Introduction
The human relations framework of an organization is the blueprint of how the management of an organization works with the subordinate staff to deliver services to the public effectively. The success of an organization is grounded on good interpersonal relationships within the human resource aspect of the organization. Since organizations exist to achieve the goals established for them, some factors may hinder the success of achieving the preset goals of effectively serving people. Poor human relations within organizations lead to underperformance and, subsequently, poor service delivery to the society it serves. Inefficient connections lead to miscommunication, low job satisfaction, and morale and may eventually lead to the downsizing of an organization as a consequence of poor performance. Though several other challenges may affect an organization, an excellent human relation frame is the most affluent component towards the success of an organization in achieving its preset goals of serving society.
Problem Within the Organization
Organizations face different challenges in their day-to-day operations that affect service delivery and organizational performance. A problem evident within this organization was the lack of communication among the different departments in the organization. People in one department had never interacted with those in another department. Ideally, the workers would constantly communicate with each other and cooperate at high and productive levels. However, because there was such an absence of adequate communication, the workers from different departments were estranged from one another. This eventually leads to miscommunication and misunderstandings. Further, the rate of misinformation prevalent in the organization was a problem because the individuals in one department were receiving conflicting information from different sources, reducing the accuracy of the information.
Another issue in this organization due to poor communication was a lack of employee feedback about their performance or job responsibilities. This lack of communication and feedback amongst different groups within the organization was a problem as it hindered employees’ ability to complete their tasks as efficiently as possible and to give them an accurate understanding of what they could do better and what they should improve upon. Such an environment impairs effective information dissemination and decision-making and ultimately affects the delivery of services. It also creates an unconducive working environment where employees are pitied against each other.
It also suffices to say that the top management teams contributed to the lack of communication within the various teams. This organization had adopted a top-down leadership approach, which resulted in the top management making all the crucial decisions and dictating how their operations should run. As a result, they neglected to consider the views of those at a middle or junior level. The communication gap between these two levels was evident in this organization, leading to a lack of trust and cooperation. The bureaucracy theory as a frame of analysis applied in this case is that teams within an organization perform better when they are encouraged to communicate freely and where there is less red tape within their environment.
Red tape starts when too many rules, procedures, and policies are introduced in an organization, resulting in employees feeling overwhelmed by such guidelines, thus hampering efficient service delivery. It was inherently tricky and was sometimes considered insubordination when a junior staff member suggested something against management policies. The staff was afraid as they were always blamed for not following company policy due to their junior positions in the organization. Such a working environment was not conducive and led to unnecessary stress on the part of employees. It also hurt staff morale as they felt they were not valued by management.
Analysis of the Causes of the Problem from a Human Relation Frame Lens
The problems within this organization emanated from the human relation framework of the organization. The human relation framework is grounded on employees’ needs, the necessary environment for working and internal relationships, personal growth, and job satisfaction. Putting people together in the right roles and relationships is essential in an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Poor interpersonal relationships within this organization led to several problems, such as poor communication, low job satisfaction, stress, and low morale among junior workers. The evident failure to share ideas and non-inclusive decision-making between the manager and junior staff created a vague relationship between the manager and the juniors. Consequently, the organization’s performance suffered in the event of proper human relation deficiencies that erupted from within.
The application of a managerial device through the participation of the junior staff in decision-making has several merits, such as; greater ease in managing the juniors due to the improved relationship and greater sense of responsibility among the workers concerning the assigned duties (Tannenbaum & Massarik, 1950). However, the management of this organization failed to include the subordinates in the decision-making process, which would have been essential in easing oversight as the workers would have higher job satisfaction and a sense of responsibility. Additionally, the estrangement between employees of different departments resulted from an inefficient human relation frame. The employees’ lack of rotation and fresh blood within the diverse departments affected the relationship. There is an essence in the rotation of personnel and salting the top leadership with fresh leadership, which creates fresh insights. Additionally, a fresh combination of employees drops the conflicting impulse between the workers, which enhances human relations (Feldman, 1984).
The deficiency in human relationships between the management and the junior staff consequently led to low feelings of love and belonging and low job satisfaction among the employees. Low job satisfaction and low morale could lead to employees quitting or the organization’s downsizing due to poor performance. Downsizing the organization could lead to further negative implications and poor performance. Such implications may include theloss of a well-trained workforce and talents previously beneficial to the organization. Scaling down may also lead to an increased workload for the remaining employees, leading to further job dissatisfaction and stress. Profoundly, the most consequential effect of scaling down is losing the goals attached to the organization.
The problems in the flow of information within this organization also emanated from poor human relations. A good interpersonal relationship in an organization concerns the hierarchy of the organization. However, the employees seemed to be receiving conflicting information from different sources, which led to much miscommunication. Since all the workers in an organization are interconnected throughout the organization’s processes, a poor relationship between workers results in inefficient operations. Poor relationships between the executives and the junior workers could also lead to role conflict through incompatible demands by the seniors (Kahn, 1964). Such undue pressures on other staff could culminate in psychological conflicts with the focal person, which would lower job morale and job satisfaction.
The low morale among the junior staff also contributed to the inefficient relationship with the organization’s administration. Since expressing ideas was considered insubordination, the leaders failed to create a rapport that would make the workers feel valued and included in the working environment. Though senior managerial positions own the formal authority delegated to them by their office, the necessary authority emanates from the acceptance of its practice on subordinates (Tannenbaum & Massarik, (1950). Thus, the lack of total embracement of the organization’s policies by the junior staff led to poor performance. Additionally, direct and indirect supervision at work creates tension and may lead to conflict within the organization (Kahn, 1964). Excessive supervision of workers and strict adherence to rules lead to poor relationships with supervisors. The absence of the prerequisite reasonable human relation frame in this organization could further lead to absenteeism, sabotage, and formation of alliances within the organization, which could be a stumbling block in achieving goals attached to the organization.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of an organization’s service delivery relies on the organization’s human resources and related framework. A poor and ineffective human relationship frame leads to poor performance of an organization. This organization’s apparent miscommunication and low job satisfaction resulted from poor relationships between the management and the subordinate workers. To abate further consequences of a poor relationship, this organization ought to restructure its various workers into different departments, adding some salt to the relationships between workers. There is also a dire need to promote job satisfaction through inclusive decision-making and job-based motivations such as attractive pay and employee empowerment. Additionally, good human relationships at work are essential for the performance of an organization, while inefficient relationships at work challenge the success of an organization in delivering its goals to the public.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of management review, 9(1), 47-53.
Kahn, R. L. (1964). Role conflict and ambiguity in organizations. The personnel administrator, 9, 8-13.
Tannenbaum, R., & Massarik, F. (1950). Participation by subordinates in the managerial decision-making process. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique, 16(3), 408-418.
write