowledge the human side of employees. Taylor’s contribution to principles of managing productivity remains unquestioned and forms the basis of many a studies even now (Boddewyn, 1961).
Following the great depression and the introduction of automated looms in England, the Government enacted labour laws which accorded the right to fair wages and acknowledged the right to sue employers if they were not treated fairly. The recognition of trade unions which represented the workers and fought for their rights further strengthened the workers position. It was being realised that workers played an important role in the accomplishment of organisational objectives.
Evolution of Human Relations Movement
The human relations approach was first undertaken by Elton Mayo in the Hawthorne plant experiments in USA during 1930 where it was established that an active interest by the management in workers personal welfare increased their motivation to perform well (Rose, 2005). It was the first proposal that considered the probability that human relations in workplace played an important role in enhancing employee inclinations to contribute to organisational objectives. This approach directed many studies and theories that attempted to relate performance to human relations thinking. From the past perception of industrial workers as non - entities they came to be regarded as human beings who could improve their performances and therefore profitability (Bendix, 1974). Studies related to organisational behaviour and motivation focused on issues related to human relations like mentoring, succession planning and psychological contract as useful elements in achieving the desired performance. All these processes were based on developing a relation between superiors and subordinates where the former took an active interest in the personal development of the latter and motivated them to achieve their personal goals consistent with organisational goals. This was a stark contrast from the past attitude about work place human relations where employers hardly ever acknowledged the work force as human, let alone displaying a personal interest in worker welfare.
Arguments supporting the Human relations approach
The human relations approach in contrast to the past approach of apathy towards served the purpose of motivating the workers (McGregor, D., 1960). Increased competition due to globalisation and continuous technological innovations need a culture of loyalty and commitment from employees for organisations to survive in the present business environment (Grugulis, et al, 2000). This can be achieved only if the employee believes that employers care for their individual needs. All motivational and OB theories stress the fact that processes directed towards gaining employee confidence are based on the human relations approach. Leadership theories advocating participative management, group dynamics and training and development initiatives support the fact that employers are taking a personal interest in developing skills, involvement and performance of employees as part of the human relations approach because it has succeeded in giving them results. The concept of psychological contract that expresses an unwritten agreement between the employer and employee that their efforts will be appreciated, shows that employees are responding by showing faith in the management’s intentions to honour the agreement. This intention to acknowledge a good performances strengthens the sense of belongingness and organisational commitment in the employees and inspires them to perform better and contribute towards individual and institutional growth.
Conclusion
References
Bendix, R., 1974. Work and authority in industry: Ideologies of management in the course of industrialisation. J. Wiley.
Boddewyn, J., 1961. Frederick Winslow Taylor revisited. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 4(2), pp.100-107.
Edwards, R.C. and Edwards, R., 1979. Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. Basic Books.
Grugulis, I., Dundon, T. and Wilkinson, A., 2000. Cultural control and the culture manager': Employment practices in a consultancy. Work, Employment & Society, 14(1), pp.97-116.
McGregor, D., 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York, 21(166.1960).
Mayo, E., 1923. The Irrational Factor in Human Behavior. The" Night-Mind" in Industry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 110, pp.117-130.
Rose, N., 2005. Human Relations Theory and People Management. European Management Journal, 34, pp.43-62.
Stewart, M., 2009. The management myth: Debunking modern business philosophy. WW Norton & Company.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.