A few recent articles have recounted the woes of employees of certain large public sector organizations, most of which claimed to be victims of callous decisions, arbitrary actions or procrastination by top management. These episodes highlight the need for the administrations of these organizations to investigate into the reasons for ineffectiveness.

Most administrators tend to be authoritarian but are often without the balancing quality of compassion that is needed if the authoritarianism is to deliver. Usually the butt of the criticism in this regard are the public sector organizations, but singling them out for criticism, does not by any means imply that the malady is confined to them alone.

One of the reasons for critics sparing the private organizations, even large ones, is these usually are considered beyond the pale of discussion both by the employers and the employees, except in so far as their actions impinge directly on the legally recognized rights of workers and employees, or have consequences for industrial peace or law and order in general. Overall, very little thought is given to discussing the ways of the organizations, with a view to making them effective by way of inculcating a balanced, two-way interaction between their employees and the management.

The reasons for the ineffectiveness of most of these organizations lie largely in a lopsided approach to ‘human resource management’. Mostly they seem to be untouched by fresh ideas in the field that focuses on business strategy and goals while not ignoring the genuine interests and concerns of the employees. We have a whole gamut of organizations ranging from public sector, where unions have hijacked the organizations and milked them dry, thus killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, to private — ‘seth’ controlled style — who sees the organization as nothing more than a personal fief to be managed at will and a mechanism for profit-making at the expense of the exploited workers. Their view of relationship with their workers is that of a master and a slave, or at best that of master and servant.

Approaches that bind welfare provision to organizational performance objectives, however, bring to the fore the conflicting interests of the organization and those of the individual employees, but not in confrontation. The emphasis shifts from confrontation to compliance with the overall organizational strategy conforming to the organizational interests seen as being in the mutual interests of the two.

For this to work effectively, however, organizations themselves have to be manned at upper levels with people who have the necessary integrity and the vision to enforce right policies in an appropriate manner. This progressive modern approach also calls for the realization that the organization’s cultivation of a positive course of action in employee-relations is ultimately in their own interest because it works towards reducing labour problems and costly court cases. This in turn works towards the reduction of running costs.

Most of the large public sector organizations follow obsolete approaches towards the employees that concentrate on barely meeting the laid-down legal obligations towards them or, when the unions have the better of them, in going along with even illegitimate and excessive union demands out of fear of strikes, lack of cooperation and industrial unrest. This approach often leads, as a by-product, to penny wise and pound foolish decisions by the executives and the managers having a narrow vision.

Others follow either the traditional approach in which the organizations are seen to have a social responsibility towards their personnel, and personnel departments are set up to oversee the interests of the workers on this basis, irrespective of the financial health of the organization. In an era of ascendant free-market economy and capitalism, this approach is often viewed as questioning the management’s fundamental prerogative to determine policies on the basis of how conducive they are to the needs of the organization’s main or major business.

Alternatively, welfare provision is linked to behaviour moulded in accordance with the arbitrary notions and the will of top bosses or, at best, with an arbitrarily laid-down ‘policy’. This approach seeks to control and regulate the employees’ attitude and behaviour through the provision of rewards and patronage doled out mostly on the criteria of obeisant pliability and subordination rather than strictly, on performance criteria and display of the initiatives. The more cunning among the obeisant ones soon outgrow the organization once they have, through corruption or benign official protection and patronage. Even otherwise, many employees are not as financially dependent for their welfare and prosperity on the goodwill of the employers as in the past, and thus their behaviour is less amenable to the employers’ influence and the manipulative tactics.

These approaches are particularly damaging for organizations like the Pakistan Steel or the Pakistan International Airlines that have a product or service to sell to consumers whose financial health requires that the commercial viability be taken firmly into account.

The solution to all these problems lies in following the HRM policies that emphasizes on the flexibility and the adaptability to change and encourage individual initiative and creativity, both at the level of the employees and the organization. Putting the business needs of the organization first, without compromising the value of its ‘people’ as a resource has to be recognized. This can be done by involving the managers, the employees and even the unions in many cases, in formulating the strategy. That is the only way to make the latter realize, as stake-holders, the value of the financial health and see the linkage between their benefits and the organizational health.

But once the two are linked up, it is necessary that the monopoly on policy formulation and strategy enjoyed by the top managements of the organizations and the government officials who often sit hundreds or thousands of miles away and have the least idea as to the nature of the operations or business, should give way to a more participative management by all the stake-holders, among which the employees are now considered to be vital.

Perhaps this approach would go to change the behaviour of employees for the better by linking their welfare directly and strategically with the needs and interests of the organization and contribute to enhancing the performance.

A progressive approach needs to integrate policies at several levels. For example, there are demands by unions for sweeping medical facilities and then there are complaints by managements concerning corruption and excessive use of these facilities by the employees and their dependents. But there are few, if any, programmes for trying to enhance the health awareness and preventive care, which can go a long way in reducing the cost of medical care. Health and efficiency have now been recognized worldwide as linked. Poor psychological and physical health leads to deteriorating performance by the employees and thus concern with employee health has a direct dividend for the organization.

Unhealthy atmospheres in organizations likewise contribute to a state of tension and stress between the management and the employees on the one hand and among the employees themselves on the other, that either increases job-related stress to unmanageable levels, thus affecting performance, or reduces stress to levels where little incentive is present for good performance. Very few organizations realize the value of an appropriate optimum level of stress in the context of performance and efficiency of the employees or have in place programmes to audit stress levels. The effects of inappropriate levels of stress are as wide ranging as absenteeism, high employee turnover, health problems, expensive and costly litigation and drop in productivity. The concept of non-work related counselling (also called support or welfare counselling) is almost non-existent in our organizations. Direct benefit to the employees as well as the organizations can result by taking initiative and providing specialized counselling to employees in these areas. Experiments in industrial countries have shown that counselling provided to employees for discussion and resolution of personal concerns led to many employees losing their commitment to the unions, proving thereby the value of counselling as a stress reducer.

Such counselling also helps managers who have to make unpleasant redundancy (retrenchment) decisions as well as the employees - both who are affected by the retrenchment decisions as well as those left behind — to cope with the pressures resulting from redundancy, educate them regarding the benefits to which they are entitled, and also provide them with detailed financial advice and guidance. What we have in place in most public sector organizations is an arrogant top management that is neither able to safeguard the interests of organizations nor of employees.

They come in all shapes and sizes varying from those whose primary goal is self-enrichment to those who are so timid that they cannot take decisions for fear of being held responsible! They fail to realize that taking responsibility for decision-making is what they are primarily there for. Any top executives, fearful of taking decisions, are in fact good-for-nothing even compared to the lowly, hard working employee who at least delivers what he is paid for.

A total change in the way we view ‘human resource management’ policies is, therefore, the best option to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organizations, better in fact than any move to privatize, fully or partly.