The dehumanizing effects of bureaucratic, mechanistic, command and control organizations does not concern about occupational wellbeing, level of stress, health and safety of those working in business and the organizations. It is detrimental on the individual’s psychological well being and leads to other stress related physical un- wellness. The concept of Humanization is fostered by creating a physical and conceptual environment that encourages principles of security, principle of equity, principle of individuation and principles of democracy. Humanization and re-humanization brings industrial democracy, with quality of work-life, work-life balance and quality of life along with the apparent organizational social responsibility and ethics.
…show more content…
Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) reveals disastrous consequences of blind obedience of mechanistic command and control type of organizations such as shifting responsibility to higher authority. According to Morgan (1997, P.30) “much of the apathy, carelessness and lack of pride so often encountered in the modern workplace are not merely coincidental. It is fostered by the mechanistic approach." Mechanistic organization discourages initiative, encourages obedience. The wisdom of conventional practices is considered absolute and often viewed as "troublemakers". People feel powerlessness about problems that collectively they understand. The mechanistic approach to organization limit the development of human capacities, mould humans to fit the requirements of the mechanical organization instead of building the organization around the strengths and potential of people. Furthermore, these problems are often compounded by mechanistic job descriptions. People tend to develop inherent attitude to shift the job …show more content…
36) scientific management and classical management theory.” generated "excessively narrow, authoritarian and dehumanizing work. In response to that, the human relations approach and the behaviorist movements in management thought and practice took place. Senge, Carsstedt & Porter (2001) reiterate the view that, although the machine-age organization achieves better productivity, simultaneously, it also creates a mechanized organizational environment that dehumanize and fragment people to work together. According to Senge et al. (2001), we commit ourselves to the company’s agenda to act professionally and when “what we do” in the face of corporate demand and is separate from “who we are” then dehumanization takes place. This is because management merely espouses honorable notions but fail to relinquish the control required for those honorable notions to flourish. They fail to unleash the employee passion required, fail to establish trust and openness, as they feel threatened for their established “quick fix” management
Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) reveals disastrous consequences of blind obedience of mechanistic command and control type of organizations such as shifting responsibility to higher authority. According to Morgan (1997, P.30) “much of the apathy, carelessness and lack of pride so often encountered in the modern workplace are not merely coincidental. It is fostered by the mechanistic approach." Mechanistic organization discourages initiative, encourages obedience. The wisdom of conventional practices is considered absolute and often viewed as "troublemakers". People feel powerlessness about problems that collectively they understand. The mechanistic approach to organization limit the development of human capacities, mould humans to fit the requirements of the mechanical organization instead of building the organization around the strengths and potential of people. Furthermore, these problems are often compounded by mechanistic job descriptions. People tend to develop inherent attitude to shift the job …show more content…
36) scientific management and classical management theory.” generated "excessively narrow, authoritarian and dehumanizing work. In response to that, the human relations approach and the behaviorist movements in management thought and practice took place. Senge, Carsstedt & Porter (2001) reiterate the view that, although the machine-age organization achieves better productivity, simultaneously, it also creates a mechanized organizational environment that dehumanize and fragment people to work together. According to Senge et al. (2001), we commit ourselves to the company’s agenda to act professionally and when “what we do” in the face of corporate demand and is separate from “who we are” then dehumanization takes place. This is because management merely espouses honorable notions but fail to relinquish the control required for those honorable notions to flourish. They fail to unleash the employee passion required, fail to establish trust and openness, as they feel threatened for their established “quick fix” management