Human Resource Professional Map - Term Paper Example

HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONAL MAP Student’s name Code & Course Professor’s name University City Date Executive Summary This paper seeks to analyse two different types of the human resource professional map, thus the CIPD model and the Ulrich 2016 model. Each model is separately discussed so as to create an avenue that showcases how the models differ across the organization. The differences are basically alluded to the organization operation, organization success, organization failures, and employee’s satisfaction. Lastly, the report gives a conclusive remark regarding which model is most likely suitable for the success of the organization Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Human Resource Professional Map 4 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Question 1 4 2.1 Curious 4 2.2 Decisive Thinker 5 2.3 Personal Credible 6 2.4 Collaborative 7 3.0 Question 2 7 4.0 Conclusion 10 5.0 References 11 Human Resource Professional Map 1.0 Introduction The human resource professional road map is attributed to the success of the business operation. In the contemporary society, the most common applied HR professional road map includes the CIPD model and the Ulrich model. Bothe model offers different strategies that basically fosters organization into success. For the CIPD model, business adheres to insights, strategy, and solutions to realize the success of the organization. The insights, strategy, and solution are highly based on human behavioural HR factors such as the curiosity, the decisive thinker, collaborative and personal credible. Contrarily to the CIPD model, is the Ulrich model of 2016. The model operates under the paradox navigator that is presumed to be highly influenced by the employee wisdom. The paradox navigator is basically cantered on employee individualism to realize the organization success. Some of the factors include human capital, monetary rewards, strategic positioners, digital activities among other factors. Each of the enlisted factors is to be supported by different managers across the organization. 2.0 Question 1 2.1 Curious Curious is attributed as future-focused behaviour that entails inquisitive and open-minded across employees in an organization. Essentially, curious is advocated to seek evolving and innovative approaches that add value to the organization (Bridge 2011). Curious is an important HR behaviour for HR professionals because it enables organisation managers to understand how different employees react or behave in a vast range of outcomes (Berger 2015). For example, why some cultures are attributed for hardworking in the organization, open-minded, and goal oriented. Curiosity is important when it comes to organization transitions whereby the top leadership creates organization opportunities through newer innovations, fosters inquisitiveness, and in-depth analysis of different tests and ideas. Additionally, curiosity fosters HR employee effectiveness by understanding the organization underlying issues and causes. This is ascertained through employee knowledge, experience, collected findings, and imperative decision-making approach. By working as, a team, curiosity enables the organization officials to proactively design new insights that are alluded towards the organizational success when it comes commercial and strategic context in organization. Contrarily, curiosity shortcomings are showcased through spontaneously rejecting of ideas presented with adequate cross-examinations which could have benefited the organization success. Generally, curiosity keeps the organization up to date regarding HR trends and advocates organization evolution through HR solutions. 2.2 Decisive Thinker Decisive thinkers are showcased across the organization by having the ability to analyse, interpret, and adjudicate data or information quickly. Consequently, organization decisive thinker is attributed to having the ability to use information, insights, and knowledge in a technical way by making imperative decisions and recommendations attributed towards organization success (Ejimabo 2015). Decisive thinking is important in HR whereby the top organization officials are able to apply common sense and knowledge purposefully to solve the organization challenges based on the individual personal experience and as per the limits of the assigned activities. For example, good decisive thinker managers advocate for democratic leadership whereby other staffs are given the power to make a decision during organizational challenges with regards to individual roles and responsibility. Thus, each organization department such as sales and marketing staffs are expected to come up with decisions that will foresee an improvement in organization sales and revenue. Decisive thinking is most important to Senior HR because it enables the senior officers to assess the value of the presented information and data before engaging in decision-making approach. The senior needs to advocate for team work whereby research team participate in the collection of information from multiple sources such as primary and secondary sources, engage in evaluation of the presented information so as to develop critical insights. These might include aspects to consider on improving the organization brand, and how to improve the organization performance so as to attain a top leadership position. Generally, decisive thinking is commended across the organization. This is because the organization managers and staff’s previous experiences ensure that any decision made is based on correct, consistent, and complete facts to ensure that the attained decision made are built on solid foundations such as data. 2.3 Personal Credible Personal credible is attributed to top senior organization officials who structures and delivers organization professionalism by combining employees having skills in commercial and human resource so as to add value to the organization, stakeholders, and peers (Paine 2014). To ascertain positive outcome, managers need to train staffs on personal credibility especially through guidance and advice. As such, staffs will be seeking feedback from HR seniors to develop and modify personal practices. For example, staffs will develop and improve on work efficiency, increase the level of productivity and minimise possibility of errors. Personal Credible is most import to organization especially when it comes to HR transitions in the organization (Vosburgh 2015) The HR seniors are commended for the ability to pass passion skills to other workers by sharing knowledge and the experience attained. some of the skills to be shared include management of the company resource, improving on work-life measures, and attaining personal goals by achieving organizational objectives. As such, it can be argued that through personal credibility individuals add value to the organization by ensuring that each employee attains expertise skills to do so. Though personal credibility arises as an individualism, it has been commended to be collectively based in HR sector whereby workers work-force are delivered as per the organizational needs. 2.4 Collaborative In HR, collaborative simply implies as to organization managers and employees working effectively and conclusively with a diverse range of people both internally and externally organization environment (Kanter 1994). Collaborative is import across the organization because it brings people with different complementary skills, togetherness viewpoints, and interests to ensure organization are attained from the diverse input. As such, collaborative in HR is presumed to build a sense of team spirit and encouraging organization shared ownership. Collaborative need to be shared across the organization whereby the organization managers tend to include staffs during decision making, keeping organization members up to date, fostering good working relationships, and supporting each other during daily work-to-work activities. 3.0 Question 2 Firstly, the foundation of the CIPD model is based insights, strategy, and solutions regarding how to conduct HR activities across the organization while Ulrich 2016 model foundation is based on paradox navigator regarding the role of the HR professionals and what HR needs to do across the organization (The RBL Group, 2016). In this concept, can be argued that when CIPD is well implemented, in tends to improve on clarity ads per the organization expectance. Consequently, the CIPD model map creates a relationship between the individual and organization performance. Essentially, CIPD model advocates for care balance based on organization employee flexibility purposefully to inhibit an overly prescriptive, and non-inclusive approach. In comparison to CIPD, Ulrich 2016 model showcases difference as per the paradox navigator. The paradox navigator of Ulrich simply refers to the business management ability to navigate the existing business challenges that affect business operations (The RBL Group, 2016). The business challenges are managed through long term and short term strategies, centralization, decentralization, internal, and external focuses of operating business. The majority of the CIPD competencies advocate for workers collectively purposefully to attain the organization goals. This implies that the model fosters team work across its behavioural factors such as curiosity, collaborative, decisive thinker, and personal credibility. In this retrospect, it can be argued that any shortcomings or failures observed across the organization is collectively owned and workers come together to eradicated the identified challenges. Essentially, if punishment is to be issued across the organization, it tends to target each employee irrespective of work department. As such, the road map of the CIPD model success and challenges allude to every employee in an organization. For Ulrich model, the business competencies are basically translated individual action purposefully to foster the organization success. The individual actions are fostered through human capital, technology, analytic, and compliances. For Ulrich model, not all competencies foster organization success, some of the competencies are applied to an external aspect of business organization such as the stakeholders (Ulrich et al., 2016). In this retrospect, the success of the organization is based on the individualism efforts within the organization. Each employee is assigned duties of which the worker is expected to deliver the high quality job. Essentially, the issuance of punishment and rewards is individually held whereby, each worker received rewards and punishment as per the business service delivery. Additionally, the enlisted road map of the CIPD is based on behavioural aspects of the employees. Each of the operative maps is presumed to be highly embedded by the employee’s behaviour across the organization. It is important to note that employee behaviour is highly embedded with individual culture, tradition, and qualification. As such, organization advocating for CIPD tend to bring on board employees with varied behaviours that when enforced together various business success approaches are fostered purposefully to gear the organization into success. Ulrich model differs with CIPD model whereby each paradox is associated with the organization wisdom through strategist, value creator, organization developer, and human resource developer. It is through the enlisted paradox that fosters the organization individualism whereby each artist wisdom operates solo to realize the organization success. As such, it can have argued that Ulrich model simply encourages the modern organization to engage in departmental approaches by endorsing individuals with different skills so as to tackle the existing environmental challenges that inhibit business success (Ulrich, et al., 2016). Though the strategy is important towards individual specialization, challenging factors might be realized but employee’s failures to work together thus eradicating the problem will take much time. Contrarily, the CIPD model, employees endorsing the collectively technique are able to foster organization success. This is because the identified challenges are dealt with in a group through team work, which is the most convenient, effective, efficient, and faster approach in dealing with business shortcomings. As such, the CIPD model can be presumed to an effective tool to be adopted in the contemporary society due to collective approach across the model road map. Contrarily, when one department is most like to come to a stand-still, it can be argued that organizations applying CIPD model would highly be affected because each department depends on each other. The individualism aspect of the Ulrich model is most likely to create biasness, laziness, poor, and lack of ownership when it comes to organization delivery. As such, Ulrich model is most likely to put business operative into failures whereby employees are most likely to play blame games when it comes to services delivery (Ulrich, et al., 2016). Advantageously, each department depends on itself hence the business will continue to operate effectively irrespective of single department failure. 4.0 Conclusion Conclusively, both the CIPD and Ulrich model are applicable to the organization based on objectives and goals of the organization. To ascertain organization positive outcome, it can be commended that organizations need to embrace both models in a single entity. This implies that both behavioural road map and the wisdom artist of the Ulrich model need to be applied in an organization purposefully to realize the organization success. This is whereby the insights, strategy, and solutions of the CIPD model are embedded with the paradox navigator of Ulrich model so as to spearhead the organization success. As such, the shortcomings of the CIPD model while receiving support from the Ulrich model and vice versa. 5.0 References Berger, W 2015, ‘Why Curious People are Destined for the C-Suite. Harvard Business Review.’ Available at https://hbr.org/2015/09/why-curious-people-are-destined-for-the-c-suite. [Retrieved 27th/ April/ 2017]. Bridge 2011, ‘Next Generation HR: Insight Driven: CIPD. Available at https://www2.cipd.co.uk/binaries/next-generation-hr_2011-insight-driven.pdf. [Retrieved 27th/ April/ 2017]. Ejimabo, O 2015, ‘The Influence of Decision Making in Organizational Leadership and Management Activities.’ Journal of Entreprenuership & Organizational Management. Kanter, R 1994, ‘Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliance.’ Harvard Business Review. Available at https://hbr.org/1994/07/collaborative-advantage-the-art-of-alliances. [Retrieved 27th/ April/ 2017]. Paine, L 2014, ‘Managing for Organizational Integrity.’ Harvard Business Review. The RBL Group 2016, ‘2016 HR Competency Model: Human Resource Competency Conference 2016. Available at http://www.apg.pt/downloads/file954_pt.pdf. [Retrieved 27th/ April/ 2017]. Vosburgh, R. 2015, ‘The Evolution of HR: Developing HR as an Internal Consulting Organization.’ Available at http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/hrps.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/p_s_article_preview/hrps_issue30.3_evolutionofhr.pdf. [Retrieved 27th/ April/ 2017]. Ulrich, D. Kryscynski, D, Brockbank, W. Ulrich, M. Slade, D. 2016 ‘2016 HR Competency Model, Human Resource Competency Conference. Retrieved from http://www.apg.pt/downloads/file954_pt.pdf Read More