Promotional Decisions and Poor HRM Enhancement Resolutions - Literature review Example

Promotion Decisions Name: Institution: Promotion Decisions Promotions form crucial functions of human resource management (HRM) owing to the accompanying influence on job satisfaction among workers. Promotion decisions remain a great dilemma for many human resource managers due to the need to ensure fairness and enhancement of efficiency in the workforce. Poor promotional decisions often trigger increased infighting in the workforce leading to increased resistance and poor teamwork in the workforce. Hierarchical based promotional decisions form a great source of poor HRM enhancement resolutions with some employees being promoted beyond their level of competence. Managers often promote employees to levels where they are unable to execute certain roles professionally and effectively (Fairburn & Malcomson, 2001). Such mistakes can be attributed to lack of reliable and effective internal recruitment methods in an organization. The effects of the Peter Principle (PP) are almost certainly experienced in firms that make promotions exclusively from within the organization especially with adherence to the hierarchical job position rise. Recruitment of outside applicants for mid-level and higher positions has emerged as one of the sure ways of eliminating the effects of the PP in many organizations. Corporations often turn to the recruitment of applicants from outside the existing workforce to minimize the promotion of employees to levels beyond their level of competency. Other organizations deal with effects of the PP and the consequent dissatisfaction in the workforce though creation of temporary titles such as the acting positions before filling the vacancies with the professionally competent person (Noer, 2009). The strategy of appointing some individuals for the acting positions is particularly practical in organizations where promotional decisions are based on certain hierarchy or ranks. In this case, the employee perceived as not competent for the position is saved the embarrassment and given an opportunity to prove himself or herself after which the position is confirmed or denied based on performance. This review explores the literature that explains poor choices that support the PPand the role of HRM strategies in managing the risk of poor promotion decisions within the Royal Australian Air Force. Literature Review The recruitment and management strategies that drive the enhancement of morale of employees cannot be overemphasized. Generally, promotions in any progressive organization should be anchored on a competency based system that reflects the prevailing needs of the organization and its acceptance rationales. In essence, though non-formal promotions are prevalent even in the contemporary corporate world, competency of the underlying criteria is vital, and should be context based to instill sustainability (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007). Promotion is perhaps one of the main internal recruitment strategies where the human resource managers fill vacant positions through elevation of existing staff to positions left vacant through departure of some workers. This process is crucial because it influences the morale of employees who believe that an organization rewards successful performance through promotion to higher positions. In addition, it is important that every organization embrace custom fitting promotional strategies in order to prevent disastrous copying of competencies from other institutions because despite potential similarities in operations the organizational goals vary substantially. The lack of possible promotion and advancement opportunities within an organization can be a major cause of high turnover rates and employee dissatisfactions (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007). The PPis reflected in organization that emphasize on filling in vacant positions from within and recruiting externally only for entry-level vacancies. This phenomenon is particularly common in the military workforces where employees must start from the list rank and rise through the ranks despite their qualifications. Commonly enjoined with the Paul Principle, the PP is defined by the tendency of incompetent individual being elevated to undeserved positions in an organization where they stick hence preventing growth of rather competent colleagues. Although protocol may warrant this practice as is likely in the command-and-follow military realm, relevant promotion decision makers should avoid promoting the concept from becoming a norm in the institutions they lead. This is to imply that promotional exercises should be founded on competency canons of potential and flexibility that permit change of position holders when need arises. The underlying caution to check exercise of the PP is that promoters must exhibit restraint when fronting associates by ensuring that they communicate the full extent of all responsibilities of available positions. Promotion decisions based on ranks are supported through the argument that organizations avoid experimenting with unknown people at higher levels and new recruits are provided with the chance to prove themselves in the lower positions. Promotion of employees as a reward for exemplary performance or execution of certain roles in the organization can also translate to poor promotional decisions as the empowered individual may not necessarily be endowed with the desired skills or competence to undertake the role in the positions above them. Rewarding employees for successful performance is perceived as being fast and less expensive than external recruitment despite predisposing the organization to the adverse effects of the Peter Principle. Promotion as a Reward Many a times human resource managers promote some employees to higher positions or ranks as rewards for exemplary performance in a given organizational task. Making promotional decisions in organizations on the basis of rewarding performance supports the PP because individuals are elevated to higher positions without consideration of their qualifications and competency. Promotion decisions aimed at rewarding employees occur independent of the qualification of the individual being promoted, a phenomenon that translates to incompetence in performing the roles associated with the job position. Promotion in some organizational set ups is viewed as the ultimate reward at work because it fulfills the successful employees’ needs for recognition, achievement, responsibility and personal growth (Fairburn & Malcomson, 2001). The promotion strategy has been recognized as an effective means of enhancing employees’ morale owing to the assumption that promotion of some individuals serves to energize others to work harder in order to receive similar rewards. According to Noer (2009), rewarding performance with promotion is an outdated fundamental paradigm assumption in which the basic reward for employee performance was perceived as promotion to higher positions in the organization. Some organizations use promotion to reward other factors than performance such as loyalty, fitting in, and the length of service. Consideration of reward factors in making promotion decisions greatly contributes to the manifestation of the PPin many organizations. Such decisions fail to put into consideration that an employee can be good at performing a given task but fail to translate the same performance in another task. This mistake has resulted in promotions of employees to positions in the organization beyond the capability of the person that assumes the position. In such scenarios, the promotion as a reward for exemplary performance transforms such individuals to non-performers. This can result not because they are lazy or unwilling to work hard but because they lack the necessary skills and competence to perform unique tasks associated with their current position. Promotion as a reward for performance can however be a great strategy for human resource managers but only if the employee is promoted to perform similar tasks to the previous position (Fairburn & Malcomson, 2001). Past performance should obviously be considered in selecting a candidate for promotion, but where the new job position is entirely different from the present job, performance should carry a very limited weight. In promotion decisions for a new job similar to the previous one, past performance should be form one of the pivotal steps of the criteria for selection of the candidate to fill the vacant position. For example, when an employee is promoted from one level of management to another, promotion forms an important reward for performance. Promotion by Seniority Some organizations support the culture of promoting individuals based on seniority in the workforce, a practice that supports the PP in making promotion decisions. A seniority criterion in the promotional decision making process is supported by the caring culture that seems appealing from the ethical standpoint. The issues of seniority in promotion decision making process exhibit high concern for people but limited consideration on the side of qualifications and performance issues (Stanford, 2005). The concept of seniority is particularly deployed in the church organization and some hierarchical organizations where the number of years of services is considered in selecting candidates for promotion. However, it is difficult to find nationally recognized companies that maintain little or no concern for performance in the promotion decisions. Although, this criterion gives well-deserved responsibility to the long-serving employees, it results in promotion of some senior employees to positions beyond their competencies thereby compromising on the performance as well as efficiency in the organization. In some circumstances, promotion by seniority may evoke the PP leading to failure to optimize the potential for growth in the organization. The essence of growth in some firms is reflected through the presence of the chance for advancement for its workers hence the need to conduct frequent status reshuffle regardless of age or performance of individual workers (Stanford, 2005). Owing to the dynamism in the global organizational environment, the reality of a hierarchical firm has undergone significant changes including inclusion of personality traits in promotional decisions in addition to physiological factors, knowledge, experience and seniority. Such factors are crucial in ensuring that promotion as a human resource management strategy benefits both the individuals and the organization. Seniority as a promotion criterion is exempted as factor supporting the PP under circumstances where long exposure to ferocious competition with one’s peers cultivates a certain degree of cordial acceptance especially in the management roles. Example of organizations where seniority is commonly applied as a promotion criterion include unions and businesses in which the most senior individual may have on-work competence in performing some tasks but lack organizational, leadership or human resource management skills (Danmyer, 2012). The Rank Structure The rank structure in organizations not only duplicates and attenuates supervision, but also hinders the appointment of the right people to the right job. The rank structure is prominent in organization such as the military and the police forces where all jobs are rank graded, implying that certain jobs are reserved for officers of particular ranks (Letcher & Letcher, 2011). In this case, promotion decision makers rely greatly on the ranks to limit the number of people considered for elevation. Only a few people are considered in for a certain position regardless of whether people that are more competent are available outside the selected ranks. In such set ups, promotion to higher rank remains permanent, barring serious violations of law or department regulations, positions at appropriate level must be found for all officers of each rank whether there is work to be done in such positions or not. Generally, almost all forces promote officers and then train them to fit into their new ranks, rather than training and then promoting because they possess the skills needed to carryout roles associated with a given task (Ganesan & Barton, 1996). In this case, rank structures ensure that people are promoted to higher ranks whenever vacancy occurs regardless of their demonstrated competence. This strategy automatically supports the manifestation of the PP in such organizations. Nevertheless, the adverse effects of the PP in such organizations are countered through thorough training and development of the promoted individuals to fit into the new promoted positions. Individuals involved in the promotion of workers in the rank structures are bound by strict restrictions that sustain the existence and the importance of the ranks. These organizations are characterized by recruitment of new employees from the external environment to fill only the entry-level ranks but mid or high level ranks in the workforce. Promotion to the incompetence level is accelerated by other factors such as blood, marriage relationships or acquaintance with persons in high levels of management or ranks. Role of HRM Strategies in Managing the Risk of Poor Promotion Decisions within the Royal Australian Air Force Human resource strategies are critical in managing the risk of poor promotion decisions within the Royal Australian Air Force through development of criteria for the effective promotion of the staff members. HRM strategies such as the monitoring of the promotion process on an organization wide basis is necessary in ensuring that all the promotion decisions comply with civil rights laws (Jones, Steffy & Bray, 1991). The human resource management in most organizations is responsible for ensuring that the promotion decisions do not lead to discrimination by promoting disproportionate number from the protected groups under the law including minorities and females. The HRM strategies provide room for ensuring that the Air Force adheres to the equal opportunity objective as required by the law. The promotion process form an important part of human resource management and planning that requires proper strategies to ensure that the promotion is both beneficial to the organization and the individuals being concerned. Other than sticking to a static process of filling key jobs in the Air Force as in other contemporary military installations across the globe, HRM strategies aid in creating procedures for filling vacant opportunities as they occur to limit chances of having poor promotional decisions. The human resource management strategies can be crucial in enabling the Australian Air Force to establish a system procedure for determining promotions capable of providing Air-Force wide opportunities for all staff members. HRM promotional strategies can allow complete surveillance in identifying candidates for specific job opportunities in the Air Force. HRM strategies are important in ensuring that promotional decisions are not rushed in case a position is render vacant by either death or departure of the occupant (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007). The strategies can allow the Air Force leadership to set out a period for temporary promotion during which the temporary promoted individual is given room to fully understand the role and become effective in undertaking all roles associated with vacant post. Since like any other military force every rank must be filled regardless of skills or availability of worker to be done, HRM strategies such as training of the new rank occupants is crucial in ensuring effectiveness of the promotion. The HRM strategies also help in establishing well outlined promotional criteria to ensure that the entire promotional decision making is guided by a standardized criterion. The standardized criterion is important in eliminating factors that create unleveled grounds for promotion such as nepotism, marriage, and acquaintance relationships within the workforce. The Air Force can also provide rank qualifications based on the roles performed under such ranks to limit manifestation of the PP. Since promotion in the Air Force is mandatory when any position becomes vacant, it requires reliable internal recruitment HRM strategies to ensure that the best officer is promoted the vacant position or the occupant of the vacant position is equipped with the necessary skills to be effective in current position. The internal recruitment process applied in selecting individuals for temporary promotion should be similar if not exact to the one used in filling any vacancy to ensure equality of opportunity and objectivity of the final appointment. HRM strategies also play a great role in addressing past dissatisfaction in the promotion process in the Air Force (Noer, 2009). Through the HRM strategies, the Air Force can be able to evaluate the performance of newly promoted staff members to determine their competence in executing roles associated with the new position before confirming permanent assumption of position. This process requires proper planning to ensure that individuals unable to deliver after the promotion are professionally demoted without leading to job quitting or demoralization of the worker. The HRM strategies are therefore crucial in ensuring that the Air Force addresses issues associated with the promotion process to avoid job dissatisfaction and potential increase of the turnover rates. Conclusion The promotion process forms a crucial part of human resource management that poses great benefits as well as threats to an organization. Poor promotion decisions result in demoralization of employees, increased turnover, inefficiency and decline in overall organizational performance. The PP that implies promotion of employees beyond their competence level is supported by several poor promotional decisions such as the use the privilege as reward for outstanding performance in a given task. The use of promotion as reward for exemplary performance fails to put into consideration that performance in one task may fail to be replicated in other tasks. Other poor promotion decisions that support the PP include promotion because of seniority and rank structure where qualification and skill factors are least considered. The Royal Australian Air Force can benefit from HRM strategies in managing poor promotion decisions through the process monitoring procedure, establishment of effective training plans, creation of temporary promotions, and creation of efficient ways of dealing with issues arising from previous promotions. References Clifford, J., & Thorpe, S. (2007). Workplace learning & development: Delivering competitive advantage for your organization. New York: Kogan Page Publishers. Danmyer, B. (2012). No natural born leaders: A study in the art of leadership. London: AuthorHouse. Fairburn, J., & Malcomson, J. (2001).Performance, promotion, and the Peter Principle. Review of Economic Studies 68, 45-66. Ganesan, S., & Barton, W. (1996). The impact of staffing policies on retail buyer attitude and behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 72 (1), 31-56. Jones, J., Steffy, B., & Bray, D. (1991). Applying psychology in business: the handbook for managers and human resource professionals. Lexington: Lexington Books. Letcher, K., & Letcher, M. (2011). The battalion command centralized selection list and the logistics corps. Army Sustainment, 43 (5), 50-53. Noer, D. (2009). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Stanford, R. (2005). A Stochastic model of personal mobility: Application of reliability theory in manpower system analysis. Operational Research, 33 (1), 109-125. Read More