Ethical Concerns in HRM

                 Traditionally, HR has been viewed as the gatekeeper for ethical standards.  But, to be an effective gatekeeper one must believe, hold to, and have conviction to personal moral principles and to those outlined for the culture.  Warren Buffet once said that he looked for three things when hiring an individual, “first is personal integrity, the second is intelligence and the third is a high energy level” (Duncan, 2006, p. 35).  Buffet went on to say, “But if you don’t have the first, the second two don’t matter” (Duncan, p. 35).  Yet, we often don’t know an individual’s ethical make up until they walk through fire.

                The nature of fire is that it does one of two things: refines or consumes us.  HR professionals who become consumed by fire are those who sir come to the fear associated with the need to succeed and to show strategic value in HR programs and systems when they know it does not exist.  This presents great ethical concerns especially in light of the fact that HR is the gatekeeper for maintaining organizational ethics.  The biggest concern is the degradation of integrity within the department and the organization.  Once integrity is compromised it establishes itself like a cancer throughout the organization.  It’s make up begins to produce new norms and it produces a shift in the culture that was not necessarily anticipated.

                The impact ethical compromises have is vast.  The compromise produces changes in decision making, how people interact with one another, and of course, it has the power to determine success or failure for people, departments and the organization.  Although fear many times is the catalyst in a person’s decision to make ethical compromises.  It is courage to do what is right that catapults individual success.  HR professionals who have the courage to accurately assess the current state of affairs within the HR Department and to offer solutions to resolve potential problems hold the greatest opportunity to experience true success.  This type of success is achieved first through individuals who are courageous.  Courageous leaders are then able to walk through the refiner’s fire and coming out the other side as leaders the workforce can follow and feel good about.

MHRM 6600 - Week 6

Love me, love me not, love me, love me not: this is the contemplation of the day when it comes to the 360-Degree Feedback instrument.  Although this tool is one of the most frequently used evaluation tools in corporate America today, it is a tool that is no different than any other tool on the market; it is perfect for some and not so much for others.  Organizations that find it to be a best practice evaluation method are those that adhere to a participatory leadership style in the area of feedback, those who have a culture that “support open and honest feedback”, those who promote employees based on skill level and performance, those who have a culture where employees are not fearful of speaking up and those who have employees who desire to improve their performance (Aguinis, 2013, p. 211).  Additionally, it must be noted that this tool is not designed to evaluate job specific competencies, but competencies such as “communication, leadership, adaptability, relationship [building], task management, production, and personal development (Aguinis, pp. 208 – 209).

Identifying cultural fit is one of the first steps to determining whether or not the 360-Degree feedback tool is the right intervention for the intended organizational outcome.  This instrument, like others, holds both advantages and disadvantages when using or applying it.  Understanding these factors and how to obtain the most from the tool is key to its overall success.  First, the advantages of the 360-Degree Feedback tool, when applied effectively, are as follows: the instrument has the potential of “decreasing [the] possibility of biases, increasing awareness of expectations, increasing commitment to improve, improving self-perception of performance, improving performance, reducing undiscussables, and  enabling employees to take control of their careers” (Aguinis, 2013, pp. 213-214). However, this is not the end of the story; we must evaluate the challenges associated with this instrument to gain a full understanding of this tool.

It should be of no surprise that the 360-Degree feedback tool comes with challenges.  One of the most challenging aspects of the instrument is that not everyone welcomes feedback, nor are they willing to adopt the feedback they receive.  Also, if employees do not feel as if the information they receive about themselves is given with the intent to help them rather than hurt them, they don’t want anything to do with it.  It really comes down to trust; trust of the organization and the people providing the feedback.  To add to this challenge is the dilemma of who will provide the needed feedback.  Are there enough employees providing feedback to maintain anonymity?  Finally, if there is not a commitment within the organization to implement the tool at least twice, the information becomes less valuable and believable among those participating.

Getting the bang for a buck is never a guaranteed proposition.  However, organizations that reach this end are those that use and apply the instrument as it was intended to be used.  Pulling aspects of the information found in the results nestled in the body of the tool can be seen as miss leading and manipulative.  The application of this process is critical to the overall success of the instrument.  If those who are participating in the implementation of the tool do not trust the leaders who are implementing the device, the bang the organization will hear is the sound that comes from employees who express their mistrust with the organization, fellow employees and the tool itself.

Reference:

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

MHRM 6600

 

The magic of teamwork can be viewed by passing birds that fly in formation.  There is always a bird that takes the lead while the remaining team of birds flies in the V formation behind the lead bird.  When the lead bird tires he/she goes to the end of the formation and the next bird takes the lead.  This is the picture of everything good about teams.  From my experience in working in teams over the years they have produced some of the most incredible results I could have ever imagined.  For instance, in my previous position with a local manufacturer, I was privileged to work with a team of people who were told there would be a plant closure in approximately three months.  Also, prior to the plant closure three quarters of the employees would be laid off, while the employees who remained were expected to meet production demands.  Not only were they expected to meet the set demands, they were expected to do it safely, efficiently, and within prescribed quality levels.  The most incredible part of this story is not that these people met the intended goal, but they did it knowing they were going to be without jobs in just a few months, while maintaining a spirit of everything that is good in a person.  It truly was a demonstration of the best man has to offer.  The evolution of such results came from the power of varied skills and abilities, the sharing of tasks, and the synergy that was produced through solutions as a result of brain storming.   

On the other hand, I have worked in teams where a clear direction cannot be found and with people who were not interested in being a part of the team.  Within these teams it was difficult to develop trust among team members.  This in turn produced difficulties in achieving desired team goals.  Also, the number of uncertainties found in these teams generated questions and anxiety around who would and would not follow through on assigned work.  Additionally, individual skill level played a part in an individual’s ability to meet the team’s standards and expectations.  Maximizing individual contributions at times were difficult due to assumptions made by team members.

Evaluating team members can be grueling.  Typically team projects are evaluated by the end result that is associated with a given team.  Individual contributions are supposed to be a part of the whole.  Yet, there are times where one member may have a larger share of the contribution due to his/her skill level.  In other cases, it may be that team members are unable to put in as much time and energy into a project, this then places more responsibility on someone else in the team.  Asking team members in a work situation to evaluate fellow team members can be risky.  I have seen teams decide to sway an outcome by either everyone evaluating an individual negatively or positively to produce a specific outcome.  If every team I worked on navigated as smoothly as a team of birds do, I would choose to work in teams’ every time!  In a situation like this, how team evaluations are completed wouldn’t make any difference.

Data Management and Ethics

Ethics as defined by the free dictionary is a “set of principles of right conduct”.  So then, what is right conduct?  Right conduct will be dictated by the set of principles one is governed by.  In business the principles that we operate from are established through the company code of conduct and our own individual principles (Greenwood, 2002).  Interestingly enough, many people do not know what they stand for.  They don’t know what principles they adhere to.  This issue presents a great challenge for people who are presented with ethical dilemmas.  It is much more difficult for them to take a stand when presented with an opportunity to increase personal gain.  Personal and business codes of conduct guide behavior and without them society is at risk of becoming a hedonistic society.

 It is evident to me and others I have worked with that I hold to a clear set of principles that guide my behavior, decision making and direction in life.  As described by my ex-boss, these principles are viewed as a high standard that are difficult for many people to adhere to.  This is the framework in which I operate from and have developed a reputation on.  I would find it shocking if anyone approached me to join them on a collaborative effort to manipulate company data.  I have taken many hard stands on doing what I believed was the right thing to do for the company and the employees that work there.

For instance, a couple of years ago the management team (including my boss) that I worked with was evaluating whether or not to recommend a two drink maximum policy.  This policy would limit the amount of alcohol the company would purchase when employees where at an event paid for by the company.  The challenge at hand was the fact that for 100 years the company never held such a policy and there were many employees, at every level of the organization that enjoyed cutting loose on the company dime.  As our management team debated this issue, those who wanted the policy ended up backing down because they did not want the fight.  However, even though I stood alone, I stood my ground on the need for the policy.  The principle I stood on was “doing the right thing for the right reasons”.

With examples like the two drink max policy, I have developed a reputation to do the right thing for the right reasons and to adhere to high ethical standards.  When people have these kinds of reputations they are not approached with unethical situations like manipulating data.  This is because their coworkers and their boss already know how they will respond.

Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261–278. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Business Source Complete database:
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/bsi/detail?sid=ed889ddb-c9ed-478b-aeea-598918b79221%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU%3d#db=bth&AN=12130511

The free dictionary. Retrieved from http://thefreedictionary

MHRM 6120 – Week 1

The big question of the day is whether or not HR should have “a seat at the table”.  I say, “why not?”  We all know that organizations are all about increasing profits for shareholders.  Study after study is indicating HR can have great influence on revenue.  For instance, four national surveys where 2800 firms responded indicated that where the organization implemented high performance work practices the organization obtained as much as $60,000 increase in profits, per employee.  If your organization has 100 employees, $60,000 per employee translates into a $600,000 increase.  Organizations that have shut down in the past year or two might have been able to survive with those kinds of revenue increases.

What is fascinating to me is that the possibility to increase profits doesn’t stop there.  HR’s ability to influence or make a difference on the bottom line lies in their ability to craft a strategic direction that ties directly into the organizations overall strategy.  Frankly, results are limited without HR sitting at the strategy table.   The impact they establish lies in the system and outcomes that are imbedded in this process.  What in the world do I mean by that?  What I mean is that the strategy HR employs, the goals and objects set forth, are identified as a direct result of the organizations goals and objectives.   This plan and action are then measured, monitored, and managed for maximum impact.

Starbucks, Limited Brands, and Best buy all provide great examples of how impactful this can be.  For instance, they all indicated that they know the value a .1% increase in employee engagement would be (Davenport, Harris, & Shapiro, 2010).  The annual increase for Best Buy with a .1% increase was $100,000 per year, per store (Davenport, Harris, & Shapiro, 2010, pp. 52).  How many stores does Best Buy own?  I’m not sure, but if it was only five, that yearly savings would amount to $500,000 per year.  We all know that Best Buy owns a lot more stores then five, which gives them a much bigger return on investment.

I believe the best HR departments in corporate America will craft HR Architects that embody strategy and function (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001).  I don’t believe we can do without one or the other.  In fact, I believe that it takes both to be effective in escorting HR into a new realm of success defined by the 21rst Century.  HR function is what characterizes traditional HR.  However, strategic HR is required for crafting a competitive edge within the organization and turning HR into an asset versus a liability.  Whether the gain in profits is $100,000 or $600,000 it is an increase over the competition and another day, month, or year that contributes to current and future success of the organization.

Becker, B., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard: Linking people, strategy, and performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. H., Harris, J., & Shapiro, J. (2010). Competing on talent analytics. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 52–58. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Business Source Complete database:
http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?did=2155939191&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=70192&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Outsourcing Talent Management

It is clear that organizations are moving toward either automating or outsourcing aspects of the HR function.  However, the question all HR departments and the organization that employ them must grapple with is, “should my company outsource aspects of its HR function?”    I believe this question can only be answered once there is a clear understanding of the organizations strategic direction along with a clear understanding of the role HR will play.  Although cost savings is among the reasons organizations are moving in this direction, other reasons leaders gave when surveyed is that it provides a “better focus on core competency” and “improved business processes” (Oshima, Kao, & Tower, 2010, pp. 7).   These reasons are two perfect examples of why an organization might utilize outsourcing as a viable solution.

Although recommendations have been made for outsourcing functions to include “administrative, customer service, and technology infrastructure work”, this still leaves “strategy, design, and consulting to the business” as the primary areas of responsibility for the HR department (Oshima, Kao, & Tower, 2010, pp.7).  If an organizations followed this recommentation, moving in this direction certainly allows the HR department to become key players in the overall operation of the business.  This structure elevates the profession from that of an administrative role to a strategic partnership.  Yet, on the flip side, the greatest danger in moving to this type of HR structure, in my opinion, has everything to do with loosing contact with employees as well as maintaining a pulse check on the culture.  Beyond this point, it is important to establish clear expectations for third party partners when outsourcing.  Standards and specific criteria must be discussed to ensure deliverables are met.

Outsourcing or automating HR functions is only one solution to addressing challenges faced in HR departments today.  It is true that the solution has become popular and has proved to be effective for some who have utilized it in today’s economy.  The recommendation I would make is to view it as a possible, viable option when restructuring the HR department.  However, I would only select outsourcing once the pros and cons of the solution have been evaluated and are fully understood.

Oshima, M., Kao, T., & Tower, J. (2005).  Achieving post-outsourcing success. Human Resource Planning, 28 (2), 7-11.  Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Leadership Development

In my opinion, the best leadership development programs are sponsored by the organizations top dogs (General Managers, Executives, etc.), yet they are managed by HR. Typically, HR has been schooled in the technical aspects of training and development, which attributes to learning opportunities that target development.  Managing this function also allows them to tie training and development into various aspects of the performance management initiatives.  For instance, another function HR is responsible for is the employment of performance reviews.  Holding responsibility for both functions would produce a natural tie to one another.  It may look something like this: As HR sets forth to initiate the performance review cycle they would tie training and development initiatives into various stages of that process.  

Yet, on the other hand, when it comes to maximizing the training and development outcomes, top leaders are needed.  They establish a level of importance to the program HR cannot.  They hold credibility for knowing and understanding the operation of the business and what is needed to advance into top positions.  They are also important for coaching, evaluating and providing feedback in areas the employee is developing in or working on. The partnership between HR and a company’s top dog hold real potential for creating a training and development program that not only offers learning opportunities that increase skills and provide opportunities for advancement, but they contribute to real possibilities for producing a credible program that is valued by all who are involved.

Some years ago, I had an opportunity to be a part of crafting a training and development program for a group of leaders.  Although the leaders involved in this program expressed enjoyment and satisfaction of the opportunities presented, their approach and increased desire to learn as well as willingness to apply their learning came as a direct result of the role their Manager and the General Manager placed on the opportunity.  Through the assistance of HR, the top dogs tied the individual development opportunities to the performance evaluation process, pay increases, and promotions.  The partnership was a great example of what a team can accomplish.