Week 4: Human Relations and Human Resources Approaches
The first thing that came to mind when reading about human relation theories was how unique America is in comparison to other parts of the world. If there is anything that America can boast about is its costumer service and human relations. When I studied abroad in Poland last summer I really got a feel for the country. I fell in love with Europe and the people and architecture, but two things that drove me absolutely crazy was the customer service and bureaucracy. If there was something that had to be taken care of in terms of paperwork it was nearly impossible without a bribe. If I dared not like my drink at a restaurant and tried to complain or get a different one at no cost then the waiter would give me a bad look with attitude. There was no sense of the client being the boss. That is something that we must cherish in America because that is how business should look. The client is the priority.
Since the Great Depression we have seen the rise of unions and their slow demise. Although it is often good for the worker to be part of the union, yet unions target people who are not in the union, since any labor outside of the union weakens their monopoly power. Unions can also become selfish and enrich their employees at the cost of businesses, governments, taxpayers, and employees they prevent from getting jobs.
Unions were weak before the Great Depression, however, during the Great Depression they gained so much power that they were able to get away with violence, destruction of property, and even overt racism. They were a great example of the limitations of the human relations approach. During the Great Depression there was no over supply of labor or surplus of competition — meaningless phrases unless accompanied by a discussion on monopsony (a monopoly over the demand of something, i.e. employers for labor). There was no monopsony in the labor market, though FDR did cartelize many industries, which could have created monopsony-like situations. Also surpluses can arise when prices are not allowed to adjust to equilibrium and it is true that many of FDR’s policies created fixed prices that prevented prices from adjusting to equilibrium.
Human relations began with a great motto: that people “want to feel united, tied, bound to something, some cause, bigger than they, commanding them yet worthy of them, summoning them to significance in living” (Bendix, 1956, p.296). It creates this unity between people as individuals even in a professional setting. The outlets of technology create ability for human relations as well because people are able to join very quickly through things like social media and therefore feel a sense of unity.
Follet, Mayo, and Barnard were all great proponents of cooperation in organizations and depopularized scientific management. They shifted the purpose of management from strictly economic to more interpersonal. Follett’s view that empowering workers depends on sharing information with them, increasing cooperation, and getting teams together to complete tasks, was labeled as a “feminist view of management”. Personally I don’t understand why the authors decided to label that thought as a feminist view since it doesn’t seem particular feminist.
Elton Mayo made a very important remark that “individual decisions are not entirely rational, but are also influenced by emotions.” Although in the workplace we would ideally like to eliminate personal life from work life, as we saw in the characteristics of bureaucracy, it is hard to abandon the simple truth of being a human being and therefore having feelings. This definitely revokes scientific management theory that sees people as machines. Finally Chester Barnard proposed that interpersonal relationships were more important than accounting. I believe both could work synergistically because if we have good relations and an understanding of common purpose then the economics and profit of the company should increase.
The Soup Nazi is a great example of something I could have experienced in Europe at least 5 years ago (customer service has been getting better so it wouldn’t be as bad as the film portrayed nowadays). George is clearly symbolizing an employee in an organization that is dealing with the hierarchy of a manager, that is the chef. He has most likely committed a mistake of speaking his mind too much or being inappropriate by the rules of the manager (as seen with Elaine) and was punished for it in return. This example is prime for showing that weak interpersonal relationships lead to no productivity or profitability on both ends. Neither Elaine got her soup nor did the chef sell it. A prime example of how supply and demand are crucial yet crushed when bad human relations are in use.
