HR and Scientific Management Theories - Essay Example

Formal vs Substantive rationality in HR and Scientific management theories Introduction Marx Weber is one of history’s leading scholars on the subject of rationality and even today, decades after his demise, his theories and ideologies still occupy a central part in social political and economic discourse. In his works, he drew a distinction between formal and substantive rationality, according to Weber, formal nationality is a consequence or result of qualitative or proper calculations. Therefore, the rationality of an act in this context is based on the consistency of all the elements in its structure without contradiction in the entire systems. It is this consistence that is deemed to aid formalization, which derives its power through a series of mechanical simplification that brings about the visibility of various types of contradictions (Kalberg, 1980). The rationalization in the formal context lays emphasis on a process instead of its projected outcome and by so doing pays attention to the process instead of results. One the other hand, substantive rationality can be loosely interpreted to abide by the “end justifies the means” adage. Its focus is on results and from this point of view, the success of failure of a project is entirely judged based on the results rather than the process. Human Relations Theory However, despite this seemingly open interpretation, Weber does not clarify if not some ends can be considered to have formal rationality if the constituent problems may be compounded as formal calculations. Prior to the rise of capitalism, Weber held that formal rationality within the economic environment was limited in scope but it flourishes under capitalism (Banfield and Kay, 2012). This is because with competitive markets, it is possible to provide simple prices for calculations and therefore, in Webber’s opinion, the thriving of formal rationality is only viable in a capitalist environment. Consequently, to him the rational calculation is a matter of historical nd social concern in any capitalist economy (Kalberg, 1980). Karl Polanyi appears to share Webber’s viewpoint on this subject, however he contends the harmony of the notion in a capitalist economy and instead argues that they are mutually exclusive. Historically, he claims formal rationalism’s growth was detrimental to the substantive aspect (Polanyi, 1957). According to Ulrich, HR appears to be overly concerned with activities and expense instead of results (2013). While this is indeed important, it begs a critical question, of what HR should actually do and what is the connection between produced and desired outcomes? In the end, outcomes ought to be linked to inputs and activities since it is impossible for them to be considered in isolation (Banfield & Kay, 2012). One of the emerging critical perspective on HR concerning rationality is that managers do not always appear to appreciate some of the things that are done by HR managers. This is because it is difficult to prove exactly how their input contributes to the bottom line. Consequently, it falls on the HR departments in various firms to examine their activities and determine how they can be measured and traced back to the firm’s improvement or lack of whereof. A key scholar in HR, Tony Watson (2006), argues that HR is too often taken for granted because of absence of direct impact evidence on the final product. In many cases, the connection between the means employed and the process used by HR and the ends achieved is often uncomplicated. However, the effect of powerful mediating factors that undermine the objective of many HR practices. In HR, it is a rather paradoxical situation which makes it difficult for managers to understand their role because the outcomes of HR practices tend to be accidental than intended (Banfield & Kay, 2012). For the sake of demonstrating the above point, one can consider the common HR practice of performance appraisal. It provides an interesting case of the extent to which leading theorists and writers neglect the critical aspects of the actual achievements from appraisals and other HR practices. Maund (2001) proposes a list of the various advantages of an effective performance appraisal system such as the positivity of formal appraisal meeting since it creates a degree of harmony between the appraiser and the appraised. The process generates valuable feedback, which both parties can benefit from substantively in their professional and personal relationships. Given that managers and supervisors usually do appraisals, they provide a forum through which vertical communication can be carried out. Ultimately, the process has significant benefits to offer both to the company and the individuals involved and admittedly, many writers are willing to acquiesce to this. However, the challenge emerges because of the fact that many of the benefits may not be experienced directly by those involved in the process because they tend to be potential rather than actual. For example, take a case when a manager is carrying out appraisal in the IT departments. One of his employees after being quizzed on why his output has reduced over the course of the year says that he feels non-technical staff do not take his views seriously, which makes him unmotivated to create. Even though the manager may not act on that, the employee may feel emboldened by the opportunity and encourage his peers to speak up in different forums and this might reach the company’s directors who decide to correct the situation. This process may take as much as a year and when it is finally successful, the credit may go to those who helped bring this issue to the fore and none to the appraisal that probed it out of obscurity. In addition, even if credit were to be given, it would be very difficult to determine exactly what role HR. played. Consequently, numerous writers have agitated for the abolishing of performance appraisals based on the assumption that they only serve to reduce employee morale. Despite Maund’s argument that appraisals are a critical part of employee growth, to be objective one must also consider that it is possible that the critics are rights and they could be actually part of the problem rather than the solution. This contradictions in HR can however be explained if they are contexturized in from a Webberian viewpoint on rationale as discussed above. HR can be discoursed from a formal rationality perceptive in that because of the paradox of unintended consequences rules and ways of doing things in HR, which may be seen, as formally, rational may not meet the Webberian criterion for the same. It is for this reason that sometime performances appraisals may result in detriment in performance and in some cases even reduce motivation of employees (Schwartz, 2005). Theoretically, HR practice should really be examined from a strictly formal perspective since as demonstrated, the practices and rules that form much of its content do not always produce tangible or measurable results. However, the substantive aspect of HR cannot be ignored especially because it is lack of this that has resulted in the bitter criticisms on the subject. Substantive or material rationality is concerned with ends and these are the questions that most managers and stakeholders will be asking HR staff. They want to know how an expensive team-building trip will affect the annual profits and if no direct results can be proffered, they can easily assume that since their ends were not met, there must be a problem with the means. The substantive nature of HR expectations can have negative impacts since the indirect, potential benefits are often impossible to effectively measure, and this may make it difficult for HR managers to justify their expenditure. In conclusion, it is evident that HR despite appearing to function optimally if formal rationality is correctly applied should be thought of as a field where both forma and substantive are needed to counterbalance the action and expected long-term results. Scientific Managements Theory The theory of scientific management is also referred to as Taylorism after its founder Frederick Winslow Tylor who founded it between 1880 and 1890 (Stephen, 1994). Its primary objective is the improvement of economic efficacy by application of scientific methods (Taylor, 1914) and it is remembered as one of the first attempts to apply scientific principles in management practice. Although the theory gradually lost its appeal to scholars and managers by the later 1930’s, some of its underlying themes are still applied especially in industrial engineering and modern management. Its application is often found is rationality and corporate ethic s as well as best practice standardization and empiricism. The method has also been used by managers who wish to bring about organisational change through changing traditional systems, which are followed for antiquity’s sake rather than any logical or empirical advantage they have to offer. It is also applicable in sharing of knowledge throughout the various employee levels and ensuring effective and accountable record keeping and documentation. The scientific management theory takes a unitary approach in that it examine employee employer relations on the grounds that the former is immature and are bound to do their best to avoid and escape work in whichever way possible. This theory holds that employees, ambitions are self-centred and often in contradiction of those of the Organisation and therefore to control the inevitable tension in this environment, efforts should be taken to demonstrate rational leadership. Scientific management theorists propose that the nature of tasks should be compartmentalized such that each job is broken down in such a manner that employees only interact with spirit roles in which they specialize (Taylor, 2004). The role of the managers is to interconnect the systems and by so doing retain knowledge on the structure of the organization so it can direct workers as it deems fitting. From this viewpoint, there is evidence that the scientific theory applies both forma and substantive rationalism in the production process (Drucker, 1990). Evidently, management places a great deal of emphasize on the process of production and they need to be aware of every step and rule to fragment them among individual workers. Is a mechanical and autocratic system that has been critiqued for undermining the individually and wasting the creativity of employees. It has further been accused of attempting to turn workers into machines, this is because machines specialize in one task and they lack the intelligence to understand the bigger picture or even their role in production (Watson, 2006). However, workers under this system despite having the ability to understand their role and perhaps even contribute to the overall system are forced into silent submission. The system begun to come apart after it was found to have a negative impact on staff morale as well as resulting in the loss of employment. The compartmentalization resulted in and almost mechanical human specialization, which tended to cause the disappearance of skills among workers, who were forced to only apply specific skill sets. The dictatorial nature of the scientific management makes it an ideal case study for substantive rationality since the managers are evidently willing to do anything to get results. The worth of a worker is directly proportional to their ability to be productive irrespective of the impact of the production process on their career of personal life. Understandably, this Machiavellian system was variously rejected since it encouraged profit-centric activities such as offshoring and replacing human staff with machines. It serves as a demonstration that while the end justifies the means may make sense about the bottom line, this is not a sustainable system especially if it compromises the wellbeing of employees. Conclusion In conclusion, HR and scientific management have been found to have a degree of both substantive and formal rationality. While it is not possible to make an objective assessment as to the extent to which a balance can be created to optimize production in either, for scholarly purposes, it is apparent that both are necessary for any system to function. Despite the ‘harshness’ of the substantive theory, in the end it is the only way one can objectively determine if inputs are being productive by measuring results. However, it should not be relied on exclusively, since as demonstrated in the HR discussion, there are varieties or unintended and unmeasurable results, which cannot be summed up through convectional evaluation yet, must not be ignored. References Banfield, P., & Kay, R. 2012 . Introduction to human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drucker, P. F. 1990 . The emerging theory of manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 94-102. Kalberg, S., 1980. Max Webers types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 1145-1179. Maund, L., 2001. Introduction to human resource management: theory and practice. New York: Palgrave. Polanyi, K., 1957. The economy as instituted process. Trade and market in the early empires, 243. Schwartz, D. Ed. 2005 . Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Stephen, P. 1994. Taylorism transformed: Scientific management theory since 1945. Philadelphia: Haworth Press. Taylor, F.W., 1914. The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper. Taylor, F.W., 2004. Scientific management. London: Routledge. Ulrich, D., 2013 . Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Watson, T. J., 2006. Organising and Managing Work: Organisational, managerial and strategic behaviour in theory and practice. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Read More