Benchmarking as an Organizational Change Procedure - Report Example

Running Head: Benchmarking Benchmarking [Institute’s Benchmarking Benchmarking is an organizational change procedure aimed at incessant enhancement. It is an exploration of best practices among known leaders that bring out their better performance. The fundamental idea is analyzing what the advanced organization did to make progress, and then incorporating whatever systems might be of use (Czarnecki, 1999). Figure 1: Human resources benchmark for Q1 of year 2012. The benchmark is developed in four steps. The first step is planning, and it involves (1) setting up benchmarking functions and duties; (2) categorizing the procedure to benchmark; (3) recording the existing procedures; and (4) identifying the procedures for data gathering. The second step is the collection of data, and it consists of (1) documenting existing performance levels, (2) getting benchmarking collaborators, and (3) carrying out the key research. The third step is analyzing the data, and it includes (1) standardizing the performance statistics; (2) create an evaluation medium to assess the existing performance statistics with the partners’ records; (3) recognizing outstanding practices; and (4) segregating procedure enablers. The forth step is adaptation of enablers to execute enhancements. This step consists of (1) setting practical objectives; (2) considering any substitute procedures; (3) considering the possible obstacles to transformation; and (4) planning to execute the modifications (Bogan & English, 1994). Benchmarking requires a great deal of planning. Part of the planning procedure demands an assessment of which human resource practices have and have not been flourishing. The single method to find out what is and is not effective is to document, calculate and analyze statistics. Normally, it is known as an assessment of human resource practice areas, together with “selection and placement, training and development, compensation, benefits, employee relations, health and safety” (Reider, 2000). A few classic evaluators of the practice areas may incorporate “employee turnover, absenteeism, accidents and employee attitudes” (Reider, 2000). More frequently, “organizations fight fires by waiting until they hear a warning signal or they require a crisis intervention to find out what is not working” (Reider, 2000). It is in an organizations best interests to carry out constant or periodic assessments to find out efficiency. A comprehensive assessment includes observing human resources activities along with their influence across the following three levels: (1) daily operational results, (2) mid-level influence, and (3) applying strategic schemes. Benchmarking attempts are designed with the target of connecting them with the strategic business plan. The challenge for human resource is to recognize and meet requirements at all three levels within the organization (Gee Publishing Ltd, 2002). For effective utilization of benchmarking, it is essential to have clearly identified evaluations of proficiency as well as of performance. Nonetheless, the inconsistency is that only a small number of clearly defined evaluations are there to benchmark against in human resources. This benchmark is relevant to the strategic plan because it improves transparency and performance. A company’s strategic planning procedure makes use of the outcomes of benchmarking to assist in evaluating and making alterations in its strategic direction. In the strategic planning procedure, the company collects data by evaluating its performance with the best practices. The company then uses benchmarking data to help modifying its strategic course or create a completely innovative strategy (Coers et al., 2001). Gap analysis is a great help for the company in comparing the actual performance with potential performance. It offers groundwork for assessing investment of time, capital and human resources needed to arrive at a specific result. The reasons for increased employee turnover are normally complex and no particular “quick fix” (McNair & Leibfried, 1995) will resolve the trouble. Recognizing the reasons for employee turnover in the company is a significant first step for planning the strategy accordingly. Even though human resources may have the final duty for planning and executing the strategies for decreasing turnover, linking other important departments of the company is vital as well. It is suggested gathering a retention-planning group, together with workforce and frontline managers of the aimed categorization who can offer important insights. Even though there are a number of reasons for lower retention than the projected retention rate, it is essential for the company to know what causes lesser retention rate among the workers. Possible reasons take account of (1) salary package that is lower than industry package; (2) intense workloads; (3) administrative burdens, e.g. paperwork, that detract from workers’ view of the “actual work.” In addition, it includes (4) lack of managerial support; (5) insufficient time to take part in training; (6) inadequate training facilities / programs; and (7) low self-esteem, often resulting from organizational cultures that do not consider and value human resources (Zairi, 1998). Even though the company may consider staffing and retention as extremely different human resources concerns, the reality is that in many – if not all – cases they are the “head and tail of the same coin” (Zairi, 1998). The very concerns that cause lower retention rate – low remunerations, intense workloads, uncooperative managers and supervisors, and the nonexistence of community support – are the similar concerns that make it complicated to create a center of attention for the finest job candidates. Even though the company is aware of these circumstances, they are mostly tricky to overcome. In a number of instances, the solutions are not found in innovative approaches but instead, in firm determination. A number of organizations offer remuneration and benefit packages that are “seriously inferior to those offered by other employers seeking applicants with similar education, skills and competency sets. Many applicants who would be a good job fit in a human services agency do not rank a “high salary” as an important criterion when searching for a job” (Stapenhurst, 2009). Still, the majority will not think about a vocation in human services if the remuneration and benefits package will not sustain a realistic level of affluence, and / or is “seriously non-competitive for similar work. Similarly, low wages and poor benefits are contributing factors in the decision of many capable human services professionals to leave the field. In this regard, human service agencies must continue to educate legislators, commissioners, boards of directors, and the public about the costs and consequences of sub-standard pay and benefits” (Anderson & Pettersen, 1995). Human resource of the company is mostly faced with almost overwhelming challenges – difficult work and a whole lot of it. An insurmountable workload is the key reason for lower employee retention rate in many companies. The community status as a company with insurmountable workloads is as well the main obstacle to employing the finest human resources. All too often, declines within workload take place only subsequent to a disaster or because of consent decrees. However, when this takes place, additional staff is recruited by offering a little more than the standard salary package. If priorities can be altered following such incidents, priorities can be modified before they take place. In some situations, the cash that could be saved from decreasing staff turnover – resulting from extensive workloads – is sufficient to appoint additional employees, thus decreasing workloads (Wireman, 2010). Even though it may not have instant outcomes, involving in enlightening activities, instructive approaches, and other policies to cut down workloads should as well be a part of the company’s staffing and retention schedules. References Anderson, B., & Pettersen, P. G. (1995). Benchmarking handbook. Springer. Bogan, C. E., & English, M. J. (1994). Benchmarking for best practices: Winning through innovative adaptation. Coers, M., Gardner, C., Higgins, L., & Raaybourn, C. (2001). Benchmarking: A guide for your journey to best-practice processes. Amer Productivity Center. Czarnecki, M. T. (1999). Managing by measuring: How to improve your organizations performance through effective benchmarking. AMACOM. Gee Publishing Ltd. (2002). Human resources benchmarking. McNair, C. J., & Leibfried, K. H. J. (1995). Benchmarking: A tool for continuous improvement. Reider, R. (2000). Benchmarking strategies: A tool for profit improvement. Wiley. Stapenhurst, T. (2009). The benchmarking book: A how-to guide to best practice for managers and practitioners. Butterworth-Heinemann. Wireman, T. (2010). Benchmarking best practices in maintenance management. Industrial Press, Inc. Zairi, M. (1998). Benchmarking for best practice. Taylor & Francis. Read More