Improving Organization Performance of Merseytravel and Autoglass Companies - Research Paper Example

Improving organization performance UK based companies both manufacturing and service industries are faced with the biggest challenge of operating in the environment with intense globalised competition. The globalised business environment where business enterprises across the globe operates without regional boundaries has indeed brought about a number of external factors that have been detrimental to the viability of local business enterprises (Ramsay, Scholarios & Harley, 2000; p512). In other words, the rate at which companies from other parts of the world are setting up their operations in the UK is overwhelming and this aspect has significantly strengthened competition in the domestic market. However, despite this overwhelming challenge a number of UK based companies have successful managed to compete effectively overtime and thus preserve their future existence. This has been made possible through successful innovation in not only the design and promotion of new products and services but in the workplace innovation. Workplace innovation involves constant improvement and design of processes and systems for organizing and managing work (Andy, et al, 2010; p614). Most of UK based companies realized that the key to success in this globalised competitive environment lies in the organization’s workforce and the system of management that will exploit each individual staff’s talent and capabilities. The urge for workplace innovation has led to the adoption of High Performance Work (HPW) practices among the UK based companies considering its wide focus on the workforce involvement and participation as well as equality and diversity. This task will focus on analyzing the Performance Management (PM) and High Performance Work (HPW) practices of two UK based companies namely Merseytravel and Autoglass. High Performance Work (HPW) practice underscore the need for employers to involve employees in critical decision making as well as high control of reward structure by the workforce (Stanford, 2007;p18). HPW system is highly recognized by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills and defines it a style in management that lays major emphasis on people and their skills within the organization by securing their involvement and commitment to diverse organizational issues. This is because the way an organization manages its workforce brings about significant difference in the overall organizational performance (Armstrong, 2009; p189). HPW is not a unitary activity and as such, it involves a number of policies and practices which may be enshrined in a company’s philosophy. For instance, a HPW in a company may include practices in the human resource management, which relates to appraisal, pay and bonuses as well as employee development or organization policies regarding workplace relations, management and leadership or practices in work organization such as team working. The main goal of HPW is to promote a workplace management that focuses on autonomy, learning and participation. It is noteworthy that HPW involves a wide range of sophisticated and extensive Human Resource (HR) practices and policies that have been adopted with different companies with a view of improving organizational outcomes. Several researchers in the past few decades have continued to employ a number of approaches that would create an easy understanding of how management behaviours and practices within a company correlates with business performance. This is because there is growing assumption that most companies that do well in the market based on productivity and innovation capabilities also tend to employ other forms of sophisticated, effective and extensive management practices. Thanks to High Performance Work (HPW) practices which provides a valuable means of highlighting the notable disparities between high performing companies and average performing companies (Holbeche, 2005; p78). Studies have been cantered on a “bundle” of human resource (HR) practices and policies and their subsequent impact on not only overall organization performance but most importantly product/service innovation, labour productivity, and employee well being. Evidence from diverse sources indicate that such HR practices and policies, which include but not limited to broad employee recruitment and selection programs, information sharing, extensive employee involvement and development as well as remuneration and performance management system tend to have significant improvement on the company’s overall and labour productivity. This is because a company can attract, develop and retain highly talented, skilled and motivated employees through effective HR practices and policies. No individual in the organization should be left behind in the quest for improved organizational performance as his or her contributions is considered valuable. Lessons from high performing companies and technocrats indicate that HPW system often attains synergy when it is capable of creating two notable results simultaneously; (i) all parts of the organization are aligned and fit together and (ii) ever individual in the organization is committed, passionate and energized about their work (Holbeche, 2005;p 36). Performance Management (PM) is one of the HR practices and policies under high performance work system applied by most high performing organizations across the world to leverage on the unique abilities and talents of their employees. Armstrong, and Baron, (2005; p11) assert that performance management can be defined as a continuous process of identifying, measuring and developing both individual and teams outcome. It also involves aligning employee performance with the strategic goals of the business enterprise. Kochanski, (2008; p33) acknowledges that most people often mistake performance appraisal for performance management. The difference lies in execution considering that performance appraisal is one time event that focuses on examining the strengths and weaknesses of the workforce unlike performance management, which is an ongoing process, which involves constant of setting goals and objectives, measuring performance and issuing feedback to enhance professional growth and development. PM also lays major emphasis on aligning employee output with the overall organization goals, which in turn enhance an organizations competitive advantage (Boxall,& Purcell, 2007; p40). PM system is considered an important HR practice within an organization because it provides a direct link between workforce activities with organizational goals and in essence making workplace contribution to the company explicit. According to Pulakos (2004; p45) performance management has no implementation formula especially when it comes to its core components of establishing goals, employee performance assessments, reward systems and training programs. This may be because most companies operate on different namely large and small scale, public, private, manufacturing and service as well as profit, and non-profit. Additionally companies also have diverse vision and vision as well as objectives. There is no guarantee that all PM implemented will be successful considering that most organizations have adopted PM systems differing level of success while other have been a complete failure and therefore most companies should be cautious of PM implementation process to avoid negative consequences. According to Price (2007; p97) companies around the globe operate PM system with the intention of meeting diverse purposes, which may include but not limited to alignment of individual/team activities with strategic goals, administrative decision-making especially during promotion, and reward of performance as well as employee retention/termination (Sparham, & Sung, 2004; p18). Other purposes may include communication purposes through a feedback process between a supervisor and staff members; employee development purpose in the context of feedback culture where employee performance is monitored and remedial action is taken to avoid undesirable behaviour. Several organizations not only in the UK but also in other parts of the world are currently exercising a high performance working approach in their workplaces and there is there is massive evidence that those that have adopted HPW are reaping great benefits. Autoglass and Merseytravel are key among the UK based companies that are enjoying great gains for adopting High Performance Work (HPW) practices over the past few years (UKCES, 2010; p20). Autoglass is an automobile glass repair and replaced company based in UK with its headquarters located in Bedford (“About Autoglass”, 2013). The company is operating under the Automobile repair industry. As at the beginning of 2010, the company had more than 2000 employees with at least 100 branches across the country. This company operates autonomously though it is a subsidiary of the international Belron group of companies (“About Autoglass”, 2013). The company has been growing overwhelming over the recent past and it is now boasting of a large pool of mobile blue-collar workforce that is widely spread across the country. For instance, a large segment of the company’s total workforce consists of automobile technicians based in branches but most of their work is carried out on the roads away from branches. Currently the number of technicians in Autoglass exceeds 50% of the total workforce while the remained work as customer service agents, branch managers, call centre operators and administrative workers in the head office (UKCES, 2010; p30). Merseytravel is a UK based public transport authority charged with the responsibility of constructing and maintaining regional transport infrastructure in the Merseyside area (“Merseytravel”, 2010). Additionally the organization also coordinates public transport activities with a view of making Merseyside a better place to live through an excellent transport system. The company operates in the transport industry. It is noteworthy that Merseytravel is not a body in itself but just a name used to represent Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) in Merseyside (“Case Study - High Performance”, 2010). The organizations head office is based in Liverpool. A board, which consists of 18 politically, elected councillors, administers the organization and its operation (UKCES, 2010; p52). The organization operates three primary functions in its quest to promote an effective transport system and these include the Executive, Ferries and Tunnels. By the beginning of 2010, the company had over 900 employees but this number has been growing from time to time owing to new demands and investments in the transport system in the Merseyside area. The organization consists of large pool of diverse workforce from different fields, which include but not limited to engineers, police officers, administrators, ferry captains. Though the companies have managed to adopt HPW system, it is noteworthy that these two companies have demonstrated diverse adoption with respect to work practices and approaches. This can be attributed to the different objectives and goals of these organizations. However, despite the wide range of workplace practices and approaches adopted by Autoglass and Merseytravel these two companies share the same value of HPW which involves a strong belief about the value of people to the organization (UKCES, 2010; p15). It is plausible that this belief in people in both the organization comes from the top executives within the organization. These top executives have a on a number of occasions justified their recognition and acknowledgment for mutual gain and respect that comes from HR practices that focuses on people, their skills and promoting full utilization of these skills. It is noteworthy that these two organizations also shares similar drives for adopting high performance work approach and these include drive for excellence and high customer expectation. Both companies though in different industry are highly motivated by the strong desire to integrate excellence in all the organization aspects especially services and workplace management. Autoglass High Performance Work approach is based on the company’s philosophy of engagement. The top leaders of the organization believe in engaging the staff members in all aspects of the organization in order to allow them give better services (“About Autoglass”, 2013). It is noteworthy that organization has been facing the biggest challenge in adopting new management practices owing to the fact that most of their staff is largely mobile blue-collar workers. This aspect makes engagement more difficult because most of the employees keep on shifting from time to time. However, this barrier to an effective HPW was eliminated through a national employee engagement forum. During the forum, employees from different departments are surveyed and employees air their thoughts and ideas, as this is the main arena for communicating views between the organization leaders and subordinates in both directions. Communication is another development central to Autoglass HPW approach (UKCES, 2010; p32). The organization lays major emphasis on the need to communicate results of the engagement surveys to the entire staff members in order to link results and actions apart from promoting desirable behavior. Employees are allowed to air their views about how they can improve organization outcome and this result is communicated by the line mangers to other employees. The leadership of the Autoglass constantly uses these surveys to highlight areas of actions and gain significant contribution of the employees and this in turn motivates them to work effectively when they realized that their ideas are valued by the organization. In other words, leaders as well as subordinates make use of communication as a critical tool for empowerment and engagement. Leadership and management is another major approach used by Autoglass in its HPW. The company’s HR practices are based on openness and engagement rather than hierarchical and dictatorial leadership style (“About Autoglass”, 2013). Leaders in Autoglass are constantly assessed, and do receive feedback on both their leadership styles and climate and its impact on the team and individual engagement. The assessment of leadership approach by the organization is aimed at transforming its managers into leaders and allow them adopt more engaging approach with their subordinates. For instance, top managers are expected to atleast have face-to-face chatting session with technicians when they visit branches regarding operations and prospects of the organization services. In other words, Autoglass HPW approach revolves around employee engagement, effective communication and focused leadership. Merseytravel High Performance Work (HPW) approach and organization philosophy is based on one major concept, which is learning (UKCES, 2010; p54). The organization being a public sector it is overwhelmed by high level of expectation from members of the public. In order to ensure that the entire workforce is upbeat with service delivery, the organization decided to make learning one of the fundamental organizational values. Merseytravel operates a training program known as Merseylearn whose aim is to provide vigorous job focused training for all employees. The organization currently operates Merseylearn centres with extended hours (“Merseytravel”, 2010). It is plausible that the organization also supports non-job related training for its staff through a program called “U-Learn”. This training program involves giving low interest loans to employees who wish to pursue further studies in non-job related field. The organization leadership believes that the only way to empower and encourage employee engagement is by giving them skills above their job description. Employees must always feel confident when making decisions and this can only be achieved when they are well trained on matters beyond their jurisdiction (Tamkin, 2004; p131). For this reason, employees of Merseytravel are provided with training that gives them an opportunity to work effectively at a more senior level than their present ascribed roles. For instance, all officers receive training on supervisory roles and are issued with NVQ’s in supervisory grades. Supervisors receive training on line management roles and the same approach is repeated up to the top executive position. This training on high position roles is carried out with the objective of providing employees with a tangible benefit of personal autonomy as they operate in position where they can not only make suggestions but also act with confidence. Enhanced autonomy is another important approach to the company’s HPW. Communication has also been made an important element of HPW approach by the Merseytravel leadership, as team briefing is a common occurrence in the organization with a view of promoting engagement and discussion. Despite the significant differences on the approaches to High Performance Work, the two companies-Merseytravel and Autoglass also boast of several similarities in their HPW approach. Key among the similarities in the tow companies approach to HPW includes but not limited to learning, engagement, and open communication. It is evident that leaders from both the organizations are keen on the need to provide employees with effective training to boost their level of performance. This claim can be justified by the fact that both organizations operate training programs for their staff. Merseytravel operates a Merseylearn, which provides job focused training while Autoglass on the other hand operate their own National Accreditation Centre, which allows for proper training and assessment of technicians based on their skills and knowledge about job operations. Additionally Autoglass is also operating the Automotive Technician Accreditation (ATA) scheme in collaboration with the Institute of the Motor Industry to improve their employee skills (“About Autoglass”, 2013). Both the companies have also demonstrated appreciation for effective communication between organizational leaders and followers. Both organizations are operating a non-hierarchical structure, which facilitates exchange of communication between the top executives and subordinates. Apart from the diverse HPW approaches applied by Autoglass and Merseytravel, these two companies have also demonstrated significant different performance management practices. The two companies got it right with their performance management system though they are dissimilar. However, at the core of the performance management system adopted by the two companies is employee development. In other words, the two companies are high focused on boosting their employee performance through training opportunities. Beginning with the similarities between the companies’ performance management it is notable that the leadership of both organizations were motivated by the need to align individual/team performance to organizational goals and objectives. The leaders for both the organization applied performance management for administrative purposes mostly reward system considering that in both companies wages of the employees were reviewed after employee performance evaluation. The companies also used performance management to communicate desirable employee behaviour and expectations. Merseytravel is operating a straightforward performance management system whereby individuals are given key performance indicators. These indicators are tied to both the team and overall organizational objectives. The employees are evaluated quarterly based on their achievement of key performance indicators. Performance related pay and development opportunities are available for individuals who have attained or exceeded the set performance indicators. It is noteworthy that training opportunities in Merseytravel is available to every employee in a non-discriminatory manner as everyone receive job training and access to low interest loan to purse academic courses that are non job related (“Moving Merseyside “, 2013). Poor performers are given support by their respective supervisors and line managers regarding job requirement and expectations. Unlike in the Merseytravel where individuals are given key performance indicates in Autoglass every job is assigned specific objectives and competencies and employees in every job must demonstrate clear understanding of the objectives. To ensure that all employees at different levels clear understands job objectives and competencies especially the technicians they are taken through the National Accreditation Centre where they are trained and assessed against the stipulated standards. The technicians who managed to excel in their training by demonstrating the required skills, knowledge and expertise at work are accredited and their pay is linked to their performance. For those with difficulty in effective job execution are taken through the training processes again and again until they catch up with fellow workers. References About Autoglass. (2013). Accessed May 8, 2013 < http://www.autoglass.co.uk/About-Autoglass-R.200.0.html > ANDY, D et al. (2010). Workers experiences of skill, training and participation in lean and high performance workplaces in Britain and Italy. Employee Relation, 32(6): Pp 606-624. ARMSTRONG, M (2009). Armstrongs handbook of performance management: an evidence-based guide to delivering high performance, 4th Ed. London: Kogan Page. ARMSTRONG, M. and BARON, A. (2005). Managing performance. 2nd ed. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. BOXALL, P. & PURCELL, J. (2007). Strategy and human resource management, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition Case Study - High Performance Working: Merseytravel. (2010). Accessed May 8, 2013 Case Study (High Performance Working): Merseytravel, (2010). Accessed May 8, 2013 COOPER, C & BURKE, R. (2007). Human Resource Management in Small Business Achieving Peak Performance. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub. HOLBECHE, L. (2005).The high performance organisation: creating dynamic stability and sustainable success. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. KOCHANSKI, J. (2008). Four key steps to performance management. Workspan. Vol 51, No 2, February. pp32–36. Moving Merseyside Forward. (2013). Accessed May 8, 2013 PRICE, A. (2007). Human resource management in a business context. London, Thomson. PULAKOS, E. (2004). Performance Management: A roadmap for developing, implementing and evaluating performance management systems. Accessed May 8, 2013 < http://www.osp.state.nc.us/Guide/PerformanceMgmt/docs/PM_Roadmap%20to%20design_implement_eval_Pulakos.pdf> RAMSAY, H., SCHOLARIOS, D & HARLEY, B. (2000) Employees and High-Performance Work Systems: Testing Inside the Black Box, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38:4, pp. 501-531. SPARHAM, E & SUNG, J. (2004). High Performance Work Practices: Work Intensification or Win-win? Centre For Labour Market Studies, Accessed May 8, 2013 < http://www.ftms.edu.my/pdf/Download/UndergraduateStudent/IOP%20STUDENT%20ARTICLES/HPW%20Ramsay%20intensification%20or%20win%20win.pdf> STANFORD, N. (2007). Guide to organisation design creating high-performing and adaptable enterprises. London, Economist. TAMKIN, P (2004). High Performance Working Practices. Accessed May 8, 2013 < http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/mp36.pdf> The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES). (2010). High Performance Working: Employer Case Studies. Accessed May 8, 2013 < http://www.ukces.org.uk/assets/ukces/docs/publications/evidence-report-19-high-performance-working-employer-case-studies.pdf> Read More