Organization development is the original function of the human resource department. Now it is a line management function and fast becoming an employee function. Today, modern versions of organizational development take a more global view, a more managed picture, one with more shared responsibility. It is less top-down and engenders more intense planning of needed organizational structures, systems, policies, and procedures. Human resource management (HRM) plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of any work organization and its strategic aims and goals. Effective organization development requires shared responsibility for the development of an organization among all organizational functions and components and among managers, supervisors, and employees. In a typical organization development model, a number of factors come into play as a representative public sector organization attempts to respond to change.
The overall purpose of HRM is to ensure that the organization is able to achieve success through people. According to Campbell (1987): HRM systems can be the source of organizational capabilities that allow firms to learn and capitalize on new opportunities (Campbell 1987, p.23). One of the most troubling experiences in managing others is having to deal with the chronically tardy, stressed-out, procrastinating employee who is unable to organize him/herself. Every firm has individuals who operate from this chaotic mode. Often these people have a great deal to offer, but because they are so disorganized themselves, their potential is squandered. Take a moment to think about such an employee within your firm. Imagine how this individual complicates Work for everyone else and causes others stress, forcing them to waste time. Imagine how this individual manipulates and controls others through his/her own procrastination.
Strategy development is the heart of strategic planning. It is the process that answers the “what” questions that an organization must answer in order to carry out its mission. Strategy development, however, seems to be the most challenging part of the strategic planning process to accomplish in the public sector. Much private sector strategy development is aimed at combating efforts or anticipated movements of competitors. With the exception of economic development, a slightly different approach has to be pursued in the public sector. Public agencies operate in turbulent environments that impose numerous, rapidly changing demands and require substantial adaptive capacity. In order to manage the future course of the organization and to establish the most viable strategy for achieving organizational goals, leaders must understand the dynamics of design in public organizations.
Ulrich and Lake, in their book “Organizational Capability: Competing from the inside out” (1990), wrote: HRM systems can be the source of organizational capabilities that allow firms to learn and capitalize on new opportunities (Armstrong and Baron, 1995, p. 45). HRM is generally identified, therefore, as an element or support concept. It should be evident that this model of organization development utilizes strategic planning as the primary tool to respond to the change an organization is facing. Workers are recruited to help, which they are willing to do because they have their own purposes, namely, to make a living and/or to promote their own growth. These several purposes meet in the Work, the results of which are focused on realizing the progenitor’s goal. This purpose and those of the workers are most effectively achieved when they are merged and become a mutual endeavor (Campbell, 1987).
Typically, maintenance goals are grouped under administration. Administrative personnel, especially in huge organizations, are often situated some distance from the Work of the mission. In organizations dealing with the extraction of raw materials, such as forest products and petroleum, extensive and continuous fieldwork to learn the needs and problems of the workers carrying out the organization’s mission can overcome the separation. If this is not done, bureaucracies that ostensibly exist to serve as communication channels often end up being mainly concerned with their own survival. John Storey (1989) expresses this as follows:
“In stereotyped form, HRM appears capable of making good each of the main shortcomings of personnel management. Its performance and delivery are integrated into line management: the aim shifts from merely securing compliance to the more ambitious one of winning commitment” (Storey 1989, p. 33). When this happens, the mutual understanding that needs to exist between mission and maintenance breaks down, and the organization becomes rigid and unresponsive, eventually failing. This is a familiar phenomenon in government organizations where the maintenance bureaucracy tends to become an end in itself. It has lost touch with the reason for its existence, namely, to serve as a vehicle that facilitates the execution of specific missions (Campbell, 1987).
Breaking down the purpose of a work-doing system into goals and objectives not only enables management to get the Work done but also facilitates the tracking of success and/or failure. Each goal and each objective is set up with measurable indicators of whether it is being accomplished. If this is all that is being measured, the systems approach would not be necessary. For instance, for BMW to remain healthy and viable in today’s world, it is equally essential to determine how both Workers and Workfare in the pursuit of results. Workers and Work inevitably enter the equation for productivity (Campbell, 1987). Like other organizations, MBW is set up to realize a purpose that presumably was formulated to meet a need, real or imagined. In either case, in the minds and hearts of the progenitors, values are associated with the purpose. These may be overt, but frequently they are not. An example of an overtly expressed value is that of Schultz, who “has masterminded an empire based on the notion that even though the term ‘coffee break’ is part of the vernacular, there’s traditionally been no place to enjoy one. Schultz felt there should be such a place–“an extension of people’s front porch.”
These are the written statements declaring the rules by which the organization will operate. They derive from the principles. In the case of Starbucks, the matters of health insurance and profit-sharing are stated policies. In the case of the hidden values, they do not necessarily appear in a policy statement. They may simply be part of the informal culture of the organization and only be discovered when a problem manifests. This seemed to be the case for Denny’s, one of the largest restaurant chains in the country. The management of a number of its restaurants, particularly in California, was allegedly discriminating against selected minority groups, demanding payment for food in advance and, in some instances, refusing to serve them. Finally, following protest demonstrations at some of the sites, top management entered the situation, insisting it was not a policy of the chain and claiming there was a misunderstanding. Negotiations followed a policy of nondiscrimination was declared with the insistence that it was a principle of management. Disciplinary measures were meted out to the offending restaurants, and minority ownership of some restaurants was provided. Not until problem-arousing massive consumer feedback emerged did a clearly stated principle and policy become part of a negotiated agreement (Schuler, 1998).
By many organizations, human resources are viewed holistically. Although individuals as workers have their particular purpose in a work-doing system–worker growth as well as productivity–they are more than just workers. They are consumers, family persons, spiritual beings. In each of these incarnations, they have different purposes and are part of different systems. But these systems are not totally separate. They are entwined in one another, spill over into each other, and impact a worker’s performance. As a result, a conscious and deliberate effort is made in JFA to avoid using language that would partialize workers, see them only in their instrumental form to be analyzed in terms of factors, traits, or the like. Instead, workers are viewed as whole persons, steadily accumulating knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience in order to enable them to function and adapt to the job-worker situation.
In this case, the organization should focus on strategies that are consistent with its stated mission yet provide acceptable levels of risk (Schuler, 1998). Strategic development should capitalize on the most critical external opportunities and internal strengths while avoiding the most severe external threats and weaknesses. For Proctor & Gambler, prioritizing the strategies is essential to developing a realistic implementation plan. A critical difference between the private sector and public sector strategic planning is in evaluating tradeoffs between design. In evaluating investment alternatives, the private sector can employ a number of quantitative techniques to analyze the investment, such as internal rate of return or net discounted present value (Schuler, 1998). Tradeoffs in the public sector, however, are not as easy to assess. There are fewer bottom-line criteria for a public sector organization to evaluate. Examples include investing in housing or the transportation system. Public sector organizations must therefore establish a set of standards or priorities to guide their decision-making. Once preferences are found, the strategies to be implemented are selected by comparing them to resource constraints; a listing of new resources required is then made (Rosow & Casner-Lotto 1998).
According to the theoretical interpretation proposed by Armstrong and Baron (1996), the approach to human resource management deals with: “quantitative, calculative and strategic business aspects of managing the headcount resource in as ‘rational’ as way as for any other economic factor (p. 15). People develop a sense of self, who they are, and what they want as they grow. Some have a stronger, clearer sense of self than others, but to one degree or another, this sense of self is the basis for workers’ decision-making during the course of their work history. This sense of self is what influences them to pursue one line of Work rather than another, to take a job because of need, to change jobs because of dissatisfaction with where they are, and to undertake further skill training in order to obtain a better job. The three kinds of skills–functional, specific content, and adaptive–are present and interacting simultaneously in total skilled performance. They are simply different aspects of the performance, drawing on different personal resources.
They tend to play significantly different roles in making choices about taking a position and whether or not to stay in it (Becker, 1993). The first step is to select a field where the specific content is relevant to one’s background, interest, or experience. The second step is to evaluate specific job offerings for appropriateness to one’s adaptive skills, one’s willingness to put forth the effort called for, take on the responsibility demanded, and adjust to the physical, social, and environmental circumstances of the job. If, following this evaluation, the person reacts negatively–the combination of adaptations required make a negative impression–then the person leaves the field and starts over. If, on the other hand, the person comes away with favorable feelings, he or she accepts the offer. This is when functional skills come into play, engaging the specific content of the new job-worker situation. If the favorable impression is validated on the job, the person grows into the position or even grows “up” in it. On the other hand, if it fails to fulfill its promise, the worker tends to detach from the position, functional performance becomes sporadic or deteriorates, and the worker looks further afield (Becker, 1993).
Strategic alternatives involve the identification and evaluation of the various ways and means to achieve the organization’s mission in view of the external and internal conditions uncovered in the environmental scan. One of the most frequent complaints heard from both public and private sector top executives is that they are seldom provided with a proper choice about the strategic direction of their organization. More often, they are presented with a single proposed course of action on which they are expected to stamp their approval (Becker, 1993). This step in the strategic planning process is designed to provide decision-makers with a choice–an opportunity to select from significantly different strategic directions and to focus on the tradeoffs that may be required and the benefits to be derived. By following such a course of action, the chance of producing innovative, imaginative, and workable strategies dramatically increases, and top management can more confidently select a plan to expand, contract, continue “as is,” or proceed in some radically different direction (Bateman & Snell 2004).
Strategic alternatives may be generated at all levels in the organization’s hierarchy. At the organizational level, options are concerned with the form of government, its basic style and policies, and its central service delivery purpose and strategy. At the department level, options deal with the direction the organization should follow for each significant service being delivered. At the division level, chances are concerned with the direction the organization should take in regard to discrete systems, processes, methods, and approaches (Bateman & Snell 2004). A strategic decision simply implies that specific alternatives must ultimately be selected. Just as other options were generated at each level in the organization, selection decisions, too, may be made at each level, consistent with the aims of top management. All reasonable alternatives are subject to comparative evaluations of both non-financial and financial factors in order to ensure the selection of the most satisfactory strategy. Elements of the organizational environment, feasibility, cost, and the desirability of the strategy with respect to administrative purposes and values make up the evaluation criteria.
In the course of the evaluation, unsuspected obstacles may be discovered, or the possibility of a future controllable event may require that a “next best” strategy be considered as a contingency. A relatively wide range of possible methods helps in the selection of alternative strategies. Some of these possibilities are more practical or desirable than others. Much of the work that needs to be done requires a range of skills from low to high, from relatively little training and experience to a great deal (Bateman & Snell 2004). The experienced craftsperson moves quickly from one level of skill to another in getting a job done. In some instances, more Work can get done; greater productivity is achieved if skilled workers have assistants who can help out with the less capable Work. Actually, most complete jobs in any field consist primarily of low- and medium-skilled Work and a considerably smaller proportion of highly skilled Work. Persons doing the lower-skilled Work can be allowed to do the more skilled Work if adequately coached and supervised. That is how people grow in their jobs. However, the reward system –pay, bonuses, promotions–must fairly and equally reflect this. Employers are finding they can achieve greater productivity by having a flexible workforce rather than depending on specialists to perform specific Work. According to Storey (1989):
“The drive to adopt HRM is…based on the business case of a need to respond to an external threat from increasing competition. It is a philosophy that appeals to managements who are striving to increase competitive advantage and appreciate that to do this they must invest in human resources as well as new technology” (Storey 1989, p. 34).
Achieving this greater productivity requires management to contract with workers in good faith to maintain pay, benefits, and working conditions commensurate with their increasing value to the organization. In such a work situation, workers grow naturally to achieve more excellent skills and experience. Flexibility, thus, can be an advantage to both worker and employer. More and more organizations are departing from rigid job descriptions that box employees into specific work tasks to which pay scales are attached. Morrison’s approach reflects an increasingly common phenomenon, management willingness to go beyond job descriptions to achieve greater efficiency and higher productivity.
Workers who use the it’s-not-in-my-job-description excuse reflect the traditional approach that often results in inefficiency and negative productivity (Bateman & Snell 2004). The notion that every little thing that needs doing in order to get Work done must appear in a job description is, of course, quite impractical and ultimately can destroy initiative. In order to make flexibility a success, employers must understand that flexibility cannot work unless trust exists in the organization. Employers must constantly demonstrate to workers that as they become more valuable to the organization, they are compensated accordingly. Flexibility also depends on the employer having a cadre of trainers and senior workers. Storey (1989) writes that the soft approach involves: ‘treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality” (Storey 1989, p. 33).
The role of human resources is to focus on strategies and apply them to practice. The organization should focus on systems that are consistent with its stated mission yet provide acceptable levels of risk. Strategic development should capitalize on the most critical external opportunities and internal strengths while avoiding the most severe external threats and weaknesses. At the same time, however, strategies that address organizational strengths and weaknesses and stretch the organization to new heights should also be considered (Campbell et al. 1994). Generally, more systems will be developed than an organization has the resources to implement. Prioritizing the strategies is critical to developing a realistic implementation plan.
Lynch (1997) writes: “everyone focuses on the organization’s vision, mission, quality policy, and operating principles. Employees at every level contribute to accomplishing company goals” (Lynch (1997, p. 67). The organization should focus on strategies that are consistent with its stated mission yet provide acceptable levels of risk. Strategic development should capitalize on the most critical external opportunities and internal strengths while avoiding the most severe external threats and weaknesses. At the same time, however, strategies that address organizational strengths and weaknesses and stretch the organization to new heights should also be considered. Generally, more systems will be developed than an organization has the resources to implement. Prioritizing the strategies is critical to developing a realistic implementation plan (Heene & Sanchez 1997).
The case of Toyota vividly portrays that effective use of human resources allows companies to meet organizational goals and strategic objectives. Strategic alternatives involve the identification and evaluation of the various ways and means to achieve the organization’s mission in view of the external and internal conditions uncovered in the environmental scan (Reed 2001). One of the most frequent complaints heard from both public and private sector top executives is that they are seldom provided with a proper choice about the strategic direction of their organization. More often, they are presented with a single proposed course of action on which they are expected to stamp their approval.
This step in the strategic planning process is designed to provide decision-makers with a choice–an opportunity to select from significantly different strategic directions and to focus on the tradeoffs that may be required and the benefits to be derived (Reed 2001). By following such a course of action, the chance of producing innovative, imaginative, and workable strategies dramatically increases, and top management can more confidently select a plan to expand, contract, continue “as is,” or proceed in some radically different direction. Strategic alternatives may be generated at all levels in the organization’s hierarchy. At the organizational level, options are concerned with the form of government, its basic style and policies, and its central service delivery purpose and strategy. At the department level, alternatives deal with the direction the organization should follow for each significant service being delivered. At the division level, options are concerned with the direction the organization should take in regard to discrete systems, processes, methods, and approaches.
A strategic decision simply implies that specific alternatives must ultimately be selected. Just as other options were generated at each level in the organization, selection decisions, too, may be made at each level, consistent with the aims of top management (Reed 2001). All reasonable alternatives are subject to comparative evaluations of both non-financial and financial factors in order to ensure the selection of the most satisfactory strategy. Elements of the organizational environment, feasibility, cost, and the desirability of the strategy with respect to administrative purposes and values make up the evaluation criteria. In the course of the evaluation, unsuspected obstacles may be discovered, or the possibility of a future controllable event may require that a “next best” strategy be considered as a contingency. That strategic planning is distinctively different from long-range planning becomes most apparent in the strategy development process. Long-range planning tends to be merely an extension of what an organization is doing already. City X may decide to service a newly annexed area using its existing plan. A hospital may plan to open a suburban branch. Both of these plans involve only slight variations in or expansions of the service offered to exist clients. Such typical long-range planning often is myopic and unduly constraining. When an organization focuses too intensely on the area of service that it currently provides, it often overlooks possible innovative approaches to alternative service delivery (Reed 2001).
Cognitive skills play a crucial role in an increasingly technological society. They are the specific vehicle for defining and communicating the variables that enter into technology and for mastering its language and instructions. They are remarkably adaptable to school training through the medium of books, computers, and other audiovisual materials. Sometimes, they overshadow the role of physical and interpersonal skills that require more interactive training and experience in simulated or real situations in order to be effectively learned. Interpersonal skills tend to be as heavily influenced by cultural traditions as admonitions concerning “correctness” or “appropriateness” (Reed 2001). Although the cognitive factor is essential in the learning of physical and interpersonal skills, there seems to come to a point where it needs to be set aside to allow the total person–nonverbal, instinctual, physical, and cultural–to take charge. Standards of effectiveness and efficiency must be achieved. Efficiency refers to attaining a set of results that is acceptable, though not necessarily desirable. Productivity implies utilizing a minimal amount of resources. (Senge, 1990). This policy recognizes the crucial importance of a job in the lives of individuals so they can function as whole persons. Nowhere more than in working conditions does an employer demonstrate allegiance to this credo (Bateman & Snell 2004).
In sum, human resource management and human resources contribute to the development of the organization and its effective use of all resources. The challenge is not only to provide a level playing field for all applicants but also to meet the challenge of mutuality between employer and worker. Productivity is a measure of how well resources are brought together in organizations and utilized for accomplishing results. Productivity is reaching the highest level of performance with the least expenditure of resources. Accomplishing results is an essential component of productivity because, without consequences, there is no productivity. Effectiveness standards have to do with achieving results at all costs or where cost is not a concern. To maximize productivity, the desired outcome must be completed with minimal use of resources. Organizations need to be aware of what is happening in their environment that might affect them. In other words, they should continually survey and monitor the outside as well as the inside of the organization. This is especially true during the strategic planning process.
Bibliography
Armstrong M., Baron A. (eds.) 1995. The job evaluation handbook. Eds. Institute of Personnel and Development.
Bateman T.S, Snell S. A. 2004. Management: the New Competitive landscape. 6th ed., McGaw Hill Irwin.
Becker, G. 1993. Human capital. New York Columbia University Press, 3rd and.
Campbell, A., Goold, M. 1987. Strategies and Style. London: Basil Blackwell.
Campbell, A., Goold, M., Alexander, M. 1994. Corporate Level Strategy. London: John Wiley.
Heene, A., Sanchez, R. 1997. Competence-Based StrategicManagement. New York: John Wiley.
Lynch, R. 1997. Corporate Strategy. London: Pitman.
Reed A. 2001. Innovation in Human Resource Management. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Rosow, J., Casner-Lotto, J. 1998. People, Partnership and Profits: The new labor-management agenda, Work in America Institute, New York
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Schuler, R. 1998. Managing Human Resources. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing,
Storey, J. 1989. New perspectives on Human Management, Routledge, London.