82
Final Year Project On “Instrumentalism VS Humanism” SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER BB-03-06-3483 SUPERVISOR MR. RAJA RUB NAWAZ August 05 th , 2010 In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration

Humanism VS Instrumentalism

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

Final Year ProjectOn

“Instrumentalism VS Humanism”

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFERBB-03-06-3483

SUPERVISOR

MR. RAJA RUB NAWAZAugust 05th, 2010

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree ofBachelors of Business Administration

Department of Management SciencesPAKISTAN AIR FORCE

KARACHI INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY

Page 2: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LETTER OF APPROVAL

THESIS TITLE: “INSTRUMENTALISM VS HUMANISM”

By: SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

BB-03-06-3483

Thesis Supervisor: Mr. RAJA RUB NAWAZAcademic Year: 2010

The Board of Advanced Studies at PAF KIET has approved this Thesis, submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration.

Approval Committee:

Mr. RAJA RUB NAWAZ (Supervisor) (Director Academics)

2

Page 3: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

July 30th, 2010

Mr. RAJA RUB NAWAZ

Project Supervisor

PAF KIET

Dear Sir,

I am submitting the final project report on “INSTRUMENTALISM VS HUMANISM”. The report includes brief literature survey, methodology, data analysis and conclusion.

I am grateful for your guidance and supervision without which this assignment could have not been possible. I have tried my best to do justice with my topic. However any suggestion or query relating to the topic is always welcomed. If any matter pertaining further clarification, I would be glad to help.

Yours Sincerely,

_____________

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

3

Page 4: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION

July 30th, 2010

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

BB-03-06-3483

Please refer to your initial proposal for undertaking the study on “Instrumentalism Vs Humanism”. In the view of subsequent meetings, discussions, chances of availability of data, and scope and interest of this study, the initial proposal was finalized. Kindly initiate the study on the finalized Terms of Reference. (TOR)

Mr. RAJA RUB NAWAZ

Supervisor

4

Page 5: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  

Foremost, I am heartily thankful to Almighty Allah for blessing me with this opportunity. I would also like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz, whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the final level enabled me to develop an understanding of the subject.

I would like to thank my family, my parents Syed Jaffer and Syeda Jasmine Jaffer, for supporting me spiritually throughout my life. Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who supported me in any respect during the completion of the project.

Syeda Ilahdadi Tehseen Jaffer

5

Page 6: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

CONTENTSLETTER OF APPROVAL..................................................................................................................................2

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL............................................................................................................................3

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION........................................................................................................................4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................................................5

CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................................6

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................8

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................11

WHAT IS “HARD” AND “SOFT” HRM?....................................................................................................11

Table 1 DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTS USED IN RESEARCH................................................................12

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................................................13

THE RESEARCH INCLUDES......................................................................................................................13

PRELIMINARY DETAILS...........................................................................................................................13

LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................................14

PEOPLE AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE..............................................................................................16

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: PEOPLE, NOT EMPLOYEES.............................................................18

PEOPLE VERSUS TASK-ORIENTED COMPETENCIES................................................................................19

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS TEAM COMPETENCIES..........................................................................................19

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION TO DERIVE COMMITMENT........20

HYPOTHESIS...............................................................................................................................................22

METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................22

1. SAMPLING......................................................................................................................................22

Humanistic Frequencies Analysis.......................................................................................................22

Instrumental Frequencies Analysis....................................................................................................42

2. PROPOSITIONS...............................................................................................................................62

ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................................63

PAIRED SAMPLES T-Test........................................................................................................................63

RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................63

CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................64

APPENDIX A...............................................................................................................................................65

6

Page 7: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................65

APPENDIX B...............................................................................................................................................67

QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................................................67

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR HUMANISTIC SCALE......................................................................................68

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR INSTRUMENTAL SCALE..................................................................................68

APPENDIX C...............................................................................................................................................69

RÉSUMÉ.................................................................................................................................................69

INDEX.........................................................................................................................................................70

NOTES........................................................................................................................................................72

7

Page 8: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTS USED IN RESEARCH_____________________________________11TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RHETORIC AND REALITY______________________________________16TABLE 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR LOCUS OF HUMAN VALUE_____________________________20TABLE 4 HUMANISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE____________________________________________________66TABLE 5 INSTRUMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE_________________________________________________66

8

Page 9: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

9

Page 10: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

ABSTRACT

At the rhetorical level many organizations espouse the "soft" version of Human Resource Management (HRM) that focuses on treating employees as valued assets and a source of competitive advantage. However, organizational reality appears "hard" with an emphasis on the quantitative, calculative and strategic aspects of managing a "head count". The dichotomy of soft and hard HRM (termed Developmental Humanism and Utilitarian Instrumentalism) has been identified by Legge (1989) in her critique of the normative model of HRM.

There were two main hypotheses in this study

HO: There is No Difference between Humanism and Instrumentalism

H1: There is existence of a difference between Humanism and Instrumentalism

The method used in statistical testing is Paired Sample T-Test through SPSS, software used for statistical analysis. I compared the two variables.

After analyzing the literature review and research methodology it was concluded that my first hypothesis was accepted because employees do not find any difference between humanism and instrumentalism.

10

Page 11: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

INTRODUCTIONThis study examines the nature of the gap between Rhetoric (Developmental Humanism) and Reality (Utilitarian Instrumentalism) in workforce management using hard and soft models of Human Resource Management (HRM). It firstly explores the dichotomy of hard and soft HRM by examining the inherent contradictions in the widely accepted normative model of HRM. This study extends existing research in this area by operational sing hard and soft models of HRM to explore the gap between rhetoric and reality in organizations. This will contribute to the debate on the validity of normative HRM and on the efficacy of current organizational HRM practices.

WHAT IS “HARD” AND “SOFT” HRM? Hard” HRM embraces all those elements in employment relations laying emphasis on employee’s compliance, quantitative output, managers, task and the development of the organization. “Soft” HRM will tend to favor flexibility, negotiation, performance, quality, recognition of environments and rights in employment relations. It is more strategic and long term (Analoui, 1999). Another way of understanding soft and hard HRM is by looking at the debate between HRM and HR.

These two models were combined into a normative or prescriptive model of HRM which incorporates the policy goals of employee commitment to the organization’s goals based on the soft concept of HRM and strategic integration of HRM with the organization’s goals based on the hard concept of HRM (Guest 1989; Storey and Sisson 1993).

The concepts of hard and soft HRM are central to the arguments of the Critical Perspective. Legge (1995, p.66) explains that soft HRM (developmental humanism) emphasizes “the importance of integrating HRM policies and business objectives, the focus is on treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality skills and performance”. The stress is on collaboration, which is achieved through participation and generating commitment via communication, motivation and leadership. She explains that the hard model of HRM (utilitarian instrumentalism) focuses on the close integration of human resource policies and practices with business strategy. This model sees employees as a factor in the production process. Employees are considered passive and treated as numbers and skills that need to be deployed at the right price. They are an expense of doing business rather than a source of competitive advantage. The hard model is reminiscent of scientific management because rather than valuing employees as people, it reduces them to passive objects whose value is based on how well they can be used by the organization.

Truss et al. (1997) examined the following factors to determine whether organizations were using soft or hard models of HRM.

1. training received by employees and employee's perception of training and promotion opportunities (soft)

2. communication and trust between management and staff (soft)3. integration of HR and business strategy including performance management techniques

such as appraisal (hard)4. control over setting work targets (hard)5. organizational flexibility (hard)

11

Page 12: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Constructs Variables Definitions from Literature

Rhetoric Espoused theory The values, beliefs, and attitudes individuals express when questioned (Argyris & Kaplan, 1994)

Reality Theory in use The rules that individuals actually follow when they design and implement their actions questioned (Argyris & Kaplan, 1994)

Soft HRM Developmental Humanism

Whilst emphasizing the importance of integrating HR policies with business objectives, the focus is on treating employees as valued assets and a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality skill and performance. Employees are proactive rather than passive inputs in to productive processes, capable of development, worthy of trust and collaboration which is achieved through participation. The stress is on generating commitment via communication, motivation and leadership. The focus is on the "human" in HRM (Legge, 1995).

Hard HRM UtilitarianInstrumentalism

Stresses HRM's focus on the crucial importance of the close integration of human resource policies, systems and activities with business strategy. From this perspective human resources are largely a factor of production, an expense of doing business rather than the only resource capable of turning inanimate factors of production in to wealth. Human Resources are viewed as passive, to be provided and deployed as numbers and skills at the right price, rather than the source of creative energy. The focus is on the "resource" in HRM (Legge, 1995).

Table 1 DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTS USED IN RESEARCH

12

Page 13: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LIMITATION OF THE STUDYWe always come across certain limitations while we conduct a research. My research limitation includes:

1. Since my research is questionnaire based and the population required to fill the questionnaires were mostly business personnel, the difficultly I came across was getting hold of business personnel together to fill the questionnaires since they don’t have time.

2. I sent the questionnaires through email and most of my respondents didn’t reply to my emails.

THE RESEARCH INCLUDES1. Literature Review2. Methodology3. Findings/Analysis4. Conclusion

PRELIMINARY DETAILSSource of data: there are two source of my data: primary data i.e. observation from questionnaire and secondary data from books, journals and news papers.

13

Page 14: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

LITERATURE REVIEWIt was Peter and Waterman's (1982) publication of In Search of Excellence that rediscovered the importance of the human side of enterprise. In this was the discovery of competitive advantage through "excellence syndrome", or the idea that personnel policy must be linked to strategy and people are an asset (Keenoy, 1990). These concepts combined tight controls on results with autonomy in priorities, decisions and actions (Legge, 1995) These propositions were academically developed by Harvard University in its MBA program by Beer and others in 1985 and Michigan University by Fombrun and others in 1984. The ideas have been critically reworked since the late 1980s by Guest and Storey and Sisson (Drucker, White, Hegewisch & Mayne, 1996).

The ‘hard’ [‘utilitarian instrumentalism’] model stresses HRM’s focus on the crucial importance of the close integration of human resources policies, systems and activities with business strategy. …[T]he ‘soft’ ‘developmental humanism’ model, while still emphasizing the importance of integrating HR policies with business objectives, see this as involving treating the employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality (Legge, 2005: 105).

The Harvard model emphasized communications, team work and the utilization of individual talents (Poole & Mansfield, 1994). The Michigan school is a more strategic approach with a unitarist outlook, which endorses management's views (Hendry and Pettigrew, 1994).

Guest draws on the Harvard model, associated with soft HRM and the Michigan model, which proposes the hard HRM approach. Whilst acknowledging the differences between these approaches he incorporates both in to the all embracing normative HRM (Noon, 1994).The concept of normative HRM has been adopted by many organizations and has two common themes.

1. HR policies should be integrated with strategic business planning and used to reinforce or change an appropriate organizational culture

2. Human resources are valuable and a source of competitive advantage and are tapped most effectively through policies that promote commitment (Legge, 1995).

Hard HRM stresses the quantitative and calculative aspects of managing people in as rational a way as any other factor of production (Legge, 1998).Within hard HRM control is imposed on employees through external means such as performance systems (Legge, 1998). The assumptions that underlie planned change align with the notions of ‘hard’ HRM with a focus on control maintained at the senior levels of organizations. Conversely, soft HRM focuses on commitment, flexibility and quality where competitive advantage is seen as being maintained through the inimitability of human resources (Dunphy & Stace, 1991; Legge, 1998). Trust and communication are central to soft HRM and, as such, control is self-regulated (Story and Sisson, 1993 in Truss, 1999). Soft HRM practices include teamwork, flexible job design, training and development, involvement and ownership and performance linked to pay (Legge, 1998). Emergent change shares similar underlying tenets with soft HRM with a focus on devolved control throughout the organization.

14

Page 15: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Some authors have suggested that there are inherent contradictions within this normative theory of HRM.

Firstly, Normative HRM proposes that there is a simple, linear relationship between strategy and HRM. However, there are problems in the integration of HRM policy with business strategy and evidence indicates that HRM is more ad hoc than strategic. Whilst employment practices are changing there is doubt about the strategic focus of these changes. Current developments do not have a great deal of coherence and logic and initiatives are piecemeal (Blyton & Turnbull, 1994; Drucker et al., 1996; Storey, 1987). Ironically, Legge (1995, p. 40) explains that it is "the contradictions embedded in HRM that have facilitated the development of a rhetoric that may simultaneously render strategic action problematic".

Secondly, the unitary framework of normative HRM which elicits that what is good for the organization is good for employees is problematic as the needs of the business do not always coincide with the best interests of the workforce (Keenoy, 1990). Legge (1995) points out that treating employees as valued assets is not to the advantage of every organization, especially those competing on cost. On this basis the theory should not be put forward as normative.

Thirdly, within this single concept of normative HRM are embedded two models ofHRM that communicate the two opposite sets of assumptions of hard HRM and softHRM (Legge, 1995).

Hard HRM stresses the "resource" aspect of HRM; Legge refers to this as "Utilitarian Instrumentalism". This hard model stresses HRM's focus on the crucial importance of the close integration of human resource policies, systems and activities with business strategy. From this perspective human resources are largely a factor of production, an expense of doing business rather than the only resource capable of turning inanimate factors of production in to wealth. Human Resources are viewed as passive, to be provided and deployed as numbers and skills at the right price, rather than the source of creative energy (Legge, 1995, p.66-67).

Hard HRM is as calculative and tough minded as any other branch of management, communicating through the tough language of business and economics. This emphasis on the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing the "headcount" has been termed human asset accounting (Storey, 1987). The hard HRM approach has some kinship with scientific management as people are reduced to passive objects that are not cherished as a whole people but assessed on whether they possess the skills/attributes the organization requires (Legge, 1995; Vaughan, 1994; Storey, 1987; Drucker et al, 1996; Keenoy, 1990).

In contrast, soft HRM places an emphasis on "human" and is associated with the human relations school of Herzberg and McGregor (Storey, 1987). Legge refers to this as "Developmental Humanism" (Legge, 1995, p.66-67). Whilst emphasizing the importance of integrating HR policies with Business objectives, the soft model focuses on treating employees as valued assets and a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality skill and performance. Employees are proactive rather than passive inputs into productive processes, capable of development, worthy of trust and collaboration which is achieved through participation (Legge, 1995, pp 66-67).

15

Page 16: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The soft version is seen as a method of releasing untapped reserves of human resourcefulness by increasing employee commitment, participation and involvement. Employee commitment is sought with the expectation that effectiveness will follow as second-order consequences. Walton (1985, p. 79) suggests that "a model that assumes low employee commitment and that is designed to produce reliable if not outstanding performance simply cannot match the standards of excellence set by world-class competitors" and discusses the choice that managers have between a strategy based on imposing control and a strategy based on eliciting commitment.

It is evident that HRM does not provide a consistent set of policies and procedures, the distinction between hard and soft forms of HRM offer management two sharply contrasting alternatives within a supposedly single approach. Whilst hard and soft HRM both give weight to a link with strategy and the importance of people, different meanings are attributed to these components and different assumptions of human nature underlie each. This dichotomy is reminiscent of McGregor's views on managerial control strategies.

In 1960, he suggested that theory X managers believe that employees do not like work, whilst theory Y managers believe that "man will exercise self direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed" (Truss, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, McGovern & Stiles, 1997, p. 55). In a similar vein, Sullivan comments on Western Management theory that depicts two views of human nature. Modern man, who is law bound and must endure work in an exchange of value, whilst self bound hermeneutical man creates organizational reality and structures (rather than responds to them) in an exchange of meaning. Noon suggests that the dichotomy of hard and soft HRM manifests itself as a gap between rhetoric and reality (Noon, 1994).

PEOPLE AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGEThe term competitive advantage is used to describe “the attributes and resources of an organization that allows it to outperform others in the same industry or product market” (Chaharbaghi & Lynch, 1999, p. 45). According to Walker (1992, p. 35), a competitive advantage is a “fundamentally advantageous position from which to compete”, involving a success factor in the market “substantial enough to make a difference” and “sustainable in the face of changing conditions”. This success factor is gained by focusing on variables that distinguish organizations from their competitors (Walker, 1992). Thus, attaining a people-based a competitive advantage requires employees of a standard that clearly distinguishes organizations from their competitors. Jack Welch (in Van Vuuren, 1999, p. 1), former chief executive officer (CEO) of General Electric (GE),

16

Page 17: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

substantiated this by stating that “the only thing that will uphold a company’s competitive advantage tomorrow is the calibre of people in the organization”.

According to Barney (1991), resources must meet four criteria to be able to generate sustained competitive advantage: value, rarity, imperfect immutability, and non-substitutability whereas financial capital and technology fulfilled these criteria in the past, these resources “are now available to anyone who can buy [it]” (Handy, 1996, p. 180). Consequently, more organizations are finding that “their enduring source of competitive advantage rests within their human capital” (Heil et al., 2000, p. 4) - the “knowledge, experience, skills and energy of their people” (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000, p. 3). However, Human Capital Theory states that the market value of human potential can only be realized if employees co-operate (Jackson & Schuler, 1999). However, contemporary employees are motivated by interesting work that provide rewards in the form of “the freedom to

influence the nature of their jobs and pursue their own lifestyles” and have “a growing expectation that work will provide self-respect, nonmaterial rewards, and substantial opportunities for personal growth” (Shaw & Barry, 1997, p. 166). While managers “speak of efficiency, productivity and the bottom line; employees tend to talk about growth, satisfaction and contribution” (Kaye, 1999, p. 578). It is thus apparent that motivating people to elicit the cooperation necessary for achieving a competitive advantage is a significant challenge for the healthy organization.

According to Truss (1999), many of the assumptions underlying the soft approach to HRM can be traced back to Douglas McGregor’s ‘Theory Y’. McGregor was a pioneer in applying the behavioral sciences and humanistic principles to the organization (Heil et al., 2000), and his works are commonly regarded as landmark contributions to the “entire field of management” (Bennis, 2000, p. 168). His most famous work, ‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’, is subsequently discussed, as it is believed

17

Table 2 Difference between Rhetoric and Reality

Page 18: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

that this may further demonstrate how humanistic/existential principles can assist contemporary leaders in achieving a people-based competitive advantage.

Briefly, McGregor (1969a, 1969b, 2000b) asserted that managers’ views of human nature are based on two groupings of assumptions; groupings he called ‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’. These assumptions (see table 4.1 below) were believed to determine the nature of managerial behavior towards subordinates. McGregor argued that if managers change their assumptions about, and thus their behavior towards people, organizational success can be promoted, as managers that hold Theory Y assumptions contribute to both employees’ self-actualization and to the reaching of organizational objectives. The importance of leaders taking these prescriptions into consideration when attempting to achieve a people-based competitive advantage is apparent.

Folger and Scarlicki (1999) raise an important concern with regard to the prescriptions of McGregor – the sincerity of leaders. These authors warn that “employees see right through the manipulative attempts to apply fair, humane, and sensitive treatment – conduct that vouchsafes each person’s dignity, treating no one merely as means but always and ends also – as a mere ruse for disguising ulterior motives” (p. 46). Heil et al. (1999) support this perspective by contending that leaders should not act as if they hold Theory Y assumptions if they do not, as employees will undoubtedly realize their deception. Such a realization can negatively affect employees’ trust in have in leaders; trust that is central to achieving a people-centered competitive advantage.

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: PEOPLE, NOT EMPLOYEESAccording to Lundy and Cowling (1996), organizational effectiveness refers to the success of the organization in a specific context. Throughout this essay, it has been contended that such success can be attained by means of a people-based competitive advantage. However, management guru Peter Drucker (2002) argues that due to problems and costs that accompany employee administration and management in the contemporary context, “Employers no longer chant the old mantra “People are our greatest asset.” Instead, they claim “People are our greatest liability” (p. 74). The potentially deprecating effect of this perspective on the aim of this essay is evident. Nevertheless, Drucker’s (2002) response eliminates this threat:”Employees may be our greatest liability, but people are our greatest opportunity” (p. 77).

Byars and Rue (2000) contends that the management of the organization’s HR is the responsibility of all managers. The HRM function is seen as responsible for assistance in people related issues, specifically in terms of providing specific services, advice and co-ordination. In this regard, Hope Hailey (1999) identifies a potential stage of HRM evolution called “Integrated HRM” (p. 129). Here, “people management as a source of competitive advantage is integrated within mainstream management thought” (p. 130), which implies the integration of HRM into strategy, and HRM serving as an internal consultant that provides specialist advice. This Integrated HRM approach may serve as a model for the application of humanistic/existential principles to strategy. All managers should be knowledgeable of these principles to an extent that allows for the provision of an environment that facilitates individual growth and the finding of meaning. The HR manager, as an expert on human behavior and processes, should serve as an internal consultant, providing the necessary services and advice for the successful creation of such an environment. In so doing, organizational effectiveness may be optimized, as the potential of people will be fully utilized as a competitive advantage.

18

Page 19: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

PEOPLE VERSUS TASK-ORIENTED COMPETENCIESThe person versus task dichotomy represents another lively debate. Bergenhenegouwen et al. (1996) argue, in the managerial context, that managers must possess both a range of personal competencies and task competencies to perform effectively. They must also possess the vision to encourage the development of personal and task competencies among subordinates. The argument runs along the lines that such a perspective allows employees to share a common vision of the organization and permits organizations to link resource requirements to business strategies. However, it is argued that competency models do not specify the balance between these two sets of competencies. This represents a significant drawback because it in turn inhibits the potential of workplace learning to correct any imbalance between the two sets. Currie et al. (1995) posits that competency models fail to provide a weighting system, which would allow organizations to priorities competencies. Consequently, all competencies carry equal importance. A production manager may be more focused on task-oriented competencies, whereas a sales manager may be more concerned with enhancing person-oriented competencies.

The balance between person- and task-oriented competencies will vary according to the organizational and industry context. Nordhaug (1998) suggests that person-centered competencies can be called meta-competencies because they encompass a broad range of personal skills and aptitudes, such as creativity, ability to communicate and to cooperate with others, the capacity to tolerate and master uncertainty and the ability to adjust to change. Van der Wagen (1994) highlights the importance of person-oriented competencies in the service industry, which is heavily dependent on customers and service quality. This led her to suggest that the focus of future research should be on the development of competency frameworks for industry segments.

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS TEAM COMPETENCIESThe unit of analysis utilized in the competency literature is the individual; in more recent years the organizational level of analysis is more pronounced in the organizational behavior literature. Increasingly, the emphasis in the literature and in organizational practice is on the development of teams at all levels within the organization (Prager, 1999; Taggar, Hachell & Saha, 1999). Strategic decisions are no longer taken by individuals acting alone, but by teams. Kakabadse & Anderson (1993) argues that the prevalence of mergers, the focus on product and service quality and customer care and orientation suggests that teams are now the unit of focus for learning interventions, not individuals. Top-team composition is currently an important issue within the HRM/D literature. Boam & Sparrow (1992) posit that organizations should consider top teams in terms of a bundle of competencies, rather than seeking out individuals who each fit a desired competency profile. Overmeer (1997) predicts that collections of individuals, who have conflicting norms of performance, may result in the creation of an organization-based action bias. Havaleschka (1999) posits that organizational success is often contingent on the proper cohesion of top team members and the mix of competencies, which these individuals possess. In agreement, Alderson (1993) identifies six behavioral competencies essential for organizational success:

• Good interpersonal relationships among team members• Capacity for openness and willingness to discuss issues• High levels of trust among team members• Discipline and cohesion in decision-making• Capacity to discuss and understand both long and short-term issues

While studies reveal that the correct identification and implementation of generic team competencies can lead to more effective organizational outcomes (Winterton & Winterton 1999;

19

Page 20: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Hoerr 1989; Shea & Guzzo 1987), little work to date focuses on the individual competencies that team members should possess and the optimum mix of individual competencies within a team.

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION TO DERIVE COMMITMENTTruss and her colleagues (1997) focused on the soft versions' assumption that commitment will be generated if employees are allowed to work autonomously and have control over their work and that individuals are worthy of trust and discretion. The soft model also suggests extensive use of communication with employees as a mechanism to maximize commitment. Consequently this variable has been operationalized by looking for any references made to employee involvement, autonomy, decision making and communication. Share ownership was also inc luded as it is an initiative to involve employees in the business.

Many organizations referred to strategies that elicited commitment from workers. References were made to the empowerment of employees via decision making devolvement; however, particular reference was made to share scheme participation. The extract below illustrates a direct reference made to this variable.

"Employees are encouraged to develop their contribution to the business both in the context of their particular job roles and wherever they work. In many areas ongoing programs, focusing on quality and customer service, provide an opportunity for all employees to be involved in making improvements. Financial participation is further encouraged through a variety of share schemes that provide employees with a direct stake in the growth and prosperity of the business. In addition the Group communicates with its employees about its activities through a variety of channels" (Cadbury Schweppes).

However, as found in the study by Truss et al., whilst at a rhetorical level, many organizations embrace the tenets of the soft version of HRM; they have the dual aim of improved competitive advantage. This is illustrated in the extract above by the explicit reference made to "contribution to the business".

20

Page 21: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

HYPOTHESIS

H0: There is No Difference between Humanism and Instrumentalism

H1: There is existence of a difference between Humanism and Instrumentalism

METHODOLOGY

21

Table 3 Conceptual framework for locus of human value

Page 22: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

1. SAMPLING

Humanistic Frequencies Analysis

An organization should be mainly concerned with people

Statistics

An organization should be mainly concerned with people200

0

5

1.416

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

An organization should be mainly concerned with people

33 16.5 16.5 16.5

41 20.5 20.5 37.0

37 18.5 18.5 55.5

42 21.0 21.0 76.5

47 23.5 23.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

22

Page 23: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An organization should be mainly concerned with people

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

An organization should be mainly concerned with people

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 23.5% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

23

Page 24: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor

It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor

37 18.5 18.5 18.5

45 22.5 22.5 41.0

39 19.5 19.5 60.5

37 18.5 18.5 79.0

42 21.0 21.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

24

Statistics

It is the people in an organization whichare the most important factor

200

0

2

1.414

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

Page 25: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 22.5% of respondents disagree with the statement under discussion.

25

Page 26: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the people within it

Statistics

The main objective of any organization shouldbe the fulfillment of the people within it

200

0

4

1.421

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the peoplewithin it

41 20.5 20.5 20.5

37 18.5 18.5 39.0

35 17.5 17.5 56.5

49 24.5 24.5 81.0

38 19.0 19.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

26

Page 27: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the people within it

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the people within it

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 24.5% of respondents agree with the statement under discussion.

27

Page 28: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his own right

Statistics

A person in an organization should be valuedmainly as a person in her or his own right

200

0

5

1.486

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his ownright

39 19.5 19.5 19.5

34 17.0 17.0 36.5

37 18.5 18.5 55.0

35 17.5 17.5 72.5

55 27.5 27.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

28

Page 29: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his own right

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his own right

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 27.5% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

29

Page 30: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be completely democratic

Statistics

Organizations should be completely democratic200

0

2

1.421

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

Organizations should be completely democratic

38 19.0 19.0 19.0

45 22.5 22.5 41.5

35 17.5 17.5 59.0

41 20.5 20.5 79.5

41 20.5 20.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

30

Page 31: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be completely democratic

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

Organizations should be completely democratic

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 22.5% of respondents disagree with the statement under discussion.

31

Page 32: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members

Statistics

The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members200

0

3

1.330

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members

37 18.5 18.5 18.5

47 23.5 23.5 42.0

52 26.0 26.0 68.0

32 16.0 16.0 84.0

32 16.0 16.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

32

Page 33: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 26% of respondents neither agree nor disagree with the statement under discussion.

33

Page 34: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the people who work in it

Statistics

An organization should be seen primarily as a meansof obtaining the objectives of the people who work in it

200

0

4

1.376

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives ofthe people who work in it

39 19.5 19.5 19.5

34 17.0 17.0 36.5

42 21.0 21.0 57.5

51 25.5 25.5 83.0

34 17.0 17.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

34

Page 35: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the people who work in it

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the people who work in it

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 25.5% of respondents agree with the statement under discussion.

35

Page 36: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affect them

Statistics

Employees should always be consultedabout important decisions which affect them

200

0

5

1.422

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affectthem

33 16.5 16.5 16.5

42 21.0 21.0 37.5

44 22.0 22.0 59.5

31 15.5 15.5 75.0

50 25.0 25.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

36

Page 37: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affect them

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affect them

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 25% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

37

Page 38: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations

Statistics

Organizations should be seen primarily asa network of human relations

200

0

2a

1.427

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is showna.

Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations

40 20.0 20.0 20.0

41 20.5 20.5 40.5

38 19.0 19.0 59.5

40 20.0 20.0 79.5

41 20.5 20.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

38

Page 39: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 41% of respondents strongly agree and disagree with the statement under discussion.

39

Page 40: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty

Statistics

People should be rewarded inorganizations according to their loyalty

200

0

5

1.415

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty

32 16.0 16.0 16.0

41 20.5 20.5 36.5

40 20.0 20.0 56.5

38 19.0 19.0 75.5

49 24.5 24.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

40

Page 41: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 24.5% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

41

Page 42: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Instrumental Frequencies Analysis

It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor

Statistics

It is the results of an organization whichare the most important factor

200

0

5

1.470

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor

40 20.0 20.0 20.0

37 18.5 18.5 38.5

35 17.5 17.5 56.0

39 19.5 19.5 75.5

49 24.5 24.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

42

Page 43: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 24.5% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

43

Page 44: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity

Statistics

An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity200

0

1

1.448

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity

44 22.0 22.0 22.0

36 18.0 18.0 40.0

38 19.0 19.0 59.0

41 20.5 20.5 79.5

41 20.5 20.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

44

Page 45: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 22% of respondents strongly disagree with the statement under discussion.

45

Page 46: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be primarily concerned with results

Statistics

Organizations should be primarily concerned with results200

0

1

1.465

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

Organizations should be primarily concerned with results

52 26.0 26.0 26.0

37 18.5 18.5 44.5

41 20.5 20.5 65.0

31 15.5 15.5 80.5

39 19.5 19.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

46

Page 47: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Organizations should be primarily concerned with results

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

Organizations should be primarily concerned with results

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 26% of respondents strongly disagree with the statement under discussion.

47

Page 48: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for the organization

Statistics

The main value of a person in an organizationis to achieve results for the organization

200

0

4

1.360

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for theorganization

30 15.0 15.0 15.0

37 18.5 18.5 33.5

41 20.5 20.5 54.0

50 25.0 25.0 79.0

42 21.0 21.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

48

Page 49: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for the organization

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for the organization

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 25% of respondents agree with the statement under discussion.

49

Page 50: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The whole point of an organization is to make money

Statistics

The whole point of an organization is to make money200

0

5

1.403

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

The whole point of an organization is to make money

32 16.0 16.0 16.0

44 22.0 22.0 38.0

40 20.0 20.0 58.0

38 19.0 19.0 77.0

46 23.0 23.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

50

Page 51: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

The whole point of an organization is to make money

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

The whole point of an organization is to make money

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 23% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

51

Page 52: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the organization

Statistics

An employee in an organization should be seen primarilyas a means of obtaining the objectives of the organization

200

0

3

1.354

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtainingthe objectives of the organization

36 18.0 18.0 18.0

41 20.5 20.5 38.5

51 25.5 25.5 64.0

36 18.0 18.0 82.0

36 18.0 18.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

52

Page 53: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the organization

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the organization

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 25.5% of respondents neither agree nor disagree with the statement under discussion.

53

Page 54: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results

Statistics

People should be rewarded inorganizations for achieving results

200

0

2

1.374

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results

30 15.0 15.0 15.0

53 26.5 26.5 41.5

43 21.5 21.5 63.0

31 15.5 15.5 78.5

43 21.5 21.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

54

Page 55: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 26.5% of respondents disagree with the statement under discussion.

55

Page 56: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

There is no place for democracy in organizations

Statistics

There is no place for democracy in organizations200

0

2

1.430

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

There is no place for democracy in organizations

46 23.0 23.0 23.0

49 24.5 24.5 47.5

36 18.0 18.0 65.5

32 16.0 16.0 81.5

37 18.5 18.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

56

Page 57: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

There is no place for democracy in organizations

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

There is no place for democracy in organizations

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 24.5% of respondents disagree with the statement under discussion.

57

Page 58: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them

Statistics

It is always best to tell employees aboutdecisions which will affect them

200

0

5

1.413

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them

35 17.5 17.5 17.5

39 19.5 19.5 37.0

40 20.0 20.0 57.0

41 20.5 20.5 77.5

45 22.5 22.5 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

58

Page 59: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

25

20

15

10

5

0

It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 22.5% of respondents strongly agree with the statement under discussion.

59

Page 60: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like any other resource, such as money, machinery or buildings

Statistics

People should be regarded primarily as aresource in an organization just like any otherresource, such as money, machinery or buildings

200

0

1

1.505

Valid

Missing

N

Mode

Std. Deviation

People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like anyother resource, such as money, machinery or buildings

52 26.0 26.0 26.0

33 16.5 16.5 42.5

36 18.0 18.0 60.5

35 17.5 17.5 78.0

44 22.0 22.0 100.0

200 100.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

60

Page 61: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like any other resource, such as money, machinery or buildings

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree Nor Disagree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Per

cen

t

30

20

10

0

People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like any other resource, such as money, machinery or buildings

INTERPRETATION:From the above tables and chart, it is obvious that 26% of respondents strongly disagree with the statement under discussion.

61

Page 62: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

2. PROPOSITIONSProposition 1: Humanism and instrumentalism will be moderately positively correlated.The first hypothesis focuses on the relationship between the two potentially opposing loci of human value; these are as follows.

• An instrumental view of the utilitarian value of people in organizations (managing people as a resource), whereby people are seen as a means to an end: Human resources are used to meet the executive objectives of the organization (Jackson, 1999); and

• A humanistic view of the intrinsic value of people in their own right (developing the potential of people in organizations as an end in itself), whereby people are seen as having a value for who they are, rather than what they can do for the organization (Jackson 1999; Koopman, 1991; Lessern, 1994; Saunders, 1998).

This logical assumption however indicates that humanism and instrumentalism are not negatively correlated (although they could be positively correlated), and that one is not a predictor, nor an explanation of the other. Thus,

Proposition 2: The level of instrumentalism demonstrates negative relationship between employee commitment and organizational objectives.

Proposition 3: The level of humanism demonstrates a positive relationship between job satisfaction and performance.

62

Page 63: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

ANALYSIS

PAIRED SAMPLES T-Test

Paired Samples Statistics

3.05 200 .419 .030

3.01 200 .442 .031

Human_SM

Instru_SM

Pair 1Mean N Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

Paired Samples Correlations

200 .124 .080Human_SM & Instru_SMPair 1N Correlation Sig.

Paired Samples Test

.045 .570 .040 -.035 .124 1.109 199 .269Human_SM - Instru_SMPair 1Mean Std. Deviation

Std. ErrorMean Lower Upper

95% ConfidenceInterval of the Difference

Paired Differences

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

RESULTSPaired Sample T-Test is used here. The null hypothesis specifies that the mean will remain unchanged since there is no difference between humanism and instrumentalism. The significant value is greater than 0.05 therefore ACCEPT Ho.

If significant value is 0.269>0.05 ACCEPT Ho

63

Page 64: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there is no such difference between instrumentalism and humanism. When interviewed equal number of employees thought that there is no such difference. This study found that organizations focus on treating employees as valued assets and a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality skill and performance. Humanism stresses on generating commitment via communication, motivation and leadership whereas instrumentalism stresses on deploying human resources as numbers and skills at the right price rather than the source of creative energy.

I have used Paired Sample T-Test, where the significant value was 0.269 and this is greater than 0.05 which proves that there is no difference between instrumentalism and humanism.

64

Page 65: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

APPENDIX A

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan G. Bluman Elementary Statistics, A step by step approach

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Ills, D. Q., and Walton, R. E., (1985). ‘Human resource management: A General Manager’s Perspective’. New York: Free Press.

Blyton, P. and Tumbull, P. (eds) (1992).’Reassessing Human Resource Management’. London: Sage. 

Boxall, P. (1996). ‘The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm’. Human resource management Journal, 6, 3, 59-75.

Carol Gill (1999) Use of Hard and Soft Models of HRM to illustrate the gap between Rhetoric and Reality in Workforce Management, School of Management

Cully, M., O’Reilly, A., Millward, N. et al. (1998). ’The 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey: First Findings’. London: DTL.

Francis, H. and Keegan, A. (2006). ‘The changing face of HR: in search of balance’. Human Resource Management Journal, 16, 3, 231–49. 

Jackson, T (1998) Managing Change in South Africa: Developing People and Organizations,International Journal of Human Resource Management, in press.

Jackson, T. (1991) Measuring Management Performance, London: Kogan Page.

Jackson, T. and Bak, M. (1998) Foreign companies and Chinese workers: employee motivation in thePeople’s Republic of China, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11, No. 4,pp. 282-300.

Koopman, A (1991) Transcultural Management, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Legge, K. (1989) Human resource management: a critical analysis, in J. Storey (ed) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, London: Routledge, 1989.

Noon, M. (1994) 'HRM: a map, model or theory?', in P. Blyton and P. Turnbull (eds),Reassessing Human Resource Management, London: Sage, 16-32.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982) In Search of Excellence, Lessons fromAmerica's Best Run Companies, New York: Harper and Row.

Poole, M. and Mansfield, R. (1994) 'Managers' attitudes to Human ResourceManagement: Rhetoric and Reality', in P. Blyton and P. Turnbull (eds), ReassessingHuman Resource Management, London: Sage, 200-214.

65

Page 66: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Purcell, J. and Gray, A. (1986) 'Corporate personnel departments and the managementof industrial relations: two case studies in ambiguity', Journal of Management Studies,23, 2, 205-223.

Ryan, L. & Macky, K.A. (1998) ' Downsizing organisations: uses, outcomes andstrategies', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36, 2, 29-45.

Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1986) Evaluating the Personnel Function, London: Hutchinson.

Vaughan, E. (1994) The trial between sense and sentiment: a reflection on the language of HRM,Journal of General Management, 19, 20-32.

Thurley, K. and Wood, S. (eds) (1983) Industrial Relations and ManagementStrategy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P., and Stiles, P. (1997) 'Soft andhard models of human resource management: a reappraisal', Journal of ManagementStudies, 34, 1, 53-73.

66

Page 67: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIREMy name is Syeda Ilahdadi Tehseen Jaffer a student of BBA at PAF-KIET doing my final year project under Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz. This questionnaire is basically a way to expand knowledge on Instrumentalism and Humanism in organizations established in Pakistan. I understand that you operate a business enterprise; your responses to this questionnaire will be most helpful.Email contact: [email protected]

EXAMPLEThe rating scale used for this questionnaire is from 1-5 where

1. Strongly disagree2. Disagree3. Neither agree nor disagree4. Agree5. Strongly agree

The respondent only has to write the number in front of the questionFor example: I enjoy while doing job. ____4_____

Please type/encircle your choice

1. Sectors o Manufacturingo Services o Consumer goodso Commodity goodso Others , please specify

2. The business you are in o Sole proprietorshipo Partnership

3. Life span of your organizationo 5 yearso 7 yearso 10 years

67

Page 68: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

o More than 10 years

4. How many successions have taken place in your organizationo Yes o No

5. What is your specific level of education in your organization?o Under graduateo Graduateo Masters o Other

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR HUMANISTIC SCALEQuestions Your rating

1 An organization should be mainly concerned with people 1 2 3 4 52 It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor 1 2 3 4 53 The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the people within it 1 2 3 4 54 A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his own right 1 2 3 4 55 Organizations should be completely democratic 1 2 3 4 56 The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members 1 2 3 4 57 An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the

people who work in it1 2 3 4 5

8 Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affect them 1 2 3 4 59 Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations 1 2 3 4 510 People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty 1 2 3 4 5Table 4 Humanistic Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR INSTRUMENTAL SCALEQuestions Your rating

1 It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor 1 2 3 4 52 An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity 1 2 3 4 53 Organizations should be primarily concerned with results 1 2 3 4 54 The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for the organization 1 2 3 4 55 The whole point of an organization is to make money 1 2 3 4 56 An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the

objectives of the organization1 2 3 4 5

7 People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results 1 2 3 4 58 There is no place for democracy in organizations 1 2 3 4 59 It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them 1 2 3 4 510 People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like any other

resource, such as money, machinery or buildings1 2 3 4 5

Table 5 Instrumental Questionnaire

68

Page 69: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

APPENDIX C

RÉSUMÉ

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER2nd Floor, 44-B Commercial Area-A Phase II DHA, Karachi.Tel# (Res.) 3538-0161E-Mail: [email protected] No. of courses completed at KIET: 43

AREA OF INTEREST: Human Resource Management and Marketing

ACADEMIC EDUCATION:[BBA 4year] [PAF- Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology] [CGPA 3.39] [Intermediate] [College of Accounting and Management Science] [Grade A][O-Levels] [St. Michael’s Convent School] [Grade B]

WORK EXPERIENCE:[Aug 09-Dec 09] [Dawn News TV] [Internee for twenty weeks][June 2009] [United Bank Limited] [Internee for six weeks] [June 2007] [The Citizen’s Foundation] [Volunteer][Aug 2002] [St. Andrews School] [Teacher]

FINAL YEAR PROJECTS:[Humanism vs. Instrumentalism – Soft and Hard human resource management Final Year Project 2010]

TERM REPORTS AND PROJECTS:[Bosicor and their Recruitments 2009- Now Byco][Functional Strategies Analysis of Colgate Palmolive – 2009][External Debt and Liabilities of Pakistan FY08 – 2009][Juice Brand Launch in Gulf 2009][Process Automation at A Regalia Ltd 2008][Disaster Recovery Database Management at Faisal Bank 2008][Marketing Plan of Mercedes Benz 2008][Financial Analysis of Exide 2008][Ethics in Advertising 2008][Advertising Plan for Coca Cola 2008]

COMPUTER SKILLS: Efficient and effective usage of MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Acrobat, Final Cut Pro. Photography and Movie making.

ACHIEVEMENTS: Legal Advisor, The KIET Music Society, PAF KIET Spring’09 Organizer, St. Michael’s Convent School Farewell Party 2001 Disaster Day Projects, St. Michael’s Convent School 2000-02 Dramatics, St. Michael’s Convent School Feast Day, 2000-02 Elocution Contests 1999-2002 Membership WWF 1997-98 Arts Competitions 1997-2002

69

Page 70: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

INDEX

A

Allan G. Bluman_________________________________64Analoui________________________________________10

B

Barney________________________________________16business strategies______________________________18business strategy_______________________10, 11, 13, 14

C

Chaharbaghi____________________________________15commitment_______________10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 61, 63competitive advantage_9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20,

63contemporary employees_________________________17

D

Developmental Humanism________________9, 10, 11, 14Drucker_________________________________13, 14, 17

E

employees__9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 57, 63, 67

G

General Electric_________________________________16Gratton_____________________________________15, 65

H

Hard HRM_______________________________11, 13, 14Harvard model_________________________________13Hendry________________________________________13Hoerr_________________________________________19Hope-Hailey_________________________________15, 65

HR policies_______________________________11, 13, 14human relations__________________________14, 37, 67humanism_______________________9, 10, 13, 61, 62, 63Humanism_______________1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 21, 61, 63, 66, 68humanistic_______________________________17, 18, 61

I

instrumental___________________________________61instrumentalism__________________9, 10, 13, 61, 62, 63Instrumentalism_____________1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 21, 66, 68Integrated HRM_________________________________18INTRODUCTION__________________________________10

J

Jack Welch_____________________________________16

K

Koopman___________________________________61, 64

L

Legge___________________________9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 64Lessern________________________________________61Lynch_________________________________________15

M

McGovern___________________________________15, 65McGregor________________________________14, 15, 17McGregor’s ‘Theory______________________________17methodology__________________________________3, 9

N

negative relationship____________________________61nonmaterial rewards____________________________17Noon____________________________________13, 15, 64normative HRM___________________________10, 13, 14

70

Page 71: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

Normative HRM_________________________________14

O

opportunities________________________________10, 17organization_10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 41,

43, 47, 49, 51, 59, 61, 66, 67ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS___________________17organizational flexibility__________________________10organizational reality__________________________9, 15

P

people-centered________________________________17Peter and Waterman's___________________________13Pettigrew______________________________________13positive relationship_____________________________61

R

resource_____________10, 11, 14, 18, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68rhetorical____________________________________9, 20

S

Soft HRM___________________________________11, 14

strategy______________________________13, 14, 15, 18Sullivan________________________________________15

T

TASK-ORIENTED COMPETENCIES____________________18team members__________________________________19Theory X_______________________________________17Theory Y_______________________________________17Theory Y’______________________________________17training_____________________________________10, 14Truss________________________10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 65

U

Utilitarian Instrumentalism__________________9, 10, 14

V

value___________________8, 10, 15, 16, 47, 61, 62, 63, 67value of human_________________________________17

W

Walker________________________________________15

71

Page 72: Humanism VS Instrumentalism

SYEDA ILAHDADI TEHSEEN JAFFER

NOTES

72