In a discussion of approaches to management in organizations, human relations and human resources are bound to come up. Many may confuse these two different approach styles due to their similar name and their styles being similar by nature. Both styles relate to one another because the human resources approach was born out of the human relations approach. The human relations approach is mainly based in the interpersonal and social needs of the individual worker. This view point was dramatically different from those which preceded it. The human relations approach paved the way for the human resource approach which I feel our textbook portrays best as a movement rather than an approach.
The human relations approach is based off of much research and the findings of a simple test in a small town in Illinois. Elton Mayo, a human relations researcher, was preceded by feminist Mary Parker Follett who really laid the ground work for research of the human relations approach. Because Mayo’s timing coincided with the movement to change scientific management he was able to greatly influence society. Mayo stressed the importance of interpersonal relations between managers and employees. Mayo’s theory held that effective management meant that managers should strive to communicate to encourage employees to identify with the organization.
In the Hawthorne plant of an AT&T subsidiary managers and researchers were testing worker reactions to change in lighting only to find they were reacting to something completely different. It was the increased attention on the workers that actually increased productivity. This and other experiments led to the conclusion that workers are actually quite complex beings with many motives, values and emotions. These psychological studies of human complexity helped researchers and managers better understand the worker and how best to manage and communicate.
As previously stated I feel that the human relations research was more of a movement than only one approach because there are so many theories that make up the “human resources approach.” First is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which categorizes human needs by order of importance, most of which are physiological needs to survival. This affects management because the workplace can become an environment where individuals mature from addressing their minimalistic needs to realizing their full potential or as Maslow would call it, “self actualization.”
The human resources approach was also influenced Douglas McGregor and his “Theory Y.” McGregor created this management style out of assumptions about the individual worker. McGregor believed working the body and brain is natural and that the average human learns to accept and seek responsibility. McGregor even went as far as to claim that on average people are only being partially utilized in the workplace.
The final piece of the human resource movement comes from Rensis Likert who held the principle of supportive relationships. This principle holds that all interactions within an organization should support individual self-worth and importance, emphasizing work groups and communication. This is where the human resources approach begins to truly differ from the human relations approach because human resources emphasizes employee participation in organizational decision making
When one perspective is born out of another they are bound to be similar in nature and related in many ways. The human relations approach and the human resources approach both moved away from the idea of treating the worker as a machine and moved towards understanding human behavior. The human resources approach encouraged much participation of the employee on organizational decision making while the human relations approach still contained a power distance between the worker and the manager. The human relations idea was really the first step into the future and way from scientific management. It was really the first time society experienced a meaning-centered approach to understanding human action. Human resources was able to further these ideas and give even more power to the worker.
Saturday
Monday
Video Addendum to Question 2
I believe this video from the Today Show best exemplifies the point I am trying to make about Google Inc. The company itself has recognized that with the benefits they give their employees in return the employees give them job loyalty and productivity. Despite the fact that you would think that these perks are costing Google too much money they continue to grow by huge margins. Google receives, on average, 3000 applications in one day, which speaks to their demand as an employer; people want to work for this company! Google's founders have also laid a foundation where they believe that hierarchy is bad and anything opposing it is good. This allows the employees to feel comfortable in the company and in return, the vice president states, "they will do almost anything for the company." The quote echoed most in this video clip is "I love my job!"
Increasing Worker Productivity
It is usually the job of the manager to maintain quality as well as productivity. Often managers take different approaches to ensuring this productivity and sometimes it can be that one simple thing that no one has heard of that gives the best results. Managers make an effort to please their employers with physical entities such as nicer chairs to help their backs or a water-cooler in the office for free hydration. Other times supervisors may use emotional tactics to increase employer productivity. Despite the tactic used, what matters most are the results.
Increasing worker productivity always makes me think of Google Inc. They were recently named number one company in America to work for by Fortune magazine. They offer their employees perks, such as, free meals, oil changes, laundry machines and work-out facilities. Though many may believe this could have been risky, Google is basking in their rewards. I believe Google’s efforts would best fit under the human resources approach. This approach is concerned with the total organizational climate as well as with how an organization can encourage employee participation and dialogue.
After speaking with someone who has had extensive work experience I was interested to find that this person (my mother) in particular didn’t really notice what was going on as it was happening. At her current employment she feels no one really tried to increase her worker productivity. She has been working as a Media Specialist for over ten years at a middle school but cannot remember any efforts to improve her workplace quality. After talking with her for a bit she conceded to the fact that she felt best and more willing to do work when she was given positive reinforcement. I believe her employer was using Likert’s Principle of supportive relationships. This principle believes that all interactions within an organization should support individual self-worth and importance, with emphasis on the supportive relationships within work groups and open communication among them. My mother spoke of staff meetings where each employer was encouraged to share something positive about another employer. She also discussed how she would occasionally receive emails that would encourage her to continue working hard.
Overall my mother really painted a picture that feeling like a family truly makes a difference, and I believe this is true for most locations of employment. My mother claims that “if employees are treated respectfully and feel appreciated they will automatically want to work more or better.” Though this may not always be true I believe it is a good start to good management. Though other management styles may be more efficient or increase productivity it usually means an unhappy employee or a high turnover of employees. I believe someone should come up with a new theory of approach called the golden theory. This theory would reflect the golden rule we are all taught in kindergarten: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Treat your employees like you would want to be treated in that situation. Though we have come quite a ways from the classical management theories of the industrial revolution we still have a ways to go.
Increasing worker productivity always makes me think of Google Inc. They were recently named number one company in America to work for by Fortune magazine. They offer their employees perks, such as, free meals, oil changes, laundry machines and work-out facilities. Though many may believe this could have been risky, Google is basking in their rewards. I believe Google’s efforts would best fit under the human resources approach. This approach is concerned with the total organizational climate as well as with how an organization can encourage employee participation and dialogue.
After speaking with someone who has had extensive work experience I was interested to find that this person (my mother) in particular didn’t really notice what was going on as it was happening. At her current employment she feels no one really tried to increase her worker productivity. She has been working as a Media Specialist for over ten years at a middle school but cannot remember any efforts to improve her workplace quality. After talking with her for a bit she conceded to the fact that she felt best and more willing to do work when she was given positive reinforcement. I believe her employer was using Likert’s Principle of supportive relationships. This principle believes that all interactions within an organization should support individual self-worth and importance, with emphasis on the supportive relationships within work groups and open communication among them. My mother spoke of staff meetings where each employer was encouraged to share something positive about another employer. She also discussed how she would occasionally receive emails that would encourage her to continue working hard.
Overall my mother really painted a picture that feeling like a family truly makes a difference, and I believe this is true for most locations of employment. My mother claims that “if employees are treated respectfully and feel appreciated they will automatically want to work more or better.” Though this may not always be true I believe it is a good start to good management. Though other management styles may be more efficient or increase productivity it usually means an unhappy employee or a high turnover of employees. I believe someone should come up with a new theory of approach called the golden theory. This theory would reflect the golden rule we are all taught in kindergarten: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Treat your employees like you would want to be treated in that situation. Though we have come quite a ways from the classical management theories of the industrial revolution we still have a ways to go.
Happy Work Life
It would seem to make some amount of sense that part of one’s hopes for the future would be to pursue a happy work life. But a happy work life can vary from one person to the next. Happiness is a perceived notion and when put under a career context, to me it would mean a balance between a challenge and insignificance. To me, that means I would love to have a job that is able to balance my stress and workload with my social and family time. As we have learned from Erich Fromm and Jill Fraser this idea of a happy work life and a balance of work and play has become less and less prevalent.
Both Fromm and Fraser explain that there is a new idea of worker alienation which is when workers are no longer directly linked to the product they are creating. Sad as it was, workers would sell their labor and know they would be exploited but did it anyway simply out of necessity. The worker needed to feed himself and his family and working in the factory was the only way he was able to do this. Unfortunately this is one of the main causes of worker alienation. Worker alienation is often linked with lack of creativity and unfulfilled satisfactions. Fromm describes that “work, instead of being an activity satisfying in itself and pleasurable, became a duty and an obsession.” Fromm attributes worker alienation to this; because work became about the profit and no longer about the craft, workers were exploited by managers. After the assembly line was introduced during the industrial revolution workers were no longer required to know anything really. All jobs and tasks became so simplistic that those who owned and ran the factories could afford to exploit their workers. This series of events illustrates how workers no longer have pride or feel a connection to their job or the product they are creating.
Jill Fraser brings the idea of worker alienation into a more modern context. Fraser refers to the longer work days of the new collegiate graduate who is on the fast track to management so she experiences job spill. Job spill is when your work life spills over into what should be your social or personal life. In the 21st century we have much experience with job spill due to advances in technology and communication. We are more connected than we have ever been before and it may not always be to our benefit. Our lunch times are no longer our own we are meeting clients or discussing agendas over lunch if we are even taking a lunch at all. We also have cell phones which keep us connected to our family and friends but are also connecting us to our boss and co-workers. More than just spilling over into our work day, our jobs have begun to spill over into our weekends and our holidays. Travel is expected and working Saturdays is expected, it seems nowadays that giving up a social life is expected. Fraser also speaks to the fact that there is much less time to unwind and the stress is piling up on us.
So what does this all mean to me or to the average collegiate graduate worker? Personally, I fear that in today’s society there may be no way to avoid the exhaustion and the job spill. Today, I feel that our society exploits the “hard worker” or the “type-A” personality. The work force gets as much out of them as they are able promising success and promotions and raises. If there were any way to possibly avoid these forms of “exploitation” I think it would be personal. One would have to set limits and standards that they would abide by. Personally I am not sure I would want to make this kind of promise to myself though. I may avoid exhaustion and exploitation but I am that “type-A” personality and I want to give into the notion of success. I am, along with millions of others out there, the reason why our society is able to demand so much out of our workers because we are willing to give in to those demands. So maybe there isn’t a balance of work and play but my strategy is going to be to find a job that I enjoy enough so that my work is my play. I won’t mind working weekends and traveling to distant countries for a Saturday business meeting because I want to love what I do.
Both Fromm and Fraser explain that there is a new idea of worker alienation which is when workers are no longer directly linked to the product they are creating. Sad as it was, workers would sell their labor and know they would be exploited but did it anyway simply out of necessity. The worker needed to feed himself and his family and working in the factory was the only way he was able to do this. Unfortunately this is one of the main causes of worker alienation. Worker alienation is often linked with lack of creativity and unfulfilled satisfactions. Fromm describes that “work, instead of being an activity satisfying in itself and pleasurable, became a duty and an obsession.” Fromm attributes worker alienation to this; because work became about the profit and no longer about the craft, workers were exploited by managers. After the assembly line was introduced during the industrial revolution workers were no longer required to know anything really. All jobs and tasks became so simplistic that those who owned and ran the factories could afford to exploit their workers. This series of events illustrates how workers no longer have pride or feel a connection to their job or the product they are creating.
Jill Fraser brings the idea of worker alienation into a more modern context. Fraser refers to the longer work days of the new collegiate graduate who is on the fast track to management so she experiences job spill. Job spill is when your work life spills over into what should be your social or personal life. In the 21st century we have much experience with job spill due to advances in technology and communication. We are more connected than we have ever been before and it may not always be to our benefit. Our lunch times are no longer our own we are meeting clients or discussing agendas over lunch if we are even taking a lunch at all. We also have cell phones which keep us connected to our family and friends but are also connecting us to our boss and co-workers. More than just spilling over into our work day, our jobs have begun to spill over into our weekends and our holidays. Travel is expected and working Saturdays is expected, it seems nowadays that giving up a social life is expected. Fraser also speaks to the fact that there is much less time to unwind and the stress is piling up on us.
So what does this all mean to me or to the average collegiate graduate worker? Personally, I fear that in today’s society there may be no way to avoid the exhaustion and the job spill. Today, I feel that our society exploits the “hard worker” or the “type-A” personality. The work force gets as much out of them as they are able promising success and promotions and raises. If there were any way to possibly avoid these forms of “exploitation” I think it would be personal. One would have to set limits and standards that they would abide by. Personally I am not sure I would want to make this kind of promise to myself though. I may avoid exhaustion and exploitation but I am that “type-A” personality and I want to give into the notion of success. I am, along with millions of others out there, the reason why our society is able to demand so much out of our workers because we are willing to give in to those demands. So maybe there isn’t a balance of work and play but my strategy is going to be to find a job that I enjoy enough so that my work is my play. I won’t mind working weekends and traveling to distant countries for a Saturday business meeting because I want to love what I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)