The proselyting efforts of the advocates of participative management appear to have paid off. The typical modern manager, on paper at least, broadly endorses participation and rejects traditional, autocratic concepts of leadership and control as no longer acceptable or, perhaps, no longer legitimate.
However, while participation has apparently been well merchandised and widely purchased, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what has been sold and what has been bought. Managers do not appear to have accepted a single, logically consistent concept of participation. In fact, there is reason to believe that managers have adopted two different theories or models of participation—one for themselves and one for their subordinates.
The most recent of these studies, which I conducted, was begun with a group of middle and upper level managers in West Coast companies, and has been continued with a sample of over administrators from public agencies. Several thousand managers in all, both here and abroad, have participated. Participative Theories While the suggestion that managers have accepted a two-sided approach to participation may be disturbing, it should not be too surprising.
Management theorists have frequently failed to deal with participation in a thorough and consistent manner. Indeed, from an examination of their somewhat ambivalent treatment of this concept, it is possible to conclude that they have been selling two significantly different models of participative management. The second, and not yet fully developed, theory, which I have labeled the human resources model, prescribes the sort of participative policies that managers would apparently like their superiors to follow.
Both the human relations and the human resources models have three basic components: 1. Certain prescriptions as to the amount and kind of participative policies and practices that managers should follow, in keeping with their assumptions about people.
A set of expectations with respect to the effects of participation on subordinate morale and performance. In outline form, the models may be summarized as shown in Exhibit I. Exhibit I. Two models of participative leadership Note: It may fairly be argued that what I call the human relations model is actually the product of popularization and misunderstanding of the work of pioneers in this field.
Moreover, it is true that some of the early research and writings of the human relationists contain concepts which seem to fall within the framework of what I call the human resources model. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that while the early writers did not advocate the human relations model as presented here, their failure to emphasize certain of the human resources concepts left their work open to the misinterpretations which have occurred. Human Relations Model This approach is not new.
The employee was no longer pictured as merely an appendage to a machine, seeking only economic rewards from his work. This process is viewed as the means of accomplishing the ultimate goal of building a cooperative and compliant work force. Participation, in this model, is a lubricant which oils away resistance to formal authority. By discussing problems with his subordinates and acknowledging their individual needs and desires, the manager hopes to build a cohesive work team that is willing and anxious to tangle with organizational problems.
In return he hopes to obtain their cooperation in carrying out these and other decisions for the accomplishment of departmental objectives. Implicit in this model is the idea that it might actually be easier and more efficient if the manager could merely make departmental decisions without bothering to involve his subordinates.
However, as the advocates of this model point out, there are two parts to any decision— 1 the making of the decision and 2 the activities required to carry it out.
In sum, the human relations approach does not bring out the fact that participation may be useful for its own sake. The possibility that subordinates will, in fact, bring to light points which the manager may have overlooked, if considered at all, tends to be mentioned only in passing.
This is treated as a potential side benefit which, while not normally expected, may occasionally occur. Instead, the manager is urged to adopt participative leadership policies as the least-cost method of obtaining cooperation and getting his decisions accepted. In many ways the human relations model represents only a slight departure from traditional autocratic models of management.
The method of achieving results is different, and employees are viewed in more humanistic terms, but the basic roles of the manager and his subordinates remain essentially the same. The ultimate goal sought in both the traditional and the human relations model is compliance with managerial authority. Human Resources Model This approach represents a dramatic departure from traditional concepts of management. Though not yet fully developed, it is emerging from the writings of McGregor, Likert, Haire, and others as a new and significant contribution to management thought.
These resources include not only physical skills and energy, but also creative ability and the capacity for responsible, self-directed, self-controlled behavior. Instead, his primary task becomes that of creating an environment in which the total resources of his department can be utilized. The second point at which the human resources model differs dramatically from previous models is in its views on the purpose and goal of participation.
In this model the manager does not share information, discuss departmental decisions, or encourage self-direction and self-control merely to improve subordinate satisfaction and morale.
Rather, the purpose of these practices is to improve the decision making and total performance efficiency of the organization. The human resources model suggests that many decisions may actually be made more efficiently by those directly involved in and affected by the decisions.
Similarly, this model implies that control is often most efficiently exercised by those directly involved in the work in process, rather than by someone or some group removed from the actual point of operation.
Moreover, the human resources model does not suggest that the manager allow participation only in routine decisions. Instead, it implies that the more important the decision, the greater is his obligation to encourage ideas and suggestions from his subordinates. In the same vein, this model does not suggest that the manager allow his subordinates to exercise self-direction and self-control only when they are carrying out relatively unimportant assignments.
In fact, it suggests that the area over which subordinates exercise self-direction and control should be continually broadened in keeping with their growing experience and ability. The crucial point at which this model differs dramatically from other models is in its explanation of the causal relationship between satisfaction and performance.
In the human relations approach improvement in subordinate satisfaction is viewed as an intervening variable which is the ultimate cause of improved performance. Diagrammatically, the causal relationship can be illustrated as in Exhibit II. Exhibit II. Human relations model In the human resources model the causal relationship between satisfaction and performance is viewed quite differently. Increased subordinate satisfaction is not pictured as the primary cause of improved performance; improvement results directly from creative contributions which subordinates make to departmental decision making, direction, and control.
In diagram form the human resources model can be illustrated as in Exhibit III. Exhibit III. Human resource model The human resources model does not deny a relationship between participation and morale. Moreover, the model recognizes that improvements in morale may not only set the stage for expanded participation, but create an atmosphere which supports creative problem solving.
Nevertheless, this model rejects as unsupported the concept that the improvement of morale is a necessary or sufficient cause of improved decision making and control. When they talk about the kind and amount of participation appropriate for their subordinates, they express concepts that appear to be similar to those in the human relations model. On the other hand, when they consider their own relationships with their superiors, their views seem to flow from the human resources model.
A brief review of the relevant findings suggests some of the bases for this interpretation. In the Stanford studies, an overwhelming majority of managers indicated their agreement with statements emphasizing the desirability of subordinate participation in decision making. But if managers do not expect creative, meaningful contributions from their subordinates, why do they advocate participative management?
A reasonable answer seems to be that they advocate participative concepts as a means of improving subordinate morale and satisfaction. This interpretation gains support from my recent studies. Here, managers were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with statements predicting improved morale and satisfaction and statements predicting improved performance as the result of following various participative leadership policies.
In connection with each of these policies, managers indicated consistently greater agreement with the predictions of improved morale than with the predictions of improved performance. The fact that managers appear to have serious doubts about the values and capabilities of those reporting to them seems to rule out their acceptance of the human resources model for use with their subordinates.
On the other hand, the fact that they do endorse participation and seem quite certain about its positive impact on morale suggests a close relationship between their views and those expressed in the human relations model. Moreover, the types of participative policies which managers most strongly advocate seem to support this interpretation.
In my research, managers indicate strongest agreement with policies that advocate sharing information and discussing objectives with subordinates. However, they tend to be somewhat less enamored with the policies which suggest increasing subordinate self-direction and self-control. About the journal Human Relations was founded in by the Tavistock Institute and the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT in the belief that social scientists should work together to combine their disciplinary knowledge in an attempt to understand the character and complexity of human problems.
The journal has long recognised that no single discipline or research method could provide a solution to questions pertaining to relations between people, work groups and their organizations. Consequently, Human Relations has sought to establish a dialogue between scholars of different disciplinary backgrounds who seek to advance our knowledge of social relationships at and around work. Human Relations has also sought to encourage research that seeks to relate social theory to social practice.
The journal values scholarship that examines policy-making options that can improve the well being of employees and the effectiveness of organizations.
Research shows a little time spent around the dogs decrease stress hormones, increases the nurturing and security hormone, and boosts moods. One could argue that under these circumstances crises should arise less often and consensus should be more quickly reached when they do arise. I have chosen to discuss an article about the importance of human relations in the workplace There were so many elements changed during the tests that many people disagree on the true factors that caused a rise in output.
Mixing with other people contributes highly to self-esteem because the relationship with other people influences personality traits. Appreciation of strengths and accomplishment is another self-esteem builder. My guiding contributions towards understanding on human relations will elaborate on challenges and resolutions for good human relations. Viewing participation in this fashion, the manager often junks it when problems arise or pressure builds up from above—the very times when it might be expected to produce the greatest gains. There is no question that the human resources model does attack a number of traditional management concepts.
The founder, Mr. This perspective places an emphasis on the social networks found in a corporation and uses gratification, not depravation, to provide motivation in the workplace. Types of Human Relations 4. I chose this topic to explore more in depth because of its importance in our business world today.
The Seven Core Army Values define what being a soldier is about
Personality 6. It is also not surprising that some writers in this field have hesitated to advocate a model which challenges such deeply held concepts.
The concept of human nature in international relations is embedded in the theories of international relations. Philosophers maintain that in order for a political theory to hold any weight, it must first explain the concept of human nature I have chosen to discuss an article about the importance of human relations in the workplace Usually, when the manager has hundreds of employees to work with, they have no option than to strictly follow the rules, when in the small companies HR managers can afford themselves to step away from the rules sometimes to be more humane and understanding.
Concrete concepts and figures are much easier to understand than symbolic ideas and issues Mayhew, R. Generally the relationships among the people form a network that always supports each other, makes the better life styles, and ultimately survive them all. Diagrammatically, the causal relationship can be illustrated as in Exhibit II. Instead, it argues that the solution to any given problem may arise from a variety of sources, and that to think of management or any other group as sufficient in and of itself to make all decisions is misleading and wasteful. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria.
Methods for gaining self-understanding are to:- Acquire general information about human behaviour and apply it. Art and aesthetics has been greatly influenced by the advancement of networking technology in the society since the 90s. Challenges faced in effective Human Relations 7.
It is the fact that managers up and down the organizational hierarchy believe their superiors should follow this model. Recent evidence indicates that business managers have now adopted not one but two theories of participative leadership.