Chapter 3 discussed how human relations came to be. After classical management style and scientific management style failed to produce positive outcomes in organizational communication a shift occurred. The shift that occurred moved towards an approach which emphasized that all individuals had needs and that by meeting these inherent needs organizational communication and work would be more efficient. Unlike the previous methods, this method focused on what was best for people rather than what would be most cost effective. Classical and scientific management style leaders would be surprised to see that by increasing communication and positive feelings between employees and management that employees did perform better.
Follet thought that by using coactive rather than coercive power, employees would perform better. Follet realized that coercive power created tension ,while coactive allowed employees to work towards a common goal set by management. Similar to Follet, Barnard thought that management should work towards communicating in ways that encouraged workers to identify with the organization. Barnard also realized the power of informal contacts within an organization and the value they have for organization effectiveness.
I could really relate to the human relations type of communication. As an employee it is extremely to not only feel trusted, but to have the freedom to offer suggestions and express any problems I encounter in the workplace. In my job as a swim teacher I have the security in my job to speak to my boss if I need time off or if I have an issue and need a suggestion about how to deal with a student. I feel that it is much more effective to have open communication. This type of communication allows me to draw on the knowledge base of those that have worked longer than I have or those that have a different approach than mine to teaching. I completely understand how Follet and Barnard arrived at the conclusion that human relations approach not only makes people feel better but is also more effective. When communication is more open employees can work from their own knowledge base as well as of those around them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very insightful post, I don’t think people look at human relations as important as it actually is when it comes to business communication or even organizational communication. Once you are able to get an open communication inside an organization, more ideas are able to come about and the organization can grow from the ideas. Not only that, but the employees can exchange ideas, maybe helping them get their jobs done in a more effective way.
ReplyDeleteI think that human relations are a very good department to have for most organizations. Human relation representatives are who employees can go to when they have a problem with their boss or another employee. Human relations act as a non-biased party to the conflict. This is a good thing to have a department outside of the general operations department to avoid conflicts of interest. Usually, the human relations department handle things "by the book" or the rules of the company. This makes things less complicated between co-workers.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you in that I am in favor of the human relations type of communication. I want to be able to approach my co workers and supervisors if an issue ever arises, I want to feel comfortable enough to know that if I have an opinion or an idea, I can freely express myself. I think this method sends a better vibe around the workplace and enables all employees to work better together and eventually lets employees grow a great relationship not only at work but possibly a great social relationship outside of work.
ReplyDeleteIt is also very important to have this same relationship with management or supervisors. Employees want to have a good relationship with people above them and be able to talk to them, not feel intimidated by them. I know I have worked at places in the past where everyone disliked the general manager, almost so much that it made people uneasy to come to work and afraid that they would possibly have to work with him that day. I would never want my staff to feel intimidated towards me, as a supervisor or general manager you need to be someone that employees working under you look up to and can turn to if ever there is an issue or problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Esther! I agree with you that the theories regarding human relations by Follet and Barnard are very effective in workplaces, communities and so forth. In second language education, such as ESL, we definitely apply these theories. Many scholars prefer a student-centered teaching approach, so called "communicative language teaching (CLT)," rather than teacher-centered manner (e.g., linear communication patterns only from a teacher to the students). In such as settting, studetns have pair/group activities, help each other, and make friends along the way. Through the CLT activities, students could be more successful because it is easier for them to make connections between different ideas and experiences. So, human relations type is one of the main premises for successful organizational communication.
ReplyDeleteWow. I really like the way you articulated that section. I believe that the Human Relations approach only evolved after the Womens' Rights Movement because finally a level headed gal was able to put her foot down, that being Mary Parker Follett. People are not machines! And we are not to opperate as such! The Classical Management approach was one step of from the Scientific Management approach , but it wasn't anything to write home about. It sucked just as much oppression sucks in the real world. "Human Relations," who would have thought that being goal oriented, teamwork, and rewarding incentives could amount to something!
ReplyDelete