dWely aguna Luvd Smne2e9Bnaey ouin an ind. and Bergman, central Texas, ployees, ei production uding at leat | dy and ef i tices ina ll concluded that the safety program was a “charade”; the company routinely plated safety standards in its push to avoid production downtime. Since rookie Tmployees often made mistakes, got hurt, and left, injuries and turnover fed one nother. In 2002, McWane admitted in federal court that it had willfully ignored ar violated safety rules (Barstow and Bergman, 2003a). The company has since promised to clean up its act, sacrificing people for profits reinvigorates age-old images of insensitive, heartless employers (Amar, 2004). That’ still a very popular image of the work- place. One of America’s most popular cartoon strips is Dilbert, whose white- collar, cubicle-class hero wanders mindlessly through a tortuous office landscape ‘of bureaucratic inertia, corporate doublespeak, and callous, incompetent bosses. In this chapter, we focus on the human side of organization. We start by sum- marizing the assumptions underlying the human resource view. Next, we exam- ine how people’s needs are either satisfied or frustrated at work. Then we look at today’s changing employment contract and its impact on both people and organiz HUMAN RESOURCE ASSUMPTIONS MeWane and Nucor represent opposite poles in a perennial debate about the relationship between people and organizations. One side sees individuals as objects to be exploited by organizations. The opposing camp holds that the needs of individuals and organizations can be aligned, engaging people's tal- ent and energy while the enterprise profits. This dispute has intensified with globalization and the growth in size and power of modern institutions. Can people find freedom and dignity in a world dominated by economic fluctua- tions and an emphasis on short-term results? Answers are not easy. They require a sensitive understanding of people and their symbiotic relationship with organizations. ‘The human resource frame evolved from early work of pioneers such as Mary Parker Follett (1918) and Elton Mayo (1933, 1945), who questioned a century- old, deeply held assumption—that workers had no rights beyond a paycheck, Their duty was to work hard and follow orders. Pioneers who laid the human resource frame’s foundation criticized this view on two grounds: it was unfair, and it was bad psychology. They argued that people’s skills, attitudes, energy, People and Organizations 121