In the article titled Self-Managed work Teams there were several points and examples on how self-managed work teams are formed and operate. The principle behind this article spanned several questions about the operation and success of the idea of self-managed teams. This example from Chevron’s Western Production Business unit, demonstrates the benefits of maximizing human resources mixed with technology and other resources.
Chevron initially formed this type of a team in order to foster teamwork, increase the involvement of their employees, and cultivate the empowerment of their employees. In order to accomplish this task, team members must possess several skills. The perfect mix of technical skills, flexibility and cooperation makes a team. Not only that, the success of these types of work teams such as in the case of Chevron depends on the performance of what they accomplish throughout their task. Self-managed work teams helped cultivate the success of some of the largest companies in corporate America today by improving the level of turnover and abseentisim. By streamlining job classifications and improving the relationships with unions these self-managed work teams were more than an improvement, they were a revolution.
Initially Chevron experimented on the idea of these self-managed work teams to improve the cooperation between teams but also to utilize their resources in the most efficient manner. “The small asset team structure ownership at the micro level instead of at the macro level, resulting in duplication of work processes and poor utilization of resources.” (Attaran,3). According to the article at the level where there are several smaller teams within Chevron’s structure the teams operated at the micro level which introduced the concept of lost or wasted resources. Without seeing the big picture at the macro level the teams were operating at different levels of their own goals. This however was inefficient because they did not realize that if this process was streamlined into a larger global self-managed team the big picture would have been then realized. Chevron realized that the synergy of the individuals composing the group would be much more beneficial, which it has been.
“An important lesson learned from the previous organizational structure was that operating costs were greatly reduced when teams focused on work process.”(Attaran,3).
When the team as a whole realized that the big picture or work process was the goal, operating costs plummeted and productivity rose. After the process was realized the team continued to define the responsibilities of the team members clearly, with well defined boundaries. Chevron took the initiative to demonstrate the benefits of compiling the perfect mix of technical ability and social leadership and communications in their 11 self-managed work teams formed by 5 to 8 members each.
These teams with a perfect blend of technical abilities and social abilities were the core of the organizational structure that started to see the big picture which would later lead to their continued success. To Chevron’s Western Business unit the success of the task relied completely not only on the cooperation of the teams but synergy. A team can be a group but not every group can be a team. With that being said, each group member had to contribute equally within their defined process or goal in order to benefit the goal of the teams. Each team member’s personal goals came second to that of the goal of the team or the big picture. This wonderful process did not happen over night, the team members had to be educated. All of the team members received training in such things as problem solving, communication and conflict resolution which was essential to the stability and productivity of the team. This process was continuous and ever-changing in its nature.
“Immediately after the transition to the new structure, frustrations and problems began to appear.”(Attaran, 4). These problems were not unusual because the problems themselves could have been because of lack of communication or unfamiliarity with the day to day job function. “Simply cooperating with peers and attending team meetings was no longer enough.”(Attaran, 5). As stated earlier a team is much more than cooperation and all team members must contribute to the process. Team members not only have to put aside their differences but they must also make their decision in order to positively affect the outcome of the work process.
The idea of self managed teams relate to everyone at one point in time. The statement made in the article is true, simply cooperating is not enough. In my profession cooperation is only one piece of the puzzle. Each team member is a one man self-managed team that also supports and trains the other team members. Although cooperation is the key, the main purpose of the team was to achieve the goal or task that was prescribed. Personal differences are detrimental to the process if they are not put aside. In my profession however, personal differences are essential to the diverse thinking and creativity within the group.
The perfect mix of technical and social skills and the right management makes all the difference. Teams must be formed on a solid foundation in order to accomplish the task. In the example of Chevron’s Western Business unit one has to consider many things if success is to come out of the structure. If synergy is to be established, but differences are put aside then do you really have the team members true input? If you do not have the team members true input, might there be a higher level of success with that opinion?
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Organizational Problems in the Workplace
I work for the Governors Office of Criminal Justice Planning. This office is a State Government Office, closely connected with the political dealings from the Governors Office. This Office processes grant funding for programs throughout the state of California. Two organizational problems that exist in my workplace are the constant downsizing without actually downsizing and decisions that are made by the Executive Office without consulting or at least informing the Specialist that works on the grants. A supervisor can have a staff of approximately 10 people. If that supervisor is required to perform a special assignment from the Governors Office, then those people are required to move into another branch. They are spread thin enough that it looks as though a branch has actually disappeared when in actuality the same number of people still work in this office. When the supervisor returns, those people are assigned back into the original branch with that supervisor, thus creating a “new” branch without really creating a new branch. The decisions being made by the Executive office can be literally promises made to a Sheriff or the head of an organization without taking into consideration the problem that may exist fulfilling the promise. The Governors Office and the political party in office influence these problems at the time of the decisions. The thinking used is more persuasive.
The Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning is comprised of majority white males. The Executive staff is comprised of one white female and three white males. These staff members are also attorneys. The problem created with the Executive Office being comprised of all Exempt employee’s with a similar background is that they have no understanding of real world timelines and what it actually takes to process the paperwork or fund the grants. There thinking is more of a straight line without going outside the box. They give some grantee’s more advantage, depending on their political connection, than others do. This creates a problem among the grantee’s that allowed certain privileges that others are not i.e. turning in late paperwork, not turning in financial statements, and allowing them to keep state purchased furnishings and equipment. The ability to make these command decisions should be thought out more clearly and the specialist informed of what is being done.
The creative thinking that this department does is to help eliminate scrutiny for decisions that are made or for changes that are handled in the best interest of the Governor without regard for the actually grantee being effected. This department creatively arranged the branches to look scaled down when in actuality the move was all on paper. Therefore, our department must look as though we faced as severe of cuts as did the other departments.
This department is closely looked at due to the fact our office generates millions of dollars of grants to local law enforcement organizations, victims of violent crimes organizations, and school districts throughout the State of California.
The interesting thing about the Governors Office of Criminal Justice Planning is that the Executive Office is comprised of the Political Party that is in office at the Governors Office. For example, when there is a Republican Governor then the Executive Office for this department is also a Republican to include all the excluded staff that work for them. When there is a Democratic Governor then the same holds true, the Executive Office in this Department is comprised of Democrats. The impact this has on the way business is done in this department can swing every four years. When the Sheriff of a county is Republican and the Governor is Republican then that sheriff has more say in the way, the money is going to be allocated for their counties local law enforcement programs. The culture rapidly changes upon new elections and the impact is felt throughout the state of California.
The forces of influence come from white males who are highly educated. All decisions being made are being made with a similar thought pattern. More women in the executive Office or more cultural diversity in the Executive Office could make a tremendous difference in how decisions are made. For example, a woman might think more clearly on why woman’s shelters are an important grant to fund, when a male may not see the need for them and choose to eliminate them causing controversy.
Professional employees have to be able to accept the differences in others and be able to complete assignments and projects with a group of people of different cultures and backgrounds. The problem of not being able to accept others opinions can be eliminated, or at least reduced with using critical thinking. When working on a project or assignment there is a common goal to that each team member should be reaching for i.e. completion of the project on time and at or under cost. Project leaders or manager does can get themselves into trouble if they are quick to judge or slow to part with ironclad judgments. Being open-minded requires that project leaders or manager’s set aside past preconceived notions or judgments and listen carefully to each person’s idea or opinion. To be effective, project leaders and managers should use a highly reflective approach to management which is called “action inquiry,” which requires a willingness to sacrifice their illusions about themselves and others and situations as they receive new information.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
The Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning is comprised of majority white males. The Executive staff is comprised of one white female and three white males. These staff members are also attorneys. The problem created with the Executive Office being comprised of all Exempt employee’s with a similar background is that they have no understanding of real world timelines and what it actually takes to process the paperwork or fund the grants. There thinking is more of a straight line without going outside the box. They give some grantee’s more advantage, depending on their political connection, than others do. This creates a problem among the grantee’s that allowed certain privileges that others are not i.e. turning in late paperwork, not turning in financial statements, and allowing them to keep state purchased furnishings and equipment. The ability to make these command decisions should be thought out more clearly and the specialist informed of what is being done.
The creative thinking that this department does is to help eliminate scrutiny for decisions that are made or for changes that are handled in the best interest of the Governor without regard for the actually grantee being effected. This department creatively arranged the branches to look scaled down when in actuality the move was all on paper. Therefore, our department must look as though we faced as severe of cuts as did the other departments.
This department is closely looked at due to the fact our office generates millions of dollars of grants to local law enforcement organizations, victims of violent crimes organizations, and school districts throughout the State of California.
The interesting thing about the Governors Office of Criminal Justice Planning is that the Executive Office is comprised of the Political Party that is in office at the Governors Office. For example, when there is a Republican Governor then the Executive Office for this department is also a Republican to include all the excluded staff that work for them. When there is a Democratic Governor then the same holds true, the Executive Office in this Department is comprised of Democrats. The impact this has on the way business is done in this department can swing every four years. When the Sheriff of a county is Republican and the Governor is Republican then that sheriff has more say in the way, the money is going to be allocated for their counties local law enforcement programs. The culture rapidly changes upon new elections and the impact is felt throughout the state of California.
The forces of influence come from white males who are highly educated. All decisions being made are being made with a similar thought pattern. More women in the executive Office or more cultural diversity in the Executive Office could make a tremendous difference in how decisions are made. For example, a woman might think more clearly on why woman’s shelters are an important grant to fund, when a male may not see the need for them and choose to eliminate them causing controversy.
Professional employees have to be able to accept the differences in others and be able to complete assignments and projects with a group of people of different cultures and backgrounds. The problem of not being able to accept others opinions can be eliminated, or at least reduced with using critical thinking. When working on a project or assignment there is a common goal to that each team member should be reaching for i.e. completion of the project on time and at or under cost. Project leaders or manager does can get themselves into trouble if they are quick to judge or slow to part with ironclad judgments. Being open-minded requires that project leaders or manager’s set aside past preconceived notions or judgments and listen carefully to each person’s idea or opinion. To be effective, project leaders and managers should use a highly reflective approach to management which is called “action inquiry,” which requires a willingness to sacrifice their illusions about themselves and others and situations as they receive new information.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Arrow Electronics
Arrow Electronics must tackle several issues in regards to its performance appraisal system for its non-sales employees. The performance appraisal problems that Arrow faces are similar to many companies in today’s business environment. Steve Kaufman, CEO, understands and stresses the importance of human resource management at Arrow; usually the first hurdle an organization must clear before delving into the specific problems associated with performance management. Kaufman has concluded that the performance appraisal system needs further adjustment in order to meet his needs. To do so, Kaufman must first identify the problems associated with the current performance appraisal system to develop solutions.
The objective of any performance appraisal (PA) system is to identify core competencies, set goals and standards to measure, maintain and improve job performance for short-term and long-term results for both the employee and the organization. Arrow will utilize the information obtained from the PA process for administrative reasons such as identifying those who deserve promotions and/or salary increases, those who should be trained as future stars of the organization, and those who should be let go. The information will be used for developmental reasons to identify career goals, problem areas, and the actions to improve skills. The PA information is also used for strategic reasons to communicate organizational goals, to align employee behaviors to those goals. Finally, this information will be used for research/evaluation purposes to analyze other human capital management practices in the organization such as recruitment practices and training.
Most of the time, the individual/employee goals differ greatly from those of the organization/manager when participating in an evaluation process. The conflicts that arise between managers and their employees contribute to the ambivalence that managers and employees have when involved in the performance appraisal system. Kaufman believes that those efforts have been unsuccessful due to his managers’ inabilities to accurately differentiate between employees when determining high versus low performers. This is demonstrated by the managers’ failure to utilize more of the rating range when evaluating subordinates. The managers tend to evaluate all employees as average performers and are reluctant to provide constructive criticism to employees. When a majority of the employees are evaluated as average, senior management is unable to determine how employees are ranked within the organization. The problem can be associated not only with the inherent conflicts between managers and subordinates, but also the fact that many of Kaufman’s managers are promoted without proper managerial training. Therefore, the less seasoned managers may not have learned the skills necessary to manage others, to objectively evaluate the employees they supervise, or to coach/mentor their subordinates.
Kaufman has also come across several biases in the PA system that stem from manager favoritism and lack of uniformity in the evaluation process. Annually disparate individual performance ratings are also witnessed. For example some employee ratings change from year to year dependent upon a number of factors including if a new manager evaluating the employee, or that employee being courted by a competitor that year. Kaufman noticed that there was disparity among the overall branches as well. Some managers evaluated on a more stringent basis than others, often leading to more successful branches having lower performance ratings than less successful branches. Favoritism is another example found at Arrow. Some managers gave employees that worked closely with them higher ratings than those that did not.
There are also many concerns regarding the actual performance appraisal form itself. Issues of particular concern include: the appraisal function is only performed once a year; performance competencies are not clearly aligned with the companies goals; the form appears to be trait based and subjective; employees receive their rating from their immediate boss (who may not be involved with the employee on day to day basis); the form uses the same criteria to address all jobs (very generic and shallow); the form at times does not take into account all aspects of an employees job functions; employees have not been allowed to give feed back on criterion; and there is not an evaluation system in place to identify whether the form and performance appraisal system as a whole are effective. Managers were also concerned that Kaufman was setting a percentage amount on how many employees should be in each rating category and was demanding that each person receive a rating of at least a two on at least one of the seven criteria for evaluation.
Arrow has grown significantly, changed its organizational focus, and acquired several companies since its inception. Senior management at Arrow must rely on the validity of the performance appraisals in determining who to keep on board when integrating new companies into the fold. To meet these goals, Arrow must reanalyze its existing PA system in order to build a more effective PA system. Arrow must begin by determining the purpose of the performance appraisal. The purposes of the PA at Arrow are to provide an accurate uniform system for performance, identify areas for improvement, identify those who should be promoted or those who have the greatest future potential, and to develop existing teams into better, more dynamic groups of people.
After determining the purpose of the PA system, the next step is to conduct a needs assessment for the organization, including position appraisals (i.e. job analysis), and individual/person analysis (these analyses can be captured by employee surveys, interviews, and focus groups). This will provide the feedback and information necessary to developing the measurements and content of the performance appraisal form. When determining the measurements and content, Arrow should determine the dimensions to be appraised, while using objective criteria based on standards set for performance utilizing the job analysis and/or judgmental criteria based on knowledge, skills, abilities and other criteria(KSAO’s – provided in job analysis), behaviors and performance. The recommended solution is a mix of both to fully assess all aspects of an individual or team performance.
In addition to the content, one must consider the rating format, or method that needs to be adopted for the appraisal form. There are several types of rating formats, however, the most preferred format for Arrow is the Behavior Observation Scale (BOS), which incorporates very specific job activities and goals. The BOS is also easy to put together, provides specific feedback to rate the employee, and provides a positive forum for evaluation process. Raters need to be aware there is a tendency to make trait-based judgments with this format. The BOS format is simple to use and understand, is strongly associated with tasks performed, and includes parallel stimulus/response, (S-R) tracking measures. The expected result is that the scores on the stimulus scale will be the same as on the response scale, and will produce the behavior desired by the Arrow executive team.
There are several factors Arrow should keep in mind when developing the content of the performance appraisal form that could impose different biases upon the rating process. Some biases already exist in the current PA environment at Arrow such as: leniency tendency; giving high ratings regardless of actual performance; central tendency; giving middle of road ratings; and affect tendency; rating others according to the rater’s feelings towards that employee. There are several other biases to be aware of: severity tendency; halo/horns; stereotyping; primacy/recency effects; and fundamental attribution error.
Properly developing a rater and ratee training program is essential to the PA system as well. The training will provide the raters with the understanding of how to avoid or respond to bias situations, while provide the ratees with information and expectations of what they will experience throughout the process. The raters and ratees should also be trained to understand the observations made and how to keep a diary of daily activities. The program should also incorporate frame of reference training to avoid making inferences or assumptive statements about the behavior of the ratee. When inferences versus behaviors are indicated in the PA, the ratee can become defensive, negating the desired effects of the PA system.
Defining the raters and the ratees and determining if the ratees’ performance assessments will be based on individual or team performance should be determined as part of the development of the rater program. An important determination in defining the raters is deciding who is in the best position to observe the ratee and provide feedback about the ratee’s performance. Arrow should incorporate multiple sources of feedback, such as 360degree feedback, with observation appraisals from a variety of people (at least 3) who interact with the employee on a regular basis. The raters should only rate the performance criteria that are actually observed in their interactions with the ratee. This feedback can come from the ratee’s supervisors, peers, subordinates, clients and self-assessment. For 360degree feedback to be successful the organization must be prepared, therefore management buy-in is key as resources and time are critical to the process.
A useful tool for the rater to use in the interview process is an appraisal checklist (see appendix A). The appraisal checklist is essential in making sure that the rater follows guidelines and covers all items to be addressed in the interview.
The performance appraisal should be implemented so that it occurs at least every six months, and if possible, on a quarterly basis with a strong emphasis on two-way communication. In actuality, PA management is a continual exercise. When there are no surprises to either party, supervisors can cultivate desired behaviors on a daily basis. A consistent evaluation process is key in recognizing the success and validity of the system, as well as providing a method to incorporate suggestions received in a feedback retrieval process. Arrow should assess the value of the PA system by polling the raters and ratees to determine its accuracy, usefulness.
Finally, the PA plan should be incorporated within all human resource functions and management areas, such as employee training and selection processes. Training is an important function of a successful human resource management practice. As mentioned previously, there is a need for a management training program (external to the PA system training functions) that would facilitate a smoother transition for the young employees promoted to management positions. This will alleviate some of the issues raised by employees such as managers not knowing how to manage the employees they supervise.
Job analysis is an integral function in both the selection process and a solid PA system. It is important to strongly define the KSAO’s, core competencies, and job functions in order to hire and then cultivate the caliber of employees that are needed at Arrow. Incorporating the selection process, training, and performance appraisal functions into a database that can be accessed through the human resource information system is essential to providing a uniform system of checks and balances between these functions, thereby allowing Arrow to meet its goal toward developing a better workforce.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
The objective of any performance appraisal (PA) system is to identify core competencies, set goals and standards to measure, maintain and improve job performance for short-term and long-term results for both the employee and the organization. Arrow will utilize the information obtained from the PA process for administrative reasons such as identifying those who deserve promotions and/or salary increases, those who should be trained as future stars of the organization, and those who should be let go. The information will be used for developmental reasons to identify career goals, problem areas, and the actions to improve skills. The PA information is also used for strategic reasons to communicate organizational goals, to align employee behaviors to those goals. Finally, this information will be used for research/evaluation purposes to analyze other human capital management practices in the organization such as recruitment practices and training.
Most of the time, the individual/employee goals differ greatly from those of the organization/manager when participating in an evaluation process. The conflicts that arise between managers and their employees contribute to the ambivalence that managers and employees have when involved in the performance appraisal system. Kaufman believes that those efforts have been unsuccessful due to his managers’ inabilities to accurately differentiate between employees when determining high versus low performers. This is demonstrated by the managers’ failure to utilize more of the rating range when evaluating subordinates. The managers tend to evaluate all employees as average performers and are reluctant to provide constructive criticism to employees. When a majority of the employees are evaluated as average, senior management is unable to determine how employees are ranked within the organization. The problem can be associated not only with the inherent conflicts between managers and subordinates, but also the fact that many of Kaufman’s managers are promoted without proper managerial training. Therefore, the less seasoned managers may not have learned the skills necessary to manage others, to objectively evaluate the employees they supervise, or to coach/mentor their subordinates.
Kaufman has also come across several biases in the PA system that stem from manager favoritism and lack of uniformity in the evaluation process. Annually disparate individual performance ratings are also witnessed. For example some employee ratings change from year to year dependent upon a number of factors including if a new manager evaluating the employee, or that employee being courted by a competitor that year. Kaufman noticed that there was disparity among the overall branches as well. Some managers evaluated on a more stringent basis than others, often leading to more successful branches having lower performance ratings than less successful branches. Favoritism is another example found at Arrow. Some managers gave employees that worked closely with them higher ratings than those that did not.
There are also many concerns regarding the actual performance appraisal form itself. Issues of particular concern include: the appraisal function is only performed once a year; performance competencies are not clearly aligned with the companies goals; the form appears to be trait based and subjective; employees receive their rating from their immediate boss (who may not be involved with the employee on day to day basis); the form uses the same criteria to address all jobs (very generic and shallow); the form at times does not take into account all aspects of an employees job functions; employees have not been allowed to give feed back on criterion; and there is not an evaluation system in place to identify whether the form and performance appraisal system as a whole are effective. Managers were also concerned that Kaufman was setting a percentage amount on how many employees should be in each rating category and was demanding that each person receive a rating of at least a two on at least one of the seven criteria for evaluation.
Arrow has grown significantly, changed its organizational focus, and acquired several companies since its inception. Senior management at Arrow must rely on the validity of the performance appraisals in determining who to keep on board when integrating new companies into the fold. To meet these goals, Arrow must reanalyze its existing PA system in order to build a more effective PA system. Arrow must begin by determining the purpose of the performance appraisal. The purposes of the PA at Arrow are to provide an accurate uniform system for performance, identify areas for improvement, identify those who should be promoted or those who have the greatest future potential, and to develop existing teams into better, more dynamic groups of people.
After determining the purpose of the PA system, the next step is to conduct a needs assessment for the organization, including position appraisals (i.e. job analysis), and individual/person analysis (these analyses can be captured by employee surveys, interviews, and focus groups). This will provide the feedback and information necessary to developing the measurements and content of the performance appraisal form. When determining the measurements and content, Arrow should determine the dimensions to be appraised, while using objective criteria based on standards set for performance utilizing the job analysis and/or judgmental criteria based on knowledge, skills, abilities and other criteria(KSAO’s – provided in job analysis), behaviors and performance. The recommended solution is a mix of both to fully assess all aspects of an individual or team performance.
In addition to the content, one must consider the rating format, or method that needs to be adopted for the appraisal form. There are several types of rating formats, however, the most preferred format for Arrow is the Behavior Observation Scale (BOS), which incorporates very specific job activities and goals. The BOS is also easy to put together, provides specific feedback to rate the employee, and provides a positive forum for evaluation process. Raters need to be aware there is a tendency to make trait-based judgments with this format. The BOS format is simple to use and understand, is strongly associated with tasks performed, and includes parallel stimulus/response, (S-R) tracking measures. The expected result is that the scores on the stimulus scale will be the same as on the response scale, and will produce the behavior desired by the Arrow executive team.
There are several factors Arrow should keep in mind when developing the content of the performance appraisal form that could impose different biases upon the rating process. Some biases already exist in the current PA environment at Arrow such as: leniency tendency; giving high ratings regardless of actual performance; central tendency; giving middle of road ratings; and affect tendency; rating others according to the rater’s feelings towards that employee. There are several other biases to be aware of: severity tendency; halo/horns; stereotyping; primacy/recency effects; and fundamental attribution error.
Properly developing a rater and ratee training program is essential to the PA system as well. The training will provide the raters with the understanding of how to avoid or respond to bias situations, while provide the ratees with information and expectations of what they will experience throughout the process. The raters and ratees should also be trained to understand the observations made and how to keep a diary of daily activities. The program should also incorporate frame of reference training to avoid making inferences or assumptive statements about the behavior of the ratee. When inferences versus behaviors are indicated in the PA, the ratee can become defensive, negating the desired effects of the PA system.
Defining the raters and the ratees and determining if the ratees’ performance assessments will be based on individual or team performance should be determined as part of the development of the rater program. An important determination in defining the raters is deciding who is in the best position to observe the ratee and provide feedback about the ratee’s performance. Arrow should incorporate multiple sources of feedback, such as 360degree feedback, with observation appraisals from a variety of people (at least 3) who interact with the employee on a regular basis. The raters should only rate the performance criteria that are actually observed in their interactions with the ratee. This feedback can come from the ratee’s supervisors, peers, subordinates, clients and self-assessment. For 360degree feedback to be successful the organization must be prepared, therefore management buy-in is key as resources and time are critical to the process.
A useful tool for the rater to use in the interview process is an appraisal checklist (see appendix A). The appraisal checklist is essential in making sure that the rater follows guidelines and covers all items to be addressed in the interview.
The performance appraisal should be implemented so that it occurs at least every six months, and if possible, on a quarterly basis with a strong emphasis on two-way communication. In actuality, PA management is a continual exercise. When there are no surprises to either party, supervisors can cultivate desired behaviors on a daily basis. A consistent evaluation process is key in recognizing the success and validity of the system, as well as providing a method to incorporate suggestions received in a feedback retrieval process. Arrow should assess the value of the PA system by polling the raters and ratees to determine its accuracy, usefulness.
Finally, the PA plan should be incorporated within all human resource functions and management areas, such as employee training and selection processes. Training is an important function of a successful human resource management practice. As mentioned previously, there is a need for a management training program (external to the PA system training functions) that would facilitate a smoother transition for the young employees promoted to management positions. This will alleviate some of the issues raised by employees such as managers not knowing how to manage the employees they supervise.
Job analysis is an integral function in both the selection process and a solid PA system. It is important to strongly define the KSAO’s, core competencies, and job functions in order to hire and then cultivate the caliber of employees that are needed at Arrow. Incorporating the selection process, training, and performance appraisal functions into a database that can be accessed through the human resource information system is essential to providing a uniform system of checks and balances between these functions, thereby allowing Arrow to meet its goal toward developing a better workforce.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Intel Corporation
Intel Corporation harnesses and implements the many forms of technology to gain substantial profits in an ever-growing technological age. As we have seen throughout our lives, technology has grown faster than any other market segment known to man. Far less than a century ago we were showed our first personnel computer, whose primary function was for word processing and simple mathematical calculations. Now, with the growth of technology, we have improved those primary functions along with gaining computers that can surf the Internet, check email, and even fly planes.
Like any other life-changing event, technology had to be captured and sold to consumers who wanted to be on the edge of discovery. Intel Corporation strives to be the leader in the technological industry. In order for Intel to set this benchmark for themselves, they must constantly be aware of changing technology and have a fast and decisive response to new innovations. Intel incorporates their needs for awareness and response time by establishing venture capital programs. These programs not only finance suppliers for a stable source of quality suit for Intel’s design and manufacturing but also companies that show Intel the possibility for a future strategic advantage.
Berkeley Networks, a receiver of Intel’s financing, is a start-up company who is developing promising open switch architecture to compete with the routers and switches of the dominant market segment players. Through the strategic vision of Intel, Berkeley Networks is a promising investment into the future of networking interface. However, through numerous miscommunications between the managements of Berkeley Networks and Intel and the inquiry by an outside suitor for a possible acquisition of Berkeley Networks, there have been several problems. Keith Larson, manager of Intel’s Corporate Business Development Group (CBD), is faced with a major decision that can dramatically affect Intel’s position in network interfacing. It is the purpose of this paper to expose the relationship between Intel and Berkeley Networks and to propose a possible solution for Keith Larson.
What is Intel’s strategy with their venture fund?
Intel Corporation is faced with changing technological trends that it must understand and implement if it is to pose a serious strategic advantage in Intel’s market segments. Intel captures current and future technological trends through its efforts in venture capital funding. Through Intel’s capital stature, they are able to support, through their Corporate Business Development Group, staff that manage the variety of invents in technologies and services related to Intel’s product offering.
At first glance, Intel started to protect themselves with a stable source of quality inputs, for its design and manufacturing processes, by investing in external companies. This was a smart move by Intel because it allowed them, through their financing leverage, to clearly set a standard of what kind of inputs they desired through suppliers. The preemptive quality check assured Intel’s products the highest quality set to specifications.
Intel’s most important exploration into venture funding happened in the 1990’s where they started to adopt a “market eco-system” approach. With major technological innovations on the horizon, Intel smartly adopted polices of financing where they sought after software and hardware developers that related to Intel products, in turn creating opportunities for both parties. Intel’s CBD group focused their efforts on companies that would not necessarily provide a monetary return but companies that would support their strategic vision. Intel was making a great leverage move by aggressively growing their investment portfolios into companies where they can take advantage of their products on the basis that, “What does Intel get out of the money they supply?”
Very few start-up firms, which Intel was aiming at, had significant capital to support the necessary research and design needed to complete most projects. I believe Intel knew this fact and indirectly took advantage of these start-ups in order to protect their future interests in maintaining a competitive advantage in their market. With no other choice but to acquire loans and possibly fault on the loans, many firms, with cash flaunting in their face, accepted Intel’s offer with the promise that both companies would benefit. The end results in the venture fund between Intel and a start-up was one of two things: (One) Intel would realize that incorporating a startup into their own business would benefit them more than continually investing in an external company. (Two) As Intel continues to draw information from a start-up firm, the information will eventually become exhausted and as Steven Nachtsheim says, “It may realized that it’s time to cut bait when it no longer makes sense.”
Intel’s mission to acquire a diversity of external investments has led them to classify investments in two tiers. Tier one investments are those that provide Intel with a “direct” strategic impact and tier two investments provide Intel with “potential” strategic benefit. Intel’s obvious strategy in their venture funding is to satisfy their strategic interests into gaining insight into new technologies. While positive financial returns on investments are not frowned upon, Intel will compromise monetary value if an investment satisfies an interest in strategic importance. In opinion, behind Intel’s goodwill approach is a side where Intel is acquiring all aspects of their market segment and indirectly creating an environment where all competitors, without enormous sums of capital, cannot compete. Monopoly.
How well is that strategy working?
Intel’s venture funding strategy is working very well for them. Through their acquisition they have gained insight into many technologies that Intel itself does not want to work on. Intel knows that they are benefiting from their acquisitions because they are aggressively pursuing more acquisitions to diversify their portfolio. In return for their funding Intel receives the latest technological innovations and also puts themselves in a situation to dominate a particular market segment.
Why did Intel decide to invest in Berkeley Networks?
In the beginning, Yavatkar, one of Intel’s engineers, was trying to fade away from the vertical networking architecture and move Intel towards a more powerful horizontal networking architecture. Although both Intel and Berkeley Networks were using Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system, Intel themselves did not produce the switches needed to complete their project. Berkeley Networks, through the due diligence of Intel, proved to be much more advanced in their design of switches. Intel decided to invest in Berkeley Networks on the basis that Larson and Yavatkar’s review of the company and its products showed Intel valuable exposure to developments in programmable network technology that Yavatkar’s team had been working on internally, as well as the potential to indirectly spread the adoption of Intel’s new IA chips. The desired result would be the creation of a new market segment for Intel.
Berkeley Networks, with the use of Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system, was developing a breakthrough technology that was capable of generating new communications architecture. No other start-up company, including Intel, had the design or product that BN was working on. Berkeley Networks and Intel both understood the “potential” strategic success in this new communications arena. Intel’s indirect vision of controlling all aspects of technology led them to invest in BN because they felt an investment would not only grant them insight to BN’s technologies but also a controlling share of all products produced. Intel knew that if BN’s designs were adopted they would be the founder of a new revolution of networking technology. Intel saw this opportunity not only in a strategic matter but also in the future monetary rewards it would permit.
Why did Berkeley Networks invite Intel to invest?
Berkeley Networks was trying to improve the speed of feed into and out of a switch. BN accomplished this by loosely integrating Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system with their own programming tools. After a successful first round of financing, BN was now looking for a second round of financing to complete their project. Berkeley Networks founder, president, and CEO, Ravi Sethi was focusing his attention on a venture fund that would allow both firms to benefit from each other’s knowledge, skill and product base. The corporation of choice, for Sethi, was Intel.
Sethi believed that the relationship between Intel and Berkeley Network’s would enhance any products and create a synergy between the two firms. Aside from the corporate strategies that each of the firms discussed, Berkeley Network’s secretly wanted to use their relationship with Intel to get closer to Microsoft. Since Microsoft’s Windows NT operating systems was the base of BN’s switch architecture, Sethi wanted BN to have a strategic advantage over competition by having a backdoor into the system in which is was based upon.
What is Intel learning from its investment in Berkeley Networks?
The relationship between Intel and Berkeley Networks was different from any other relationship Intel had participated in, with the fact that the deal was compressed relative to Intel’s normal investment timetable. Although the deal was concluded in less time, Yavatkar’s support for the deal, backed by his technical discussions with BN engineers provided Intel with a degree of confidence. This degree of confidence, however, was short lived.
Prescribed by the short nature of the deal conclusion, there were many issues, not discussed in the deal completion process, which Intel would face. As Larson recalled, “there were no specific ‘gives or gets’ related to Intel’s licensing or OEMing of BN’s technology.” Intel found it very difficult to fulfill its goal of learning more about the switches and the horizontal networking technologies. Despite the fact that Intel was not allowed to serve on the board of BN, all information was acquired through direct meetings with BN’s engineers and/or management. Unknown by Intel, BN was intentionally withholding strategic information because they feared that the corporate conglomerate would take advantage of their technology and not give due respect. This strategic decision by BN created an ordeal of miscommunications that eventually led to a mass of dissatisfaction between the two.
Intel takes away from its investment in Berkeley Networks one major fact. Although BN showed to have potential strategic applications for Intel, no matter the circumstances, Intel needs to follow a strict set of guidelines when coming up with a venture plan. Intel should not have concluded the deal with BN in a shorter time frame. If conducted correctly, the investigation and deal processes of Intel might have revealed issues that pertained to Larson’s “give or gets.”
What is Berkeley Networks learning from Intel?
Berkeley Networks had an entirely different strategy than Intel. BN’s ultimate goal was to gain a closer relationship with Microsoft. The relationship between Intel and BN simulated a poker game where BN, for instance, would bluff its information and it was then up to Intel to decide what information BN provided and if that information was valid. Through this business poker game, Berkeley Networks learned that if you play your cards right, the underdog can get what they want by taking advantage of given situations.
What should Keith Larson do?
Keith Larson is faced with a decision that can have dramatic affects on Intel. Berkeley Networks has informed Larson that they have a serious suitor for an acquisition. Larson must take into account the circumstances of his decision alternatives. Larson can decide upon three things: (One) Drop Berkeley Networks completely and realize a lose, (Two) Invest in a third round of financing, hoping to attain more information, or (Third) bring Berkeley Networks into Intel.
Larson knew that Berkeley Network’s offered Intel one way toward their goal of a horizontal communications architecture that would feature Intel microprocessors as an important component. Larson also felt few people understood that the networking and communications industry had the potential to “horizontalize” large chunks of the industry and that he knew from Yavatkar that Intel was interested in BN’s architecture for internal switching projects; it is my recommendation that Larson purchase Berkeley Networks and bring them within Intel. The potential for BN to strategically help Intel was known from the beginning. If Intel purchased BN, they would no longer have any miscommunications between the two firms and no longer have to debate about the exchange or information. Acquiring the company also insure Intel that no other company can purchase them and use BN’s technology against Intel.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Like any other life-changing event, technology had to be captured and sold to consumers who wanted to be on the edge of discovery. Intel Corporation strives to be the leader in the technological industry. In order for Intel to set this benchmark for themselves, they must constantly be aware of changing technology and have a fast and decisive response to new innovations. Intel incorporates their needs for awareness and response time by establishing venture capital programs. These programs not only finance suppliers for a stable source of quality suit for Intel’s design and manufacturing but also companies that show Intel the possibility for a future strategic advantage.
Berkeley Networks, a receiver of Intel’s financing, is a start-up company who is developing promising open switch architecture to compete with the routers and switches of the dominant market segment players. Through the strategic vision of Intel, Berkeley Networks is a promising investment into the future of networking interface. However, through numerous miscommunications between the managements of Berkeley Networks and Intel and the inquiry by an outside suitor for a possible acquisition of Berkeley Networks, there have been several problems. Keith Larson, manager of Intel’s Corporate Business Development Group (CBD), is faced with a major decision that can dramatically affect Intel’s position in network interfacing. It is the purpose of this paper to expose the relationship between Intel and Berkeley Networks and to propose a possible solution for Keith Larson.
What is Intel’s strategy with their venture fund?
Intel Corporation is faced with changing technological trends that it must understand and implement if it is to pose a serious strategic advantage in Intel’s market segments. Intel captures current and future technological trends through its efforts in venture capital funding. Through Intel’s capital stature, they are able to support, through their Corporate Business Development Group, staff that manage the variety of invents in technologies and services related to Intel’s product offering.
At first glance, Intel started to protect themselves with a stable source of quality inputs, for its design and manufacturing processes, by investing in external companies. This was a smart move by Intel because it allowed them, through their financing leverage, to clearly set a standard of what kind of inputs they desired through suppliers. The preemptive quality check assured Intel’s products the highest quality set to specifications.
Intel’s most important exploration into venture funding happened in the 1990’s where they started to adopt a “market eco-system” approach. With major technological innovations on the horizon, Intel smartly adopted polices of financing where they sought after software and hardware developers that related to Intel products, in turn creating opportunities for both parties. Intel’s CBD group focused their efforts on companies that would not necessarily provide a monetary return but companies that would support their strategic vision. Intel was making a great leverage move by aggressively growing their investment portfolios into companies where they can take advantage of their products on the basis that, “What does Intel get out of the money they supply?”
Very few start-up firms, which Intel was aiming at, had significant capital to support the necessary research and design needed to complete most projects. I believe Intel knew this fact and indirectly took advantage of these start-ups in order to protect their future interests in maintaining a competitive advantage in their market. With no other choice but to acquire loans and possibly fault on the loans, many firms, with cash flaunting in their face, accepted Intel’s offer with the promise that both companies would benefit. The end results in the venture fund between Intel and a start-up was one of two things: (One) Intel would realize that incorporating a startup into their own business would benefit them more than continually investing in an external company. (Two) As Intel continues to draw information from a start-up firm, the information will eventually become exhausted and as Steven Nachtsheim says, “It may realized that it’s time to cut bait when it no longer makes sense.”
Intel’s mission to acquire a diversity of external investments has led them to classify investments in two tiers. Tier one investments are those that provide Intel with a “direct” strategic impact and tier two investments provide Intel with “potential” strategic benefit. Intel’s obvious strategy in their venture funding is to satisfy their strategic interests into gaining insight into new technologies. While positive financial returns on investments are not frowned upon, Intel will compromise monetary value if an investment satisfies an interest in strategic importance. In opinion, behind Intel’s goodwill approach is a side where Intel is acquiring all aspects of their market segment and indirectly creating an environment where all competitors, without enormous sums of capital, cannot compete. Monopoly.
How well is that strategy working?
Intel’s venture funding strategy is working very well for them. Through their acquisition they have gained insight into many technologies that Intel itself does not want to work on. Intel knows that they are benefiting from their acquisitions because they are aggressively pursuing more acquisitions to diversify their portfolio. In return for their funding Intel receives the latest technological innovations and also puts themselves in a situation to dominate a particular market segment.
Why did Intel decide to invest in Berkeley Networks?
In the beginning, Yavatkar, one of Intel’s engineers, was trying to fade away from the vertical networking architecture and move Intel towards a more powerful horizontal networking architecture. Although both Intel and Berkeley Networks were using Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system, Intel themselves did not produce the switches needed to complete their project. Berkeley Networks, through the due diligence of Intel, proved to be much more advanced in their design of switches. Intel decided to invest in Berkeley Networks on the basis that Larson and Yavatkar’s review of the company and its products showed Intel valuable exposure to developments in programmable network technology that Yavatkar’s team had been working on internally, as well as the potential to indirectly spread the adoption of Intel’s new IA chips. The desired result would be the creation of a new market segment for Intel.
Berkeley Networks, with the use of Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system, was developing a breakthrough technology that was capable of generating new communications architecture. No other start-up company, including Intel, had the design or product that BN was working on. Berkeley Networks and Intel both understood the “potential” strategic success in this new communications arena. Intel’s indirect vision of controlling all aspects of technology led them to invest in BN because they felt an investment would not only grant them insight to BN’s technologies but also a controlling share of all products produced. Intel knew that if BN’s designs were adopted they would be the founder of a new revolution of networking technology. Intel saw this opportunity not only in a strategic matter but also in the future monetary rewards it would permit.
Why did Berkeley Networks invite Intel to invest?
Berkeley Networks was trying to improve the speed of feed into and out of a switch. BN accomplished this by loosely integrating Microsoft’s Windows NT operating system with their own programming tools. After a successful first round of financing, BN was now looking for a second round of financing to complete their project. Berkeley Networks founder, president, and CEO, Ravi Sethi was focusing his attention on a venture fund that would allow both firms to benefit from each other’s knowledge, skill and product base. The corporation of choice, for Sethi, was Intel.
Sethi believed that the relationship between Intel and Berkeley Network’s would enhance any products and create a synergy between the two firms. Aside from the corporate strategies that each of the firms discussed, Berkeley Network’s secretly wanted to use their relationship with Intel to get closer to Microsoft. Since Microsoft’s Windows NT operating systems was the base of BN’s switch architecture, Sethi wanted BN to have a strategic advantage over competition by having a backdoor into the system in which is was based upon.
What is Intel learning from its investment in Berkeley Networks?
The relationship between Intel and Berkeley Networks was different from any other relationship Intel had participated in, with the fact that the deal was compressed relative to Intel’s normal investment timetable. Although the deal was concluded in less time, Yavatkar’s support for the deal, backed by his technical discussions with BN engineers provided Intel with a degree of confidence. This degree of confidence, however, was short lived.
Prescribed by the short nature of the deal conclusion, there were many issues, not discussed in the deal completion process, which Intel would face. As Larson recalled, “there were no specific ‘gives or gets’ related to Intel’s licensing or OEMing of BN’s technology.” Intel found it very difficult to fulfill its goal of learning more about the switches and the horizontal networking technologies. Despite the fact that Intel was not allowed to serve on the board of BN, all information was acquired through direct meetings with BN’s engineers and/or management. Unknown by Intel, BN was intentionally withholding strategic information because they feared that the corporate conglomerate would take advantage of their technology and not give due respect. This strategic decision by BN created an ordeal of miscommunications that eventually led to a mass of dissatisfaction between the two.
Intel takes away from its investment in Berkeley Networks one major fact. Although BN showed to have potential strategic applications for Intel, no matter the circumstances, Intel needs to follow a strict set of guidelines when coming up with a venture plan. Intel should not have concluded the deal with BN in a shorter time frame. If conducted correctly, the investigation and deal processes of Intel might have revealed issues that pertained to Larson’s “give or gets.”
What is Berkeley Networks learning from Intel?
Berkeley Networks had an entirely different strategy than Intel. BN’s ultimate goal was to gain a closer relationship with Microsoft. The relationship between Intel and BN simulated a poker game where BN, for instance, would bluff its information and it was then up to Intel to decide what information BN provided and if that information was valid. Through this business poker game, Berkeley Networks learned that if you play your cards right, the underdog can get what they want by taking advantage of given situations.
What should Keith Larson do?
Keith Larson is faced with a decision that can have dramatic affects on Intel. Berkeley Networks has informed Larson that they have a serious suitor for an acquisition. Larson must take into account the circumstances of his decision alternatives. Larson can decide upon three things: (One) Drop Berkeley Networks completely and realize a lose, (Two) Invest in a third round of financing, hoping to attain more information, or (Third) bring Berkeley Networks into Intel.
Larson knew that Berkeley Network’s offered Intel one way toward their goal of a horizontal communications architecture that would feature Intel microprocessors as an important component. Larson also felt few people understood that the networking and communications industry had the potential to “horizontalize” large chunks of the industry and that he knew from Yavatkar that Intel was interested in BN’s architecture for internal switching projects; it is my recommendation that Larson purchase Berkeley Networks and bring them within Intel. The potential for BN to strategically help Intel was known from the beginning. If Intel purchased BN, they would no longer have any miscommunications between the two firms and no longer have to debate about the exchange or information. Acquiring the company also insure Intel that no other company can purchase them and use BN’s technology against Intel.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Importance of Employment Relations
Employment or human relations covers all types of interactions among employees such as cooperative efforts, interpersonal and group relationships. The purpose of employment relations it to deal with the people the business employs and the issues arising from their employment. Acquiring, developing, maintaining and motivating staff are all aspects that are covered by the employment relations area. Employment relations are necessary as the employee is the most important part of a business and any troubles that affect them in turn effect the business.
Realising the potential effect that employees have on the business, Companies are providing incentives and programs to keep their employees happy and productive.
‘A happy worker will work twice as hard and more efficient than an unhappy worker.’
Incentives provided for e.g. are (case study) Coca Cola providing twice the amount of shares in their company that the employee purchases, (case study) McDonalds providing employees discount purchases from companies that are connected to McDonalds.
Programs such as employee dinners, lunch, Christmas parties, weekends away are all effective in keeping the employee happy and to build relationships with fellow employees so to work better as a team.
Business managers have come to recognize that their employees are the most important part of a business and through effective management a business can gain the competitive advantage. The skills, knowledge and creativeness of employees is the main potential that a business has over it competitors and thus the realisation that the employee has the most influence over important aspects such as its profitability, competitiveness and adaptability has led to the idea that managing these human resources to develop their maximum capabilities. Human resource management or employee relations is the process of finding the people the business needs, developing their skills, knowledge, talents, careers. Motivating and maintaining their commitment to the business.
The relationship between the employee and the business will vary depending on the businesses culture (How things are done around here) and must be determined wisely as to produce maximum efficiency and effectiveness. E.g. (case study) Shelf packers at the local grocery market packing shelves in groups of two to three people. While packing shelves workers would chat and not concentrate on task at hand. By splitting workers up into each istle each worker could work more efficiently but was unhappy at not being able to talk to fellow employees which led to poor work ethic.
The way in which a business communicates this ‘culture’ to all employees is extremely important as employees must know what the business is about and where it is heading if the business it to be successful in achieving its prime goal.
After WWII and the influx of younger people to the workforce new approaches in human resources were made. The younger workers valued their jobs and were more motivated. Education of employees was considered and came to recognise that a workforce is better educated and skilled.
Completing in secondary schooling and tertiary courses increased thus showing that the workforce was looking for more challenging jobs.
Women’s role in the workforce soon grew with higher divorce rates, women’s rights and laws removing discrimination toward women. Managers soon had to give more consideration towards discrimination and child rearing.
In its simplest form employment relations is described as the effective management of the formal relationship between the employer and the employee. With management realising the potential of this many businesses have created approaches to enhance that factor. Acquisition and selection, development and training, maintenance and motivating, separation of staff. These are all approaches which can be taken.
Acquisition and selection is the gathering of information about each applicant for the position and then using that information to choose the most appropriate person for that position. The chosen applicant must be able to do the job perfectly and thus management must first identify staffing needs.
Training and development is needed for employees as to teach staff to work efficiently and effectively. Training must be continual so skills are not lost and to provide maximum efficiency.
Maintenance and motivating of staff is to keep staff within the business and to work to the best of their ability. A relaxing and friendly work environment, decent wages and benefits are all needed. Without this staff will leave the business and thus require new employees, resulting in more training, poorer efficiency and decreased workload, in result the business wastes needed resources and becomes less productive. Motivating employees is highly important as motivated employees result in increased productivity. The carrot and stick approach in which the carrot is the reward (money/pay rise) and the stick being punishment (demotion/fired) has been widely relied on as a motivator.
Money is seen to be the biggest motivator but in recent years this has been found not to always be the case. Work conditions, time of work, fellow employees all affect motivation.
Separation is the ending of an employment relationship and this comes in many ways. Dismissal is when the employee contract with the business has been suspended due to the employee not doing their job properly or behaving unacceptably.
Redundancy is when the employee is no longer needed and leaves on their own will or not. Retrenchment is when a business is unable to pay their employee and thus they must leave.
Employment relations is a key function in which business must manage to improve their employees and thus lead to improving their business. With good human resource management a business can gain the edge they need. Without good human resource management a business will probably not succeed.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Realising the potential effect that employees have on the business, Companies are providing incentives and programs to keep their employees happy and productive.
‘A happy worker will work twice as hard and more efficient than an unhappy worker.’
Incentives provided for e.g. are (case study) Coca Cola providing twice the amount of shares in their company that the employee purchases, (case study) McDonalds providing employees discount purchases from companies that are connected to McDonalds.
Programs such as employee dinners, lunch, Christmas parties, weekends away are all effective in keeping the employee happy and to build relationships with fellow employees so to work better as a team.
Business managers have come to recognize that their employees are the most important part of a business and through effective management a business can gain the competitive advantage. The skills, knowledge and creativeness of employees is the main potential that a business has over it competitors and thus the realisation that the employee has the most influence over important aspects such as its profitability, competitiveness and adaptability has led to the idea that managing these human resources to develop their maximum capabilities. Human resource management or employee relations is the process of finding the people the business needs, developing their skills, knowledge, talents, careers. Motivating and maintaining their commitment to the business.
The relationship between the employee and the business will vary depending on the businesses culture (How things are done around here) and must be determined wisely as to produce maximum efficiency and effectiveness. E.g. (case study) Shelf packers at the local grocery market packing shelves in groups of two to three people. While packing shelves workers would chat and not concentrate on task at hand. By splitting workers up into each istle each worker could work more efficiently but was unhappy at not being able to talk to fellow employees which led to poor work ethic.
The way in which a business communicates this ‘culture’ to all employees is extremely important as employees must know what the business is about and where it is heading if the business it to be successful in achieving its prime goal.
After WWII and the influx of younger people to the workforce new approaches in human resources were made. The younger workers valued their jobs and were more motivated. Education of employees was considered and came to recognise that a workforce is better educated and skilled.
Completing in secondary schooling and tertiary courses increased thus showing that the workforce was looking for more challenging jobs.
Women’s role in the workforce soon grew with higher divorce rates, women’s rights and laws removing discrimination toward women. Managers soon had to give more consideration towards discrimination and child rearing.
In its simplest form employment relations is described as the effective management of the formal relationship between the employer and the employee. With management realising the potential of this many businesses have created approaches to enhance that factor. Acquisition and selection, development and training, maintenance and motivating, separation of staff. These are all approaches which can be taken.
Acquisition and selection is the gathering of information about each applicant for the position and then using that information to choose the most appropriate person for that position. The chosen applicant must be able to do the job perfectly and thus management must first identify staffing needs.
Training and development is needed for employees as to teach staff to work efficiently and effectively. Training must be continual so skills are not lost and to provide maximum efficiency.
Maintenance and motivating of staff is to keep staff within the business and to work to the best of their ability. A relaxing and friendly work environment, decent wages and benefits are all needed. Without this staff will leave the business and thus require new employees, resulting in more training, poorer efficiency and decreased workload, in result the business wastes needed resources and becomes less productive. Motivating employees is highly important as motivated employees result in increased productivity. The carrot and stick approach in which the carrot is the reward (money/pay rise) and the stick being punishment (demotion/fired) has been widely relied on as a motivator.
Money is seen to be the biggest motivator but in recent years this has been found not to always be the case. Work conditions, time of work, fellow employees all affect motivation.
Separation is the ending of an employment relationship and this comes in many ways. Dismissal is when the employee contract with the business has been suspended due to the employee not doing their job properly or behaving unacceptably.
Redundancy is when the employee is no longer needed and leaves on their own will or not. Retrenchment is when a business is unable to pay their employee and thus they must leave.
Employment relations is a key function in which business must manage to improve their employees and thus lead to improving their business. With good human resource management a business can gain the edge they need. Without good human resource management a business will probably not succeed.
You can order a high-quality custom essay, term paper, research paper, thesis, dissertation, speech, book report or book review from our professional custom writing service. We have employed more than 500 highly qualified Ph.D. and Master's academic writers to provide students with professional academic writing help. Feel free to contact our company right now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)