Human Management and Performance - Case Study Example

?Running Head: HRM & the External Environment HRM & the External Environment [Institute’s HRM & the External Environment Ten years ago, the market was a local bazaar spanning a few yards. Transactions took place face-to-face, buyers and sellers not only dealt with each other firsthand, but also knew each other personally. Because of this direct contact with each other, sellers knew their potential customers’ tastes and fashions, and were up-to-date with latest changes and whims. Today, the market could not be more different. Instead of direct contact, buying and selling consists of several levels of hierarchy, none of which consists of the buyer meeting the seller directly. Markets have expanded rapidly, transcending all boundaries and going beyond a local and even a national scale, to a more global level. Furthermore, technological advances have also greatly influenced and shaped the socioeconomic sphere today. That is to say, market expansion and technological progress have made the economy a much more challenging one today. For example, now, it is much harder to keep track of the latest fashions and trends because the producer does not directly know the consumer, and hence cannot gauge the consumer’s latest tastes or feelings towards a product (Houseman, pp. 149-170, 2001). Moreover, since there are many indirect links in marketing today, the ‘loyalty’ factor that was characteristic of a buyer-seller relationship and that used to work heavily in favour of some suppliers is no longer there, and there is an increased pressure on the companies to do well to keep their consumers satisfied. Now, there is a much greater pressure on firms than before to deliver, in that there is increased competition and to thrive – or even survive – in their fields, firms must not only perform well, but also perform better than their competitors perform. Furthermore, trends have also changed greatly as new tastes and fashions grip society, and consumers’ demands are constantly altering, forcing businesses to adapt to them and provide products and services that fit their latest needs and demands (Houseman, pp. 149-170, 2001). Overall, in an economic environment where competition is paramount, consumer satisfaction is of the utmost importance to a business’s returns and so, to keep up with this pace, businesses must cater to new demands, and adapt to cost-cutting and more productive strategies to maximize status and profit. Naturally, to keep abreast of this faster moving market, businesses have had to address their strategies and alter their policies. These changes include an assessment of the production process, evaluation of employees, research etc., but one of the biggest changes made to the structure of the businesses has been to promote and increase greater flexibility in the workplace (Houseman, pp. 149-170, 2001). Workforce flexibility refers to “an organisation’s ability to adapt its human resources in a manner appropriate to increasingly changing environmental conditions” (Houseman, pp. 149-170, 2001). This approach allows a business to allocate tasks based on which jobs on an agenda require the most attention, for example, deciding the product that requires more work forces at a certain time. In addition, more work forces can come under hiring if demand calls. This is a very efficient strategy as unforeseen human resources staffing needs can be met without any significant loss to the business, and at the same time, workers earn more in terms of skills and training in other areas of their work as well. Need for an organisational restructure may come about due to a sudden increase in demand, or a certain, unexpected problem in the production line. For example, during a slow hour, cashiers could be used to help stock shelves, this is efficient because no workers are left idle, and a faster way to marketing can be approached (Wood, pp. 367-413, 1999). At other times, for example, if the supermarket is very busy and has a massive in-flow of customers, workers that were, for example, assigned to checking if everything was in order could be reassigned to the cash counter, so that more customers would be dealt with at a time. As a result, there would be a shorter waiting time, and an overall happier consumer base. Furthermore, for example, during a holiday season, such as Christmas, where every post is occupied and every employee is busy, employees could be asked to work over-time, or part-time workers could be hired. This sort of worker flexibility and cross training is beneficial to both, the employer and the employee as it almost instantaneously caters to the business’s demands. For the employer, the advantages are evident. Greater productivity and more efficiency can be achieved because of functional flexibility. Costs can also be lowered as when numerical flexibility is attained, lesser-paid part-time workers are employed to compensate for the sudden increased demand, and they can be laid off without any lawsuit or other repercussions, as they are known to be “temporary” workers (Cotton, pp. 64, 1993). For the employee, it is beneficial as he/she can learn new and different things and acquire more skills and vocational training over a wide area of tasks. Furthermore, for freelancers, numerical flexibility is helpful as it is a quick way to earn money and a good job opportunity for them. On a more holistic level, both functional and numerical flexibilities are topics of much debate. While some economists argue that workforce flexibility is beneficial to the employer, the employee and to their overall relationship, others blatantly disagree. When flexible approaches are practiced in a working environment, employees that are deployed to other tasks, divisions or departments usually have to take up their new roles without any direct supervision. What arises from this is an overall happier workforce, as in some ways, employees feel self-monitored, and it gives them a sense of responsibility and authority, which in turn satisfies them with their working environment (Lawler, pp. 197-204, 1988). Furthermore, when different tasks are delegated to an employee, he or she feels that they are being challenged positively, and they set it upon themselves to achieve these different goals, and that, as a result, promotes self-sufficiency and confidence. In fact, when one employee, for whatever reason, is made to handle more than one job, he feels a sense of trust and responsibility, which he subconsciously thanks his employer for. The employee, when assigned different jobs, begins to feel that the employer trusts him/her and this allows perspective of looking forward to these new assignments with a positive attitude (Cotton, pp. 64, 1993). In addition, the employee is well aware that with every new field or task, he or she undertakes to meet new techniques and skills, which further enhance vocational training allowing the person to become a more suitable candidate for future jobs. In addition, the employee also does not confront boredom by handling the same, mundane tasks repeatedly. Furthermore, this sort of functional flexibility eliminates unhealthy competition and ill feeling between different employees should they feel that they are stuck to one dissatisfying part of the business. Resentment between workers and their employer is greatly reduced, leading to less friction and consequently greater productivity as the “grass is greener on the other side” complex is erased since workers exchange duties and see firsthand what other employees’ jobs consist of and this also eliminates the “it’s not my job” attitude and encourages teamwork (Wood, pp. 367-413, 1999). Furthermore, as in the supermarket example, if the cashier is sent to stock shelves on a slow Saturday, he can approach other more experienced stockers and ask them for advice or help on how the job is to be done. This improves communication between workers and encourages teamwork and coordination, which ultimately, once again, lead to a greater productivity, which is interlinked with the employer’s satisfaction with his subordinates (Lawler, pp. 197-204, 1988). An added benefit of workforce flexibility is that workers become more or less skilled at many different jobs and quickly replace each other when the need calls (for example, when an employee suddenly quits) without any significant interruption to the organisation. This means that the employer can now actively rely on his or her workforce and knows that the organisation will not suffer if some workers suddenly cannot perform their assigned duties. Another plus of functional flexibility is that problems and limitations can be recognized and addressed faster if more than one person is assigned to do the same task. For example, if an employer is concerned with embezzlement, assigning different workers to the finance wing will show the employer, which workers are directly responsible (Kalleberg, pp. 341-343, 2000). This allows for a smoother running of an organisation resulting in getting rid of mistrust between the employer and employee. Another aspect of functional flexibility is that when different jobs are assigned to employees, they are usually consulted with by the employer and asked about their opinions in the different fields of concern. This direct involvement in the workplace motivates workforce, and makes them feel that as employees, they are actively participating in vital decision-making process of the organisation and contributing towards its goals for the future. In addition, once they feel as though they are sharing the organisation’s goals and objectives, instead of merely working towards them, they will be more committed and this will be reflected in their day-to-day duties (Lawler, pp. 197-204, 1988). Overall, the effect is a positive one as employees feel like an active part of the organisational team, it gives them a sense of belonging to the workplace as they are now familiar with many different departments as opposed to being restricted to just once. In addition, they feel as though they are being trusted with more challenging or more different tasks, which enable them to have less friction with their employer, as they eventually feel a sense of gratitude towards their employer for giving them a chance to expand their expertise and vocational knowledge. Workforce flexibility provides the element of trust that many organisations are at times, lacking, leading to lower efficiency, lower productivity, and ultimately higher costs (Huselid, pp. 635-672, 1995). While workforce flexibility is now becoming every successful business’s primary organisational goal, it is also a cause of ill feeling within the organisation at times. When numerical flexibility, or the hire of part-time workers or over-time workers, is practiced, costs incurred by the business may be reduced but insecurity over employment is also unintentionally propagated. For example, when a qualified worker sets out to look for a job and he is hired by an organisation as a part-time worker, he may feel snubbed as qualification wise; he is as apt as the full-time employees of the business are. Furthermore, in the day-to-day running of an organisation, there can be high levels of friction between part-time and full-time employees as the latter can make the former feel like “temporary outsiders” (Kalleberg, pp. 341-343, 2000). This further exacerbates the socioeconomic problem of inequality within a business and leads to general dissatisfaction within the business itself, eventually hurting productivity and ultimately, the employer him or herself. Another example of numerical flexibility leading to discontent would be when part-time workers fill in for ex-employees in a cost-cutting strategy, other full-time employees that are still working for the company might unite against the “invaders” as a show of solidarity, especially if they belong to the same union as the fired employee. This could hinder productive collaboration and teamwork within the business. Another aspect that must come under consideration when dealing with workforce flexibility is the “psychological contract” between an employee and an employer. Many a time, an employee may feel as though he or she is being forced into a different field of work with which he or she is not fully comfortable, and may feel as though he or she is being “pushed around” and not respected because he or she feels that their psychological contract with the employer has been breached. Furthermore, as in the case of part-time workers, they may feel their existence as expendable going against the psychological contract, which calls for respect within the workplace. In addition, they may feel as though their self-worth is damaged in this temporary job since essentially they do not get treatment as equals in the workforce and will always feel inferior to the full-time employees (Kalleberg, pp. 341-343, 2000). Furthermore, the fact that flexible approaches are under utilization shows the employees that the business is perhaps interested in cutting costs that exacerbates the problem of job insecurity. On the other hand, for full-time workers, this may lead to resentment towards the employer as they feel that employer will lay them off any day. Ultimately, insecurity leads to lower productivity and increased friction between the employer and the employee and for a smooth running organisation, it is pivotal for both the parties to be on the same page in terms of thoughts and objectives (Wood, pp. 367-413, 1999). Overall, one can observe excellent practice of an organisation to have workforce flexibility due to which interruptions in the smooth operating of a business can be minimized, and employees can confront challenges and acquire new skills. However, it is also true that increased flexibility can be disastrous to a company in terms or promoting job insecurity and resentment towards the employer. This eventually leads to lower productivity and greater costs for the business and although it is true that in today’s ever-increasing competition, people with flexible perspective wins the race, it is also advisable to be sensible and to take into account the concerns of employees when undertaking any major development in the organisational structure. References Cotton, J. L. 1993. Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and Work Attitudes. Sage Publications. Houseman, S. N. 2001. “Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: evidence from an establishment survey.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Volume 55, 149-170. Huselid, M.A. 1995. “The impact of human Relogical Title management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.” Academy of Management Journal. Volume 38, 635-672. Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. “Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-time, Temporary, and Contract Work.” Annual Review of Sociology. Volume 26, 341-343. Lawler, E. E., III. 1988. “Choosing an involvement strategy.” Academy of Management Executive. Volume 2, 197-204. Wood, S. 1999. “Human Relogical Title Management and Performance.” International Journal of Management Reviews. Volume 1, 367-413. Read More