Human Relations Perspective Versus the Theory of Bureaucracy - Report Example

Human Relations Perspective versus the Theory of Bureaucracy Introduction Evidently, both practitioners and educators in the field of social work have expressed profound concerns regarding the increasing challenges of social work in the 21st century (Beddoe & Maidment 2009, p.4). Jones and May (1992, p.5) state, “Social and welfare work as practised in Australia is an organisational as well as a professional activity” and argue that organisations are central in determining and influencing almost every aspect of professional practice. With specific reference to the first two chapters of Jones and May (1992), this paper will endeavour to compare and contrast two of the ten theoretical perspectives described in their analysis namely the theory of bureaucracy and Human relations perspectives regarding organisational analysis while exploring their statement with reference to social work practice. Information and history of the theory of Bureaucracy The theory of bureaucracy is attributable to Max Weber, a German sociologist and political economist that is highly regarded as the father of modern organizational theory and influential thinkers in the history of modern organizational theory (Lounsbury & Carberry, 2005, p.501). The two main aspects of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy are hierarchy and rational-legal decision-making rules; Weber’s theory recommends structuring of the organization into a hierarchy and the application of rational-legal decision-making rules in governing the organization to enhance organizational efficiency (Garrow & Hasenfeld 2010, p.34). Organizational hierarchy entails arranging the organization by level of authority in relation to the levels above or below it under a central unit chain of command while assigning specific roles to each level. Rational-legal decision-making rules entails a set of explicit as well as objective policies and procedures that govern the manner in which an organization operates (Clegg and Dunkerley 1980, p.545) i.e. the rules and policies governing which human resources are entitled to unemployment insurance. Information and history of human relations perspective The human relations perspective, which was advanced by Elton Mayo from the Hawthorne studies in the 1930s, emphasizes the importance of human needs in the workplace as well as the consideration of management practice and job design in pursuit of organizational goals (Ionescu & Negrusa 2013, p.673). Mayo’s work demonstrated that by taking an interest in employees and their needs, a company is more likely to influence employees’ motivation positively since employees are more likely to feel more valued and empowered. Thus, the level and quality of output by workers is more likely to increase when managers pay attention to their needs since individuals are motivated by an innate need to fulfil their needs (Drummond 2000, p.63). The job requirements as well as conditions of work have a strong psychological impact on workers particularly in reference to their ability to fulfil their needs consequently influencing their attitudes regarding work and co-workers and their job performance. Precisely, the underlying assumption of the human relations perspective is that the effectiveness of an organization is influenced by the complementarity as well as the congruency between organizational goals and the workers’ personal needs. Similarly, this perspective assumes that both the nature and quality of organizational leadership is a crucial determinant of organizational performance as well as job satisfaction of workers. Leadership that encourages a democratic organizational atmosphere is more likely to enhance workers’ productivity; abstract jobs and hierarchies that assume a disembodied, universal worker, often a man, enforces gender inequalities at the workplace thereby undermining motivation of the female workers (Acker 1990, p.139). Implication of perspectives to social work as practiced in Australia Both the theory of bureaucracy and Human relations perspectives attempt to describe the manner in which organizations function and can be used as models for organizational effectiveness; however, the two approaches take a different approach to organizational functioning. Whereas Weber’s theory of Bureaucracy emphasizes the need for hierarchies and rational-legal decision-making rules for the functioning of an organization, the human relations approach to organizational functioning highlights the need to consider personal interests and needs of employees in organizational management practice. In relation to the practice of social work in Australia, theory of bureaucracy has been modelled into service organizations through the designs of welfare to work as well as early-childhood education, which is subject to various regulatory frameworks (Hughes & Wearing 2007, p.46). The implication of this model to social work is that its design entails a sequence of interrelated activities that are directed towards producing the desired outcomes. For instance, the social organization of health-care work in Australian is highly hierarchical and social workers play a significant role in the promotion of health and community services in the country; that is, community-based agencies provide both hospital-based health and welfare services (Gray 2011, p.13). Some of Australia’s leading national service agencies include Mission Australia, which entails an amalgamation of state-based city missions across the country and the Catholic Care that coordinates bodies for state-based agencies (Howe & Howe 2012, p.322). Social workers in Australia are engaged in the provision of social services such as child protection, disability and aged care and they generally work alongside allied health professionals in the health sector as well as other welfare and care workers in community service sectors. In that respect, lack of professional autonomy, due to the various hierarchical and interrelated levels of social service organizations inevitably constrains the quality of output of social workers in the country (Germov 2005, p.738). Contrariwise, the human relations approach to social work in Australia focuses on the welfare of social workers, that is, the personal needs and interests of the Australian social workers, which eventually influence their performance. Precisely, the management of social workers must take into account their personal interests and needs since it is the high complementarity and congruency between the organizational goals of social service agencies and the personal needs and interests of social workers that promote the outcomes of social work in the country. Presently, many social work agencies, especially in the rural areas, are unable to recruit and retain social workers due to their unattractive packages amid concerns of large groups of people at rural areas that are at risk of social exclusion (Brown & Green 2009, p.294). Conflict with supervisors is directly linked with the heavy burden of psychological as well as biological stress responses by social workers; evidently, many social workers experience difficulties working with their employing agencies (Jones & May 1992, p.246) Relevance to social work practice for both perspectives The theory of bureaucracy and the human relations theory are both significant for social work practice in Australia since they offer insightful guidelines for the establishment of a fundamental framework for governance and effective functioning of social work programs in the country. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy promotes organizational order in social work; hierarchy and rational-legal decision-making rules are essential in promoting quality of social work outcomes in service institutions. Presently, social workers face numerous challenges due to the contemporary policy developments via numerous contingent processes in welfare reform process, which promote ideals and rationalities that are not in tandem with those assumed by practitioners (Mcdonald & Chenoweth 2009, p.144). The human relations theory highlights that attitudes of social workers towards their workplace environment and their colleagues heavily influence how they relate with their clients; emphasis on the needs and interests of social workers is crucial in fostering positive client-worker relations, which are central to the effectiveness of human services. Overall, it is indeed true that the practice of social and welfare work in Australia is not only an organisational, but also a professional activity since both the organizational and individual determinants of the social workplace environment have a profound impact on effectiveness of service delivery. Both Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and Mayo’s human relations approach are significant in the analysis of social work organization in Australia since they provide a fundamental framework for social work practice in the country. Hierarchy and rational-legal decision-making rules are essential for enhancing the organization of social work in service institutions while a focus on the needs and interests of social workers is crucial in fostering positive client-worker relations, which are central to the effectiveness of human services. References Acker, J. (1990). ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.’ Gender and Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139-158. Beddoe, L. & Maidment, J. (2009). Mapping knowledge for social work practice, South Melbourne: Cengage Learning. Brown, G., & Green, R. (2009). Ensuring the future of rural social work in Australia. Rural Society, 19(4), 293-295.  Clegg, S and Dunkerley, D. (1980). Organization, Class and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Drummond, H. (2000). Introduction to organizational behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrow, E. & Hasenfeld Y. (2010). Theoretical approaches to Human service organizations. In Human Services as Complex Organizations (Second Edition), edited by Yeheskel Hasenfeld. Germov, J. (2005). Managerialism in the Australian public health sector: Towards the hyper-rationalisation of professional bureaucracies. Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 738-758. Gray, M. (2011). The changing face of social welfare and social work in Australia. Available at: http://periodika.osu.cz/eris/dok/2011-02/changing_welfare_gray.pdf Howe, B., & Howe, R. (2012). The influence of faith-based organisations on australian social policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 319-333,271. Hughes, M. & Wearing, M. (2007). Organisations and management in social work. London: Sage Publications. Ionescu, G. G., & Negrusa, A. L. (2013). Elton mayo, an enthusiastical managerial philosopher. Revista De Management Comparat International, 14(5), 671-688. Jones, A. & May, J. (1992). Working in human service organisations. Melbourne: Longman. Lounsbury, M & Carberry, EJ. (2005). ‘From king to court jester? Weber’s fall from grace in organizational theory’. Organization Studies, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 501-525. Mcdonald, C., & Chenoweth, L. (2009). (Re) shaping social work: An australian case study. British Journal of Social Work, 39(1), 144-160. Read More