Coercion is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as, to force one to act or think in a certain manner, to dominate, restrain, or control by force. Often at work or in a group environment one might utilise this form of power to control dominance over the group. This usage of power can often make other team members conform. In another definition, coercion is described as "using force or authority to make a person do something against his or her will" (Collins Compact Dictionary, 2001, p.166). The usage of politics and coercion to gain advantage over employees is a danger to the success of a firm as there is a chance that the employees will not be able to perform well under such harsh working conditions. A commitment to effectively communicating
…show more content…
Taylor (1911) claimed that workers are not willing to work hard which leads to low output. Taylor believed that management should give proper instructions to workers about their tasks in order to increase productivity. Management should select the right man for the right job, record the time and then identify the quickest method recorded. Taylor used a practical example to explain scientific management in Bethlehem Steel Company where the job was to handle a pig iron. The work was done by workers without any equipment. A worker who carried the pig-iron had to bend down, pick up a pig weighing about 92 pounds, then walked for a few feet and lastly dropped it on the ground or upon a pile. In this company the product was handled by a pig-iron gang consisting of 75 men. Average pig-iron handlers were under a foreman who himself had been a pig-iron handler. The gang was loading on average about 12 and half tons per man per day whereas the first-class pig-iron handler usually handled 48 tons per day. So the productivity and efficiency of the workers was very low. In order to sort out this productivity issue, Taylor selected a workman to develop a model which portrayed the individual’s highest state of efficiency and prosperity. Taylor also placed a manager over him to keep a close watch on his work. This experiment led the worker to handle 47 tons per day but at the cost of him being under massive work …show more content…
Drucker (1954), explained the human resource management in a very comprehensive way. He explained that when a firm is hiring a worker it’s not only hiring a helping hand but a complete man, this implies that the management must also consider the human factor in the workplace rather than just focusing on output. He emphasised that a worker should be considered as a resource but above all considered a human because unlike other resources humans have the abilities to coordinate, communicate, and think. He claimed that dictatorship and coercive management do not get the work done. He further explained the concept of coercion in the light of human relations with the management and stated that motivation of workers controls the output, whereas fear, force and threats deteriorate the motivation and enthusiasm in them. Drucker criticises Taylor’s concept of “fair day’s labour, for a fair day’s pay”. This concept assumes that a worker does not do what he is told to do. Drucker believed that the word fair labour is still not obvious and enterprise can demand a worker to attain its goals through their efforts, fairness and dedication. In his belief fair day’s pay is more ambiguous because labour is not a commodity that has a price rather they are human beings. Moreover, Harry Braveman (1974) points out that for Taylor a fair day’s work meant the maximum amount of work a person could physically do without collapsing, and a fair days pay meant the minimum
Taylor (1911) claimed that workers are not willing to work hard which leads to low output. Taylor believed that management should give proper instructions to workers about their tasks in order to increase productivity. Management should select the right man for the right job, record the time and then identify the quickest method recorded. Taylor used a practical example to explain scientific management in Bethlehem Steel Company where the job was to handle a pig iron. The work was done by workers without any equipment. A worker who carried the pig-iron had to bend down, pick up a pig weighing about 92 pounds, then walked for a few feet and lastly dropped it on the ground or upon a pile. In this company the product was handled by a pig-iron gang consisting of 75 men. Average pig-iron handlers were under a foreman who himself had been a pig-iron handler. The gang was loading on average about 12 and half tons per man per day whereas the first-class pig-iron handler usually handled 48 tons per day. So the productivity and efficiency of the workers was very low. In order to sort out this productivity issue, Taylor selected a workman to develop a model which portrayed the individual’s highest state of efficiency and prosperity. Taylor also placed a manager over him to keep a close watch on his work. This experiment led the worker to handle 47 tons per day but at the cost of him being under massive work …show more content…
Drucker (1954), explained the human resource management in a very comprehensive way. He explained that when a firm is hiring a worker it’s not only hiring a helping hand but a complete man, this implies that the management must also consider the human factor in the workplace rather than just focusing on output. He emphasised that a worker should be considered as a resource but above all considered a human because unlike other resources humans have the abilities to coordinate, communicate, and think. He claimed that dictatorship and coercive management do not get the work done. He further explained the concept of coercion in the light of human relations with the management and stated that motivation of workers controls the output, whereas fear, force and threats deteriorate the motivation and enthusiasm in them. Drucker criticises Taylor’s concept of “fair day’s labour, for a fair day’s pay”. This concept assumes that a worker does not do what he is told to do. Drucker believed that the word fair labour is still not obvious and enterprise can demand a worker to attain its goals through their efforts, fairness and dedication. In his belief fair day’s pay is more ambiguous because labour is not a commodity that has a price rather they are human beings. Moreover, Harry Braveman (1974) points out that for Taylor a fair day’s work meant the maximum amount of work a person could physically do without collapsing, and a fair days pay meant the minimum