People Resourcing: Jobs and Work - Essay Example

? People Resourcing Jobs and Work Sur Educational s (2802 words) The primary goal of corporate structuring is to develop the functions that the organisation is involved in and make the firm more proficient so as to maintain operations in the competitive environment. Organisational structuring is accomplished by listing their goals as well as by creating standards that conform to the society’s needs. It also comprises of developing strategic planning, quality management, and stimulating the team spirit. It defines jobs and subtasks in business establishments, and includes the allocation of tasks among workers. Different organisations have different ways of allocating jobs and responsibilities to their workers. In many instances, the manufacturing process of a company will be divided into separate tasks that can be carried out by a number of employees. Specialised job responsibilities will allow organisational managers to match employees with tasks that are based on their competencies. This allows for employees to be able to focus on their specific areas of expertise. For instance, a corporation ought to employ engineers to carry out any design responsibilities and business experts cater to promotional aspects instead of giving more responsibilities to the present workers who might have some small talent in any of these areas. The law of comparative advantage verifies that this specialisation will end up yielding a higher output than would be achieved if the company used the existing workers to carry out these extra tasks. With specialised job assignment, every worker is trained to finish just one basic function. This is much more cost effective than would be the case if all the workers were trained to be able to work efficiently in more than one task. For example, if a corporation has need of an engineer and a semi skilled worker for tasks at the production line, specialised, in contrast to broad task assignment gives the company the chance to employ one partially skilled worker and one engineer (Von Krogh, 2003). With broad task allocation, the education level needed is typically of the highest level. Therefore, it will be more expensive for the corporation to employ two employees with college degrees than just one. Specialised task assignment is more cost effective than broad task assignment. Specialised task assignments have just one impediment are. This is the fact that they do not retain the knowledge used in some of the creative processes included in the process of manufacturing a product. For instance, if a company’s engineers have to plan for and create a new copier but do not take part in the production and advertising functions, they will not have the necessary feedback to create successful merchandise. This feedback will be traduced in consumers’ needs and future market opportunities. In addition, if just one employee is responsible for the assemblage, it is a likely thing that a worker will conduct his or her job with less care than if there were other workers. Also, to cut coordination costs, the functions of specialised workers have to be corresponding. For example, a firm can establish the procedures as well as methods needed to process a definite number of products in a given period of time so that technicians can make use of the same procedures to make other products. This calls for good coordination to exist between various product units. An organisation’s managers also have to ensure that the workers remain focused on their specific functions instead of the overall function of ensuring that the goods they produce are sold. For instance, the performance of the production division of a company could be assessed on the basis of the number of manufactured units, while the marketing division’s performance might be based on the number of transactions made; but if the quality of the goods is compromised, the sales numbers will begin to decline even though the marketing division’s performance stays high. Workers are more likely to develop closer relations if they use the same workspace. They are also likely to develop regulations and come up with processes that coordinate operations between interdependent subunits if they share the same workspace. There is then an exchange between the advantages that come from putting workers together and the cost of matching their operations with those of other subunits. Taylor's theory of Scientific Management is regularly applied in most of the modern organisations as a `scientific ' method of allocating tasks to different workers (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, 2002). In this scientific approach, workers are given definite tasks; which they are then expected to accomplish. Prior to the task allocation, training takes place under the direction of the company’s senior management. Even though the workers are encouraged to use existing company assets for self-development purposes, professional training only takes place using the tools formed for this purpose. Training functions are made to match the personal needs of the personnel and also to make the most of the organisation’s efficiency. The best trained employees who exhibit the greatest levels of commitment on a constant basis are usually the ones that benefit from promotions, and so the incentives are also made to benefit dedicated workers. Competency Modelling Often, business institutions use competency modelling when handing different tasks to different employees (Torrington, Hall, Taylor and Atkinson, 2011). Competencies are basically behaviours that include the knowledge, abilities, and attributes necessary for successful job performance. In addition to brainpower and aptitude, the core characteristics of a worker like habits, traits, motives, self-image and social roles allow an employee to be able to give a superior performance in a specific assigned role. The word ‘competency’ is also descriptive of something measurable or observable. This is why it is possible for competency to be tested. Without the practical aspect, evaluating competencies basically loses its objectivity; which then renders it as being irrelevant. The importance of a competency is also based on practical performance. In determining competencies, an organisation’s managers should always look into any of the organisation’s archival performance statistics that exist. Obtaining information about competencies from actual worker performances means that managers have to examine the corporate objectives and compare them with the efforts of workers before they can determine who their top performers are (Taylor, 2010). Upon making this selection, the managers can then benchmark, or maintain observance on their best performing employees in order to establish what competencies they have shown in the course of these sessions. The Competency model has different levels to describe the capabilities of workers. In the basic level, the employee has the abilities that are expected after finishing the initial training course. The employee is capable of conducting tasks that only need limited skills. At this level, the employee still has to be closely supervised and is often directed. In the intermediate stage, the worker has an improved level of abilities as a result of some work experience and more advanced training. The worker can be trusted to perform tasks that necessitate experience in a variety of skills (Nooteboom, 1992). In this phase, the worker is only supervised sometimes. In the advanced level, the worker has gained a lot of experience both through engaging in jobs and in partaking in numerous courses. He or she can resolve highly challenging work related concerns and is perceived to be an expert resource. Whenever the competency model has to incorporate knowledge as well as technical skills, a set of applicable technical knowledge/skill competencies can be formed within the company. Identification and Use of Competency Levels When forming competency structures with the ‘Multiple Jobs Approach’, it is usually important to categorize and differentiate dissimilar levels of competency. For instance, a first-level management competency structure might have to include a stage of planning ability, while a competency structure on project management would necessitate a more advanced level of planning proficiency. Furthermore, competency structure built for nurses might have a basic level of the comprehension of cardiac knowledge, but the cardiologist’s competency model would call for a higher level of this ability. Some business establishments utilise general levels such as these, but give different definitions to each of these levels for every competency. Competency levels allow organisations to be able to differentiate the proficiencies needed in the different jobs. Levels are also helpful in performance appraisal (Pibeam and Corbidge, 2010). For instance, a manager arranging for a performance appraisal can utilise the competency levels to evaluate a worker’s abilities on the different competencies identified for the worker’s position. Using competency levels also allows the organisation to be able to match job requirements with personnel assessments for career planning or internal selection. Use of Core Competencies When using the ‘Multiple Jobs Approach’, some corporations form a basic set of competencies for all of the jobs. For instance, a company can decide that the competency structure to be used for each job should include flexibility, Results Orientation, and Client Orientation. A company’s IT Department might also add extra competencies needed in all its jobs. An IT division’s competency model might include numerous job-specific competencies, the organisation’s basic competencies, and the IT Department’s specific job competencies. This might mean that large corporations might actually have large competency models with more than 15 competencies. When the Multiple Jobs Approach is Appropriate The Multiple Jobs approach is suitable whenever competency models are required for more than a few jobs within a company. The approach is particularly helpful when it is critical to identify technical knowledge/skill options. This approach is also suitable when HR personnel intend to use the competency models for career and succession planning (Lamond, 2004). Career planning involves matching workers’ assessments to the skills and proficiencies needed in multiple jobs. Due to the fact that the management of multiple competency structures can be multifaceted, many high-quality technological solutions have been generated for this purpose. Technology enables the evaluation of development planning, competency assessment, and internal selection. The competency models expert, Nyboe, has in the past stated that there are two different approaches to aligning competencies with work (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). People’s qualifications can be changed and improved in order to align with work requirements; or job responsibilities and tasks can be apportioned to workers according to their abilities in terms of training and competency. In the job approach, job responsibilities are separated into individual tasks according to what is perceived as being a reasonable labour division, and employees are employed and trained to fulfil those responsibilities. Conversely, in the competency approach, the focus is shifted from the job to the employee and his or her specific abilities (Mumby and May, 2004). Employees are not given tasks according to the jobs they hold, but according to the abilities and knowledge concerning the job. This adjustment in the way the selection and assessment of employees is conducted will contribute towards the gradual change of the entire human relations management process. How Managers learn of the Different Talents of their Workers For a manager, it is vital that the right employees are assigned the different jobs in any organisation. Moreover, it is also important for the manager to ensure that he or she is not perceived as being biased when allocating jobs. To accomplish this, the manager first has ensured that he or she creates the necessary criteria that will be used in allocating tasks. If there are distinctive roles in the team of employees being considered, this is not a serious concern as the abilities of different workers are already well recognised and the workers may actually apportion themselves the tasks according to each of their proficiencies. However, most companies have many specialists among their groups of employees (Dooley, Holmes, and Van de Ven, 2004). For instance, a web based company may have more than 6 talented software design engineers. In such cases, the manager or director has to have a specific criterion from which he or she will make the relevant selection. It is also important that this criterion be recognised and accepted by every employee being considered for the position in the group. If the manager narrows down the criterion to the lowest common denominator and still finds that all the choices are well qualified, it might be best to make the selection through some unorthodox methods. For instance, the manager can select: The person who has the time to perform the job in an unhurried and detailed manner. Some workers may have family responsibilities or other issues that do not allow them to linger too long at work once they have finished their basic tasks. The person that the manager considers to be the smartest and most creative in the group. This can be a particularly sensitive criterion, if made public. Sometimes, managers using it are forced to rephrase it in some other way in order not to offend the employees who are not selected. Sometimes, managers will simply choose at random. This means giving the job to the most qualified employee whom the manager comes across first or giving it to the employee who first asks for it.  When the manager decides to use the first two options as the criteria, it might be a wise move to allow the employees themselves to determine what qualities constitute these subjective criteria in the spirit of transparency and teamwork. Involving one’s group of employees in person-job mapping might appear to be impractical for the manager, but it pays dividends in the final analysis. This works best if the manager has already set up daily or weekly regular group meetings. Such meetings can be used to supply information regarding the available new job opportunities and clarifying the benefits and disadvantages of going for the available job. In the meeting, the manager will: (1) Casually announce that he or she has been requested to obtain a competitive analysis done for the item for consumption in next few weeks and present the findings to organisation’s business unit manager. The manager can also clarify that this information will be employed by product managers and some higher ranking directors to determine what new products to introduce into the market and which ones to drop, and so this will be a great visibility item. The manager might also stress to his or her listeners that any person who takes on the job will have to spend a lot of time on it as it has a short time limit and yet has so much work. The manager can then finish by stating that the final decision on who will take over this task will be made in the following meeting and that all applications are welcome. (2) Ideally, if the manager’s group has career conscious and motivated employees, there will be some inquiries for more information before the meeting is closed. If this does not happen, however, the manager can directly approach candidates that might actually have all the qualities that are right for the job. Moreover, the whole process should not be presented as a competitive sport, but rather as an exercise in shared leadership opportunities and initiative-taking. (3) In the subsequent meeting, the manager can take time to argue about this topic and offer more details on the job. This might inspire the employees to ask more questions, ask for clarifications, and give their insights on it. This will result in discussions among the employees themselves on what the job takes and which kind of worker is best suited to handle it. By the time the second meeting is finished, the manager will begin to get a sense of who might be interested in the job and who is not. (4) After the meeting, the manager can determine who to allocate the job to since it remains his or her responsibility to ensure that the person with the right skills has been chosen for the job. The manager might also want to consider if this job might be expanded to be a group effort; particularly if different parts of the job have different people who are proficient in them within the organisation. After consulting and making the final decision, the manager can then share his findings with the rest of his or her group. Once most managers get to understand the different skills of their employees after working with them over some projects, they can make accurate decisions on the interests and strengths of each of their employees. If they have established good communication systems, they can even consult with their employees on an informal basis about who is the person that is most likely to be successful certain jobs. However, to ensure that also the employees’ newly discovered strengths as well as new interests are considered, it is always important to meet with the entire team when making decisions such as job prospects. This is also a simple way of comprehending the strengths of the corporate employees, and can even be used by a manager as a fact to consider when deciding on future corporate leaders. References Dooley, H.A., Holmes, K. & van de Ven, M.E. (2004) Handbook of organisational change and innovation, Oxford University Press, Cary. Hatch, M.J. & Cunliffe, A.L. (2006) Organisation theory 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lamond, D. (2004) ‘A matter of style: reconciling Henri and Henry’, Management Decision, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 330–356. Mumby, D.K. & May, S. (2004) Engaging organisational communication theory & research, SAGE Publications, New York. Nooteboom, B. (1992) ‘A postmodern philosophy of markets’, Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org.', vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 53-76. Pibeam, S. & Corbidge, M. (2010) People resourcing and planning, Financial Times/Pitman Pulishing, London. Taylor, S. (2010) Resourcing and talent management, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S., & Atkinson, C. (2011) Human resource management, Edition, Prentice Hall, London. Von Krogh, G. (2003) ‘Understanding the problem of knowledge sharing’, International Journal of Information Technology Management, vol. 2, pp. 173-183. Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. & Snyder, W. (2002) ‘A guide to management knowledge: Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business Review Press, Harvard. Read More