Introduction:
It is engrossing to know, “what subjective turn means and why is it so important?”. The literal meaning of “subjective” means “to get influenced” while “turn” is “change of direction”. In this context, subjective turn can be defined as the, “switch from one culture to another culture in a society” due to the events which took place between 17th -20th century in the West and the East of the world. This essay considers the span of 200 years starting from the 1700s-1980s-2000s and focusing on the series of event which took place during that period. It was Karl Polyani, who said that the 1750s-1940 was a ‘transformation phase’ while 1950s – 1980s was considered as the ‘developmental phase’. It is very important for us to understand the consequences of these events which had taken place in order to broadcast the cultural change which effected the success or failure of the organisation.
The essay argues with,” Is subjective term a reality of the West or/and is the East following the trend?”. It establishes the difference between the East and West. The west considered in this paper is mainly the central European society: France, England and Germany and the East is considered as Japan as these were the two parts of the world where evolution was happening in the same time period (Peng Luo, 2008). The essay tries to come to a conclusion whether subjective turn started to take place from East to West or vice versa. It is important because it was these changes in the society which led to a change in culture with time to time.
PERIOD MANAGEMENT
1789-1799s+ Feudalism
1750s-1850s+ Capitalism
1900s-1910s+ Scientific Management
1900s-1910s+ Industrial Relations
1920s-1930s+ Human Relations
1940s+ Personal Management
1970s+ HRD
1980s+ HRM
KEY WORDS: subjective turn, culture, west, east, management, self and capitalism
EVOLUTION IN WEST:
Before starting with a discussion about the events which took place in past, it is very important to define what “culture “means?
Culture is the “method of self-realisation of the society as well as in an individual which measures the development of both”. Culture is present everywhere in a being (Spirkin, 1983).
It was in 1789, when the French Revolution succeeded in delivering blows against the traditional reforms of the society which shook the political, social and historical pillars of the France. French Revolution which was the epicentre of change, impacted the traditional norms of the English society.
By 1830s, the feudal economies were overtaken by the industrial capitalism and were abolished in the 1856s. In Germany, the end of feudalism took place in 1848. The feudal system was replaced by the royal states and Prussia was unified. As seen above, French Revolution executed radical reforms i.e., abolishment of feudalism and the reduction of the power held by guilds which led to a ‘change’ in society.
The breakdown of feudal societies led to the emergence of capitalism in 17th century Britain leading it to be the “workshop of the world”. The development of capitalism was full swing in UK, while it was slow in the other countries. The cultural change took place as the breakdown of family economy of the working class, the workers acquired new and distinct skills and the shift in their relations from hand tools to the machines. Capitalism helped to establish movements for the raise of wages, abortion of long working hours and the improvement of working conditions of the working class.
It was during the time of industrial revolution, when people management emerged in Europe due to the Factory Acts of the 1840s which obligated the factory owners to look for the wellbeing of the workers. Also, religious capitalist like Cadbury, appointed ‘welfare officers’ to improve the living conditions of the workers.
When World War I, became the reason behind the economic bankruptcy in the 1914s which, led to the breakdown of capitalism in the west. It was F.W Taylor’s concept of “Scientific Management” which was considered as a solution to recover the economy crisis. Scientific Management was not a science but a control system which being mechanistic in approach (Devinat, 1927), helped in:
• Reduced production cost
• Lower disputes between the labour and the management
• Utilization of resources
• Quality products were produced
• Improved wages
• Gain to consumers and the owners
It was during the same time, when the industrial organisations relied on the personal manager to select men and women for work and Hawthorne effect started to have an influence on the work in order to ameliorate the tayloristic approach which was continuing to achieve the productivity by degrading workers into machines as it stated that worker’s performativity is impacted by its participation. The tayloristic approach never affected the personal management directly but it placed a critical role as it shaped the culture in which it was evolving and being operated.
A gradual shift was seen from the mechanistic approach and time efficiency of the tayloristic approach to the human tramping at the pew and the assembly lines during post war times. When human relations were introduced in the 1930s, which gave authority to the scientists in Europe and US to declare the failure of the former methods used by a system and the superiority of the human touch in the new scientific findings (Link,2011).
The introduction of human relations became the reason of a worker’s conscious being woken as they understood that they weren’t a mere machine but a valuable source to the organisation they were working for, which in 1945, forced the organisation to change the way they used to approach the workers. The focus which was earlier on increasing the productivity shifted on to increasing the performativity and efficiency of the workers, as it gave them a sense of belonging with the organisation (Gail L. Perry, 2011).
The use of personnel management led to the centralisation of the employee related processes which had an impact on its development as its goal was to design a cost efficient process in order to keep the organisation competitive.
The cultural, economic, political and the social crisis in the 1960s shook the foundation of the system being followed earlier as the Japanese took over the market and snatched the position of “workshop of the world” from Britain. It was during this time the earlier methods of work ethic were officially considered as a failure and there was a shift seen in the foundation of managerial system as the rationalist obsession reduced and motifs of self and subjectivity were visible (Heelas, 2002).
The labour movement, legitimacy of the managerial system being followed, oil crises of 1973 and the change in lifestyle of the ‘working class’ led to the emergence of HRM. Question like,” should self be repressed or uplifted in a new way?” were raised. The incapability of the west to cope with the crises of productivity and competitiveness led them to doubt the system followed, which became the first step for the emergence of HRM which was already being followed in the East.
There was a consideration of ‘subjective’ element like emotions, commitment, institution etc. which was considered as a threat to the system followed earlier. The employees were considered as infinite resources which motivated them to perform better to get intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. There was a sense of freedom and an essence of will which led to the better performance of the employees. The organisations stared to follow the concept of ‘self-work’ in which the production was dependent on the employees.
‘Soft Capitalism’ was the metaphor for the new kind of work governance being followed which considered ‘self’ in it (Thrift, 1997). ‘Soft’ in soft capitalism means the growth and deep involvement of a ‘self’ and its subjectivity in the work (Ray and Sayer, 1999). It was right for Tipton (1984) to say that this new way to work is called the ‘ethics of self-work’ which shifts the focus to ‘another kind of individualism’ (Heelas, 2002). This marked the cultural twist in the managerial control as it helped a worker to unlock his full potentialities and encouraged them to practice their freedom which wasn’t possible in the earlier methods being followed.
The above method has also led to the development of Human Resource Management in the West which became the backbone for the organisation’s success in 200s and considered the human subject and its attributes in the managerial practices.
Hence, it can be comprehended from the above that the systematic destruction of feudalism, breakdown of capitalism, involvement of tayloristic approach, role of human relations, need of personnel management, introduction of the self-work ethic and the development of HRM shows the switch of slaves-workers-employees and their consideration from objects-machines- valuable resource-infinite resources in the west.
EVOLUTION IN EAST:
Japan in this essay is considered as East due to its geographical positioning and the different social norms, ethical values, religious beliefs, political system, customs and technologies that is different from what is followed in the West.
It was during the Edo period in Japan, when the characteristics like: Lifelong membership, Age- based roles and Collective Behaviour were considered important in a management system followed by the community working in the rice field. These characteristics emphasised on group work and was the exchange between the security offered by the community and the loyalty of the person working which the Japanese organisations adapted in the late 19th century during the time of industrialisation (Firkola, 2006). The Meji government abolished the feudal system in the 1868 and tried to reconstruct and strengthen the isolated society by adding a touch of western achievements in the Japanese culture (Westney, 1987).
In 1853, Perry forced Japan to open its ports and allow foreign trade business enter inside the country. Japan started to face issue as the western products introduced were cheaper and led to a decline in the demand of local products which caused the workers to lose their job. The local organisations incorporated the characteristics followed earlier in order, to cope with the labour problems taking place during industrialisation by creating a structure which prevented work alienation and promoted worker cooperation (Firkola, 2006).
During World War-I, the factories adopted Taylorism in order to cope up with the demands of products in the international market since Britain wasn’t producing any as they were focusing on the preparation of war. This gave them an excellent opportunity to grow economically despite the products not meeting the international quality standards.
Taylorism was in full swing during interwar time which impacted the Japanese culture specifically and had become a vital factor in uniquely shaping the Japanese management system (Morshima 1982). It coaxed the workers to think and discover their full potential, unlike in West where people were paid to work and not to think (Naruse, Tatsuo 1991). It further ensured the efficient operating of the machinery and production of uniform quality goods (Okuda 1971,1972,1985).
The business in Japan was booming till 1919 and came to a stop during the 1920s, when Britain was back in business leading to recession in Japan. In 1940s, there was an emphasis on Quality Control in order to better the quality of the products. The Japanese modified the QC concept by involving the employees in the production as well as the development and design of the new products. This way of managing people had the support of the labour unions which were fighting against the wage discrimination of the blue and white collar workers. The consideration of ‘human feelings’ while working motivated the workers to improve their performance and this led to an increase in quality productivity. It was in the 1960s, when Japan took over the international market shaking the foundation of the management system followed in the West. The Japanese management system developed further and was considered as the “innovative” HRM model by the 2000s and it was looked up by the West in order to improve their HRM model (Moriguchi, 2014).
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
I. Difference of Personnel Management and Human Resource Management
CHARACTERISTICS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Strategic nature Ad-hoc and reactive in nature; short term perspective deliberately long term, strategic view of human resources
Psychological contract based on compliance on the part of the employee Based on seeking willing commitment of the employee
Job design Typically, Taylorist/Fordism Typically, team- based
Organisational structure Hierarchical
Tendency to vertical integration Flexible with the core of key employees surrounded by peripheral skills
High degree of outsourcing
Recruitment Sophisticated recruitment practices for senior staff only
Strong reliance on external local labour market for most recruitment Sophisticated recruitment for all employees
Strong internal labour market for core employees. Greater reliance on external labour market for non-core
Employee relations perspective Pluralist: collectivist; low trust Unitarist: individualistic; high trust
Welfare role Residual expectations No explicit welfare role
Source: adapted and developed from Guest (1987)
II. The Eastern/Japanese HRM Model:
i. The main focus is on people, not on the job and the salary is decided on the basis of person’s skills and ability to execute each task.
ii. The Japanese model of HRM is based on the three pillars which are:
a. Seniority wages (Nenko)
b. Lifetime employment (Shushin Koyo)
c. Enterprise Unionism (Kigyobetsu Rodo Kumiai)
iii. The objective is to seek the employees to gather specific skills to enhance productivity in order to reach the organisation’s goal in exchange of the motivation provided by the organisation to do so.
iv. The model is specific, thorough and detailed.
v. The strength comes from the blue collared employees and their knowledge to generate ‘bottom-up’ inventions.
vi. The Eastern/Japanese HRM model looks like:
1. Selective once a year recruitment of new graduates
2. Extensive company training and education
3. Periodic pay raises and internal promotion based on the evaluations
4. Flexible job assignments and small group activities
5. Employment security till the age of retirement
6. Enterprise union and joint labour management consultations
7. Unified personnel management for white and blue collar workers
Source: Japanese style HRM and its Historical Origins, Chiaki Moriguchi
III. The Western/European HRM Model:
i. The main focus is on the job requirement and its description. It is the job which decides the salary of a person by comparing it to an external market.
ii. The model is stricter than Eastern model as:
a. Trade unions were influential
b. Government was heavily involved with in areas of training and development
c. Strict limits to recruitments and pay policies
iii. The objective is to protect the social responsibilities of an employee in a multicultural organisation and the continuous learning of the employee to reach the production goals.
iv. The western model is universal, loosely worded and a crux version of the Japanese model.
v. The Western/European HRM model looks like:
1. Selective hiring of new worker
2. Extensive company training
3. Incentive pay
4. Flexible job assignments and small group activities
5. Non- layoff pledge
6. Information sharing between labor and management
7. Reduced status distinctions across employee level
Source: Japanese style HRM and its Historical Origins, Chiaki Moriguchi
IV. Difference between Eastern and Western HRM model
Eastern/Japan Western/European
Considers enterprise as a community Doesn’t consider enterprise as a community
Group goals are prioritised Individual goals are prioritised
Roles and Responsibilities are less described Role and Responsibilities are more described
Work groups have more autonomy Individuals have more autonomy
Focus is on people Focus is on job
Trade union do not influence the decisions Trade unions influences the decisions
Government is not heavily involved Government is heavily involved
Source: Japanese Culture, Western Management: Taylorism and Human Resources in Japan, Malcolm Warner
Summary:
It is noticed from the start that the involvement of western concepts in the Japanese culture had a different outcome than what it had in West. For example, when Taylorism was introduced in Japan, people were encouraged to use their subjective conception rather than depriving, like in the West. Organisations in east focused on the people and considered them important while it was the totally different in the west. In the west, jobs were considered more important than the people and it continued as it is till the 1970s crises which led them doubt the managerial system being followed.
Western culture is more ‘progressive’ than the East (Weber, 1964, 2002) is something most of the scholars disagreed with. There is no doubt that the subjective turn started to take place in the West and the East followed the trend but, it was East who progressed and evolved its managerial system before. The introduction of Quality Circles in the 1960s played an important role in strengthening the involvement of the workers in the organisation motivated them to improve their performance. The sudden takeover of the Japanese over the international market shocked the western countries (UK etc.) which made the West to prioritise people over jobs and to evolve the traditional work ethic followed into the self-work ethic. This is how HRM emerged in both the parts of worlds but, differed due to the historical events which shaped it.