Over the past decades, there have been substantial developments in how organizations and managers see employees. Research in management highlighted the essential effects of employee motivation, engagement, organizational culture, and other workforce factors on the performance of companies. As a result, most managers today focus on creating a positive environment for employees to work in so that they can be more productive. These developments also gave rise to new divisions of management, including human resources management and human relations management.
The difference between these two approaches was first explored by Miles (1965). The author explains that the human resources approach focuses more on organizational efficiency, whereas the human relations approach aims to establish and maintain excellent relationships between employees and the management (Miles, 1965). While most researchers and managers choose to focus more on human resource management, human relations can also benefit organizations in several ways.
The present paper will seek to discuss the function of human relations in an organization. Since research contributes to the practice of human relations, the difference between laboratory research and field research in this area of management will be considered. Lastly, ethical issues in human relations research will be explored to highlight potential risks and ways of addressing them.
The Function of Human Relations
In order to understand the function of human relations in contemporary organizations, it is crucial to understand the forces that prompted the development of this concept. One of the first scholars to consider the influence of group dynamics and relations on performance was Elton Mayo, who conducted the Hawthorne Studies in the 1920s (Reece & Reece, 2017). The finding that workers’ performance was influenced by their interactions with colleagues and supervisors revolutionized management by highlighting the importance of human relations.
Mayo’s work marked the beginning of the human relations movement, which became critical to the development of management. The changes in work patterns and business environments had a substantial influence on how managers and employees view each other, making human relations more relevant to businesses than ever before. For example, Reece and Reece (2017) note that the shifts towards team-based work, increased diversity, self-employment, and part-time employment, as well as the development of customer orientation, made it crucial for companies to reconsider the roles played by their employees. In line with research that showed the influence of psychosocial variables on company performance, this created the need for improved human relations in the workplace.
Hence, the general function of human relations in the management context is to make employees happy by fulfilling their needs and enhancing intraorganizational relationships. Research in human relations focuses specifically on human behavior, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as on how these factors influence relationships in organizations (Reece & Reece, 2017). By drawing on knowledge from psychology, sociology, and anthropology, human relations specialists analyze group dynamics, employee behaviors, and the work environment and develop ways of improving these areas of organizational functioning.
In order to fulfill this function of human relations, it is critical for managers and HR specialists to address the seven key themes in human relations. According to Reece and Reece (2017), these themes are communication, self-awareness, self-acceptance, motivation, trust, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution. Communication is at the core of human relations because it influences relationships between people and affects their attitudes towards others. While other fields of management focus mostly on the effectiveness of communication, human relations consider the influence of communication on interpersonal connection (Reece & Reece, 2017).
Self-awareness is an integral part of human relations because it affects how people see their role in the group and their behaviors. Developing self-awareness also results in increased emotional intelligence, which is pivotal to good interpersonal relationships (Serrat, 2017). Self-acceptance refers to promoting the positive concept of self, which is considered to contribute to relationships among people. Increased self-acceptance makes people more confident and empowered while also encouraging them to take responsibility and engage in continuous self-development (Reece & Reece, 2017). These outcomes can make a powerful impact on a person’s perception of work and their role in an organization.
Motivation is probably the most popular concept in relation to human resource management and human relations. Decades of research showed the correlation between motivation and work outcomes (Ganta, 2014). In human relations, motivation is crucial because it is essential to feelings of achievement, fulfillment, and belonging. These feelings, in turn, promote healthy relationships within organizations since without them, people are likely to be unsatisfied with their work and disengage from the organization. The concept of trust plays one of the central roles in human relations because it influences the nature of relationships between employees and employers (Reece & Reece, 2017).
If such relationships lack trust, employees are unlikely to show loyalty and motivation to contribute to organizational goals, while employers might refrain from providing sufficient autonomy and responsibility for workers’ self-development. Building trust in intraorganizational relationships is thus crucial for supporting professional growth, performance, and loyalty among employees.
Self-disclosure and conflict resolution are the final components of human relations’ function in organizations. Self-disclosure refers to openness in relationships with others and determines the degree to which people are willing to share their thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and attitudes with others (Reece & Reece, 2017). This has a direct effect on interpersonal relations because it promotes communication and trust while also making people feel more connected and involved. Self-disclosure also influences the level of perceived social support; this is because people often judge the strength of a relationship by their degree of openness (Reece & Reece, 2017).
Finally, conflict resolution is integral to human relations for a couple of reasons. Firstly, conflicts of interest permeate the relationships between employers and employees, and failure to address them promptly leads to increased turnover intentions and job dissatisfaction (Reece & Reece, 2017). Secondly, people spend a significant share of their time at work; if conflicts arise often and remain unsolved, this can affect relationships between colleagues and create an unhealthy work environment. In addition, fear of conflicts may affect the degree to which an employee’s needs are fulfilled at work, thus decreasing their satisfaction with the company (Reece & Reece, 2017).
Focusing on conflict resolution as part of the general human relations function allows improving the social climate at work, making it more enjoyable for employees to be part of the company.
Overall, the general function of human relations is to make employees happy, which requires addressing the core areas of effective human relations: communication, self-awareness, self-acceptance, motivation, trust, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution. By achieving excellent results in each of these areas, it is possible to improve the work environment and intraorganizational relationships, thus building a loyal, satisfied workforce. In the contemporary business environment, where work is an essential part of personal fulfillment, human relations have a pivotal role in balancing the interests of employees and employers and supporting positive behaviors and attitudes on both sides.
Research in Human Relations
In order to fulfill their function and achieve improvement in the critical areas identified above, human relations specialists have to use evidence-based strategies, techniques, and tools. This, in turn, creates the need for research in human relations, which would provide the required empirical support for specific methods while helping to develop new ones. According to Reece and Reece (2017), the study of human relations focuses on “the analysis of human behavior, prevention strategies, resolution of behavioral problems, and self-development” (p. 5). Hence, research in this area targets human subjects, their motivations, attitudes, and behaviors that could affect relationships in the workplace.
Two primary types of research could assist in human relations practice: laboratory research and field research. This section will seek to examine the differences between the two types and explain how each of them could benefit human relations.
Laboratory Research
The primary difference between the two types of research mentioned above is their setting. As evident from the name, laboratory research is conducted in an environment that has been specifically designed for research purposes, such as a laboratory (Aziz, 2017). The purpose of conducting research in a specific setting is to establish control over the conditions and variables that could affect the outcomes. Hence, laboratory research is usually used to study the influence of a particular manipulated variable on subjects’ behavior or attitudes (Aziz, 2017). In this case, the highly controlled environment helps to ensure that any changes observed in subjects were triggered by the variable under study, thus minimizing the risk of incorrect conclusions.
Although most people associate laboratory research with small, plain rooms and scientists in white coats, the environment and setting in laboratory research can be manipulated to resemble real-life circumstances. For instance, Paluck and Cialdini (2014), laboratory rooms can be modified to the researchers’ needs using furniture, decor, and appliances from the studied environments. Thus, the use of laboratory research can help to study human behavior in particular circumstances.
Laboratory research has some significant drawbacks that affect how and when it can be used in human relations and other areas of social sciences. Firstly, laboratory research is usually shorter than field research due to location constraints, which means that both the intervention and the data collection process is shorter (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). Typically, sessions with participants are around one hour long, and this means that researchers have to use an acute or exaggerated form of a variable under study to see the change in participants (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014).
This limits the application of laboratory research in social sciences because some phenomena arise due to continuous impact throughout a person’s life. For example, in the study of motivation, laboratory researchers could study the effect of a specific event (e.g., verbal praise or criticism) on motivation. However, in reality, motivation often depends on long-term or continuous exposure to certain factors, such as relationships with other people, and thus a single occasion would have little to no effect on a person’s general level of motivation.
Secondly, laboratory research is constricted in terms of interventions or stimuli that can be delivered in such settings, thus affecting the possible scope of inquiry (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). Moreover, the opportunities to imitate certain social situations in laboratory settings are usually limited by the scholars’ understanding of such social situations (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). For instance, in the example above, the way researchers deliver verbal praise or criticism may differ from the way the participants’ colleagues or managers do it, thus affecting the reliability of results.
Despite these limitations, laboratory research can still benefit the study and practice of human relations. The controlled conditions of laboratory settings are relevant in cases where high-quality empirical support is required, such as when testing the effects of a particular manager’s behavior on employees (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). Additionally, research in laboratory settings provides a greater understanding of how individual differences among people shape their reactions and attitudes to particular interactions or behaviors (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). Thus, laboratory research can contribute to human relations by developing interventions aimed at improving organizational behavior and interpersonal relationships while also increasing scholars’ understanding of the specific aspects of human relations.
Field Research
In contrast with laboratory research, field research takes place in real-life environments, such as in the workplace. The purpose of field research also differs from that of laboratory studies, since “it tends to observe, analyze, and describe what exists rather than manipulating a factor under study” (Aziz, 2017, p. 102). For this reason, the settings of field research include the situations encountered by people in real life (Aziz, 2017). Moreover, in field research, participants may or may not know that they are being studied, whereas, in laboratory settings, participants are ordinarily aware of their role as research subjects (Aziz, 2017). These differences affect how field research is used, as well as what it can help to achieve.
Due to taking place in naturalistic, real-life settings, field research provides more opportunities for studying and analyzing people’s behaviors, attitudes, and reactions. According to Paluck and Cialdini (2014), the conditions of field research also allow observing how subjects behave naturally, particularly if they do not know that they are being studied. This addresses the risk of unnatural behavior, which is relevant in laboratory studies (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014).
As a result, the findings gathered from field research have a higher degree of generalizability since the participants’ behavior is not affected by the setting (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). In human relations, field research plays a particularly significant role because it provides an opportunity to study real-life situations. For example, field research can be applied to evaluate the current state of human relations in a particular company and identify managers’ behaviors that draw a positive or negative reaction from employees.
Furthermore, field research does not have the same time and site constraints as laboratory research does. Consequently, field research is not limited in time and scope and can be used to evaluate and test complex, lengthy, and multi-stage interventions (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014). Thus, it can be used to provide empirical foundations for human relations interventions and contribute to both theory and practice in this area.
Still, there are some disadvantages related to the validity and reliability of field research. As explained by Aziz (2017), the validity of research results, particularly in experimental designs, depends primarily on the degree of researchers’ control over variables. In field research, the results can be influenced by uncontrolled variables, thus introducing bias or creating inconsistencies. Another substantial disadvantage of field research is that it usually focuses on a limited number of participants (Paluck & Cialdini, 2014).
For example, field research can be conducted in a particular company or in a couple of organizations rather than across 10-15 different companies in an industry. Laboratory research, on the other hand, allows recruiting a larger number of participants from various organizations or industries. The smaller sample size in field research affects the reliability of results. This means that, if an intervention has been successfully tested through field research in one or two companies, it may generate different results in other organizations.
Ethical Issues in Human Relations Research
Research involving human subjects is bound to be associated with ethical risks and challenges. According to the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (NNREC, 2016), it is vital for researchers in social sciences to comply with the principles of research ethics to achieve reliable results without harming the participants in any way. One of the most significant ethical issues in human relations research relates to respect for individuals. This area of research ethics includes considerations regarding human dignity, privacy, consent, confidentiality, and harm avoidance (NNREC, 2016). Failure to follow ethical principles and guidelines may cause significant problems, such as the disclosure of participants’ personal information, privacy violations, and unintended harm.
These considerations apply to both laboratory and field research since both approaches involve collecting data from human subjects. However, in field research involving observations, supporting the principles of privacy and informed consent is particularly relevant.
For example, conducting field research by observing people who are unaware of their participation in the study would be considered unethical. In laboratory settings, the principle of avoiding harm is of critical importance. Paluck and Cialdini (2014) state that due to time constraints, researchers working in laboratory settings may be tempting to use more intense interventions, which would violate ethical principles of research in social sciences by causing distress in participants. Field research can also cause harm to individuals in organizations; for example, if researchers discuss the participants’ responses with the management, it could cause problems in intraogranizational relationships or affect the participants’ position in the company.
In human relations research, it is also crucial to apply the principles related to the respect for groups and institutions. This is particularly true for field research, which can influence organizational functioning by causing disruptions or affecting interpersonal relationships in the company. To comply with the principles of research ethics, it is crucial for human relations researchers to understand the effect of study procedures on administration and workflow in the studied organization and minimize the possible disruptions (NNREC, 2016).
For instance, interviews with participants should be arranged in a way that does not distract them from their work duties, and observations should be non-invasive. Hence, following relevant ethical principles while designing a study is essential in human relations research regardless of its design and setting.
Conclusion
All in all, human relations is an important area of study and practice that can make a positive contribution to organizations. The general function of human relations in the context of business management is to make employees happy by fulfilling their needs and enhancing relationships in organizations. To achieve this goal, human relations specialists and managers must focus on strengthening the seven principal areas of human relations: communication, self-awareness, self-acceptance, motivation, trust, self-disclosure, and conflict resolution. Research in human relations can support the practice by providing empirical knowledge on people’s behaviors, reactions, and attitudes. Both laboratory research and field research can be used for this purpose, although the specifics of each approach affect the scope of its application in human relations.
Laboratory research is best suited for studying specific phenomena and their relationship, whereas field research can help to design and test practical interventions to enhance human relations. Regardless of the research approach and methods used, researchers must comply with ethical standards and guidelines to avoid harming individuals and organizations while producing reliable results.
References
Aziz, H. (2017). Comparison between field research and controlled laboratory research. Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research, 1(2), 101-104.
Ganta, V. C. (2014). Motivation in the workplace to improve the employee performance. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, 2(6), 221-230.
Miles, R. E. (1965). Human relations or human resources. Harvard Business Review. Web.
The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. (2016). Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, humanities, law and theology. Web.
Paluck, E. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2014). Field research methods. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 81-100). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reece, B., & Reece, M. (2017). Effective human relations: Interpersonal and organizational applications (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Serrat, O. (2017). Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance. Singapore: Springer.