UGC NET/JRF EXAM, June-2019* Labour and Social Welfare

Blake and Mouton use the two dimensions of "concern for people" and "concern for production" (basically the same as the "consideration" and "initiating structure" styles) to create a grid that identifies five different leadership styles. The five styles are:

1. Impoverished (low concern for both production and people).
2. Country club (high concern for people, low concern for production).
3. Authority compliance managementsometimes called "produce or perish" (low concern for people, high concern for production).
4. Team leader (high concern for both production and people), and
5. Middle-of-the-road (a compromise position that maintains the status quo by focusing on production without overlooking team morale).

According to George R. Terry, 'Management is a distinct process consisting of planning, organizing, actuating, and controlling, performed to determine and accomplish the objectives by the use of people and resources.'

Reviewing the definitions, it can be observed that management basically converges on accomplishing goals and objectives through the efforts of people. Further reviewing reveals that the definition of management has following different dimensions:

(a) Productivity Orientation: Frederick Winslow Taylor and John F. Mee have pioneered this concept. Their definitions are primarily concerned with increased productivity.

(b) Human Relations' Orientation: This concept was pioneered by Lawrence A. Appley and Harold Knootz. Their definitions of management primarily lays emphasis on people.

(c) Decision-making Orientation: Definitions under this category focus on decision making as primary management function. Ross Moore and Stanley Vance pioneered this concept.

(d) Leadership Orientation: Leadership as essence of management has been highlighted by the proponents of this concept. Donald J. Clough and Ralph C. Davis are two pioneers, who relate management with leadership.

(e) Process Orientation: Management as a process has been defined by numerous authors like James L. Lundy, Dalton, E. McFarland, Howard, M. Carlisle, F.E.L. Brech, Robert L. Trewatha, M. Gene Newport and George R. Terry.

The unitary perspective is based on the assumptions that the organisation is, or if it is not, then it should be, an integrated group of people with a single authority/loyalty structure and a set of common values, interests and objectives shared by all members of the organisation.

Management's prerogative (i.e., its right to manage, make decisions) is regarded as legitimate, rational and accepted and any opposition to it (whether formal or informal, internal or external) is seen as irrational.

The organisation is not, therefore, regarded as a 'them and us' situation-as Farnham and Pimlott put it.

There is "no conflict between the interests of those supplying capital to the enterprises and their managerial representatives, and those contributing their labour.....the owners of capital and labour are but complementary partners to the common aims of production, profits and pay in which everyone in the organisation has a stake".

The underlying assumption of this view, therefore, is that the organisational system is in basic harmony and conflict is unnecessary and exceptional.

This has two important implications:

• Conflict (i.e., the expression of employee dissatisfaction and differences with management) is perceived as an irrational activity.
• Trade Unions are regarded as intrusions into the organisation from outside which compete with management for the loyalty of employees.

The unitary perspective is found predominantly amongst managers-particularly line-management-and, therefore, is often regarded as a management ideology. Fox has argued that management clings to this view because:

(i) It legitimises its authority-role by projecting the interests of management and employees as being the same and by emphasising management's role of 'governing' in the best interests of the organisation, as a whole;

(ii) It reassures managers by confirming that conflict (dissatisfaction), where it exists, is largely the fault of the government rather than the management;

(iii) It may be projected to the outside world as a means of persuading them that the management's decisions and actions are right and the best in the circumstances and that any challenge to them is, at best, misguided or, at worst, subversive.

MRP reflects the value or contribution of each additional worker because MRP is the increase in total revenue produced by hiring each additional worker. The profitmaximizing producer selects the level of output where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.

Similarly, the monopsonist in the labour market hires the quantity of labour at which the marginal revenue product of labour equals its marginal factor cost. Monopsony is a labour market in whicha single firm hires labour.

Because the monopsonist faces the industry supply curve of labour and each worker is paid the same wage, changes in total wage cost exceed the wage rate necessary to hire each additional worker.

As a result, the marginal factor cost (MFC) of labour curve, which measures changes in total wage cost per worker, lies above the supply curve of labour. The monopsonist's wage rate and quantity of labour are determined where the MFC equals MRP. Since at this point the worker's MRP is greater than the wage paid, the monopsonist exploits workers.

Working conditions that threaten the lives of mine workers flout the laws of the country. Safety at work is a constitutional imperative. The health of mine workers is a collective responsibility of the Stae, employers and employees, but the primary responsibility for ensuring an environment conducive to good health and safety at workplace is that of the employer.

Responsibility of occupier: Under the Factories Act, 1948, the responsibility for safety has been placed squarely on the shoulders of the occupier. In other words, the occupier must comply with the safety provisions of the Act without waiting for an inspector to visit and give instructions for what ought to be done. Safety is thus primarily the responsibility of the management.

Responsibility of functional manager: This responsibility should rest on the shoulders of all cadres of management, such as, plant manager, production manager, chief engineer, purchasing agent, physician, personnel manager, maintenance engineer, individual foreman, safety officer/engineer/director.

Responsibility of personnel department

1. Promotion of safety management: Planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling and communicating all matters and policies relating .to accident prevention and safety.

2. The removal of undesirable safety habits by convincing the people and by appealing to them at the state of induction, training or personal interviews.

3. Proper selection of the employees through psychological tests, proper care in placement on the job, and periodical physical examination for preventing accidents.

The causes of industrial accidents can be in the environment around the workplace or within the work environment.

External causes of industrial accidents may include fires, chemical spills, toxic gas emissions or radiations. The causes of industrial accidents in these cases may include organizational errors, human factors, abnormal operational conditions, natural forces, software or component failures and outside interference.

Internal causes of industrial accidents may involve equipment or other work-related tangibles, harmful materials, toxic chemicals and human error. The causes of accidents can also be broadly divided into the following five groups:

1. Technical causes: These are defective and worn-out machinery, poor maintenance, lack of precautions like safeguards, fencing of dangerous machines, wrong and bad layout, rooms crowded with machines, raw materials and waste products, neglect in housekeeping and working conditions.

2. Personel causes: These include improper recruitment, selection and placement in industries, personal and social factors like carelessness, ignorance, inadequate skill, improper supervisions, relationship with the supervisor and other colleagues, and family problems.

3. Psychological causes: Psychological, mental and emotional imbalances are at the root of several accidents. It is wellknown that emotionally disturbed or mentally pre-occupied persons meet with accidents and face fatigue, tiredness, overwork, monotony, boredom, and lack of self-confidence.

4. Non-observance of safety rules: The predominant cause of accidents is the sheer non-observance of industrial safety rules.

5. Miscellaneous causes:
(a) Inability of the workers to grasp the implications of a process.
(b) Neglect of safety regulations by workers and their reluctance to use safety equipment.
(c) Haste on the part of the workers, particularly when they are on incentive payment schemes.
(d) Liberal attitude taken by the ESI doctors in certification of accident injuries.

The Harvard model: This model is called a stakeholder model by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) because the decisions inside the organization are not made independent of stakeholder interests.

Managers have to take into consideration these and the context where the organization operates. In this respect this model deviates from the universalism of the best-practice model, because it regards context as a moderating variable.

HR policies adopted by the organization are influenced by:

• Shareholders
• Management
• Employees
• Government
• Community

Trade unions as stakeholders. And:

• Management philosophy
• Labour market conditions
• Trade union policy
• Technology
• Legislation
• Social values as the context

The four policies are:

• Employee influence
• Human resource now
• Reward systems
• Work systems

Which also cause four outcomes, the four 'C's':

• Commitment
• Competence
• Congruence
• Cost-effectiveness

As Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) note, this model was not prepared to be a model of HRM in practice, but rather was a structure for the Harvard MBA syllabus in human resource management! It is not prescriptive, though if management implements these policies then the outcomes of the four 'C's' are bound to happen.

The Harvard model of HRM can be considered a 'soft' model, because it emphasizes commitment, employee influence, competence and values.

It looks at people in a humanistic way, and if we think about McGregor's Theory Y, it describes the approach.

The soft model does not treat employees as a 'resource', but it is associated with commitment, communication and utilization of human talent.