HR GRIEVANCE AND DISCIPLINE
Introduction
The developments in the field of human resource management (HRM) are now well documented (see for example, 1995; 1999; 1998; 1999; 2000). Nevertheless, the debate on HRM issues continues even though its focus has changed over time. The main issue which occupied academics in the 1980s was the evolution of HRM. In this regard, the debate was mainly on the exploration of the salient aspects of the transformation of personnel management into HRM. Having done so, it moved on to issues pertaining to the incorporation of industrial relations into HRM ( 1991); then the integration of HRM into business strategies, devolvement of HRM to line managers ( 1997; 1997), and finally seeing HRM as a source of competitive advantage for organisations (see for example, 1991; 1984; 1994).
There is an ongoing debate regarding the contribution of HRM to a firm’s performance ( 1997; 1995; 1995; 1999). The HR department began to really emerge during the second decade of the twentieth century with drastic changes in technology, the growth of organizations, the rise of unions, and government concern and intervention concerning working people. In line with this section’s subject, the grievances and disciplining of human resources has also been an issue of much discussion among human resource (HR) managers. (2002) observed that how successfully an organisation manages its human resources depends to a large extent on its ability to deal effectively with developing internal systems like a grievance procedure to minimise complaints and discipline measures to ensure compliance within the organisation.
Distinguishing between Grievance and Discipline
What exactly, is grievance and discipline, then? These concepts are two wholly different issues which the HR manager finds himself constantly facing that is why an understanding of the two terms is vital to effective HRM. In its broadest conception, a grievance is any employee complaint about the employment relationship. Some labour agreements describe a grievance in this fashion. More commonly, however, a grievance is defined as a dispute that ‘relates in some manner to the proper interpretation or application of the collective bargaining agreement’ ( 1980: 50). Such a definition narrows the occurrence of grievances to unionized settings and to written contract language that expressly deals with grievances--although some labour agreements do not contain grievance procedures and grievance-like dispute resolution procedures are present in some non-union settings. The concept, as defined by (2002: 352), ‘can be filed by either employees or employers, is an allegation that contract rights have been violated’.
One pragmatic advantage of narrowing grievances to alleged violations of labour agreements is that both union and management officials are freed from handling a potentially large volume of employee complaints, including those that are not well articulated. A possible disadvantage of a narrow definition of grievances is that certain important employee complaints may go unheeded and may, in turn, contribute to low product quality, high turnover, absenteeism and strikes, and internal union turmoil. In any case, we use the term ‘grievance to refer to any alleged violation of the labour agreement between the parties where the grievance takes a written form and where it pertains to written contract language. The term ‘grievance procedure’, refers to the system established by the parties for the processing and settlement of grievances ( 1988). This system is shaped by certain environmental forces, union and management organizational characteristics and policies, employee characteristics and attitudes, and the nature and structure of the bargaining relationship between the parties.
In an example cited by (1989), three grievance issues faced by public sectors are discrimination, rules violation and general complaints. In the first instance, eleven agencies processed complaints based on discrimination or equal employment opportunity allegations. Discrimination was spelled out as based upon race, sex, religion, colour, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, or handicapped. Where these complaints were excluded from the grievance procedure, other appeal systems existed to adjust these problems, e.g., state or federal agencies, Equal Employment Officers, or HR professionals. The grievance policy of a county stated, "It is important to recognize those actions that do not fall under the grievance procedure. These are actions for which there already exists another appeal procedure. Civil Rights complaints should be submitted to the HR Director or the EEO Specialist. The complaint most commonly classified as a grievable issue is rules violation. The following definition of a grievance by a county illustrates the broad scope of grievable subjects. ‘A “grievance” is a complaint by an employee concerning the interpretation of application of policies and procedures governing personnel practices, departmental work rules, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, or other policies or procedures of a working nature’ (as cited in 1989: 344). In the last issue, which is general complaints, fifteen agencies solicited employee complaints of a general or unclassified nature. Unclassified complaints were described by two agencies as ‘situations where the employee feels just cause for protest’, or ‘circumstances though to be unjust’. These definitions clearly represent the broadest interpretation of a grievance. The intent is the solicitation of any employee concern regardless of substance. Organizations using this approach want to convey a full and open attitude toward resolving employee concerns. This philosophy could be labelled the ‘humanistic’ approach to grievance resolution ( 1989).
Discipline, on the other hand, has been first specifically defined by (as cited in Day 1993) and they stated it has three distinct meanings: (1) punishment for a violation of a work rule or direct order; (2) training that moulds and strengthens the employee's behaviour; and (3) control gained by enforced obedience. From these three definitions, one can see that discipline not only has a corrective component but also an educational one. Often viewed synonymously with punishment, discipline is contrasted to punishment by these authors. Punishment is defined as an ‘undesirable event that follows an instance of unacceptable behaviour and is intended to decrease the frequency of that behaviour’ ( 1993: 21). According to the (1992: 192), discipline is defined as an ‘oral admonishment confirmed in writing, a written reprimand, or a suspension of 14 calendar days or less’. Adverse action is defined as ‘a removal; a suspension for more than 14 calendar days; a reduction in grade; a reduction in pay; and a furlough of 30 calendar days or less of a full-time employee ( 1992: 192). Clearly this definition focuses more on the enforcement or punishment side of discipline.
Managers today must take an extra step to rejuvenate the problem employee. This extra step may prevent charges of wrongful discharge or employment discrimination. Also, for a company to salvage a problem employee rather than to terminate the person and train a new replacement may be wise economically. Managers are responsible for the ‘motivation, performance and conduct of each employee assigned to them’ ( 1992: 192). According to (1993), a manager must create a positive work environment where productivity will be enhanced. Every manager must ensure that employees are aware of, and understand, the position description under which they work. Being unaware of the work rules may serve as grounds for an employee to file for wrongful discharge. Successful managers insist on quality performance from every employee. A final responsibility requirement for managers is to administer discipline or adverse action in a timely manner. When properly administered, discipline can be a motivational tool just as effective as awards. Whenever managers have the opportunity, rewards can be used to recognize and encourage good work habits.
Under this standard, discipline must be justifiable either as an action likely to improve future employee behaviour or as a discharge of an obviously uncorrectable employee ( 1994). The imposition of punitive discipline based upon results of employee actions is likely to be inconsistent with a corrective approach based on risk. Perhaps the following hypothetical situation will bring the problem into clear focus: A bus company has a ‘stop, look and listen’ requirement for drivers at all railroad crossings whether or not signals are flashing. A passenger files a complaint that Driver A simply slowed rather than stopping. When questioned by his supervisor, Driver A reported that he was behind schedule and apologized; he received an informal oral warning. Some time later Driver B performed in the same manner, but an accident followed involving injuries, considerable expense, and much negative publicity. Driver B was fired. Upon appeal, whether in arbitration if employees are unionized or before an unemployment compensation referee or any other review body requiring a "just cause" standard, the employee, his/her union or his/her advocate cite the precedent of Driver A. It is argued that consistency of treatment demands that the discharge be considered unjust and simply a punitive response to the employee's lack of luck, inasmuch as Driver A's conduct was just as unsafe as Driver B's. The managerial actions taken here are consistent with attributional biases. The odds are very good, however, that this dismissal will not be considered to be for ‘just cause’ by a reviewing arbitrator, as our examination of actual cases will demonstrate.
Advantages of Having a Formal Grievance Procedure
When negotiating a grievance procedure, one important concern for both sides is how effectively the system will serve the needs of labour and management. A well-written grievance procedure will allow grievances to be processed expeditiously and with as little red tape as possible. Furthermore, it should serve to foster cooperation, not conflict, between the employer and the employee. Procedures differ from organisation to organisation. Some contain simple two-step procedures. At the other extreme, the grievance procedure may contain six or more steps. The first step might be for the grievant to meet informally with the grievant’s supervisor to try to find a solution. If one is not found, a formal grievance is filed and a meeting scheduled between the employee and the supervisor’s boss. The next steps involve the grievant meeting with higher and higher level managers. Finally, if top management and the employee can’t reach agreement, the grievance may go to arbitration. (2002) noted that formal grievance procedures are ways to more broadly enhance organizational support that encourages generalized trust.
Every organization should establish a process for the internal resolution of equal employment opportunity (EEO) and other types of employee complaints. This means that an employer should have a formal grievance procedure that employees can use to deal with possible cases of discrimination. In cases of discharges, promotions, or sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious harassment, the availability of formal grievance procedures often aids in resolving complaints of discrimination so that the equal employment opportunity commission’s (EEOC) involvement is not necessary. It is much less expensive to resolve these concerns if the EEOC and legal counsel are not involved. More importantly, employee satisfaction and morale can be improved when employees are able to pass along their concerns to upper-level management. (2002) believes that if evidence of discrimination exists, the organization should be proactive in developing policies to correct the situation. These plans should be consistent with guidelines set forth by the EEOC. Employees (disabled, minority and female) should be involved in the process of developing these plans. Formally bringing employees into the process can provide useful insights and information about how best to recruit and retain disabled, minority, and female employees.
Organisations should also take into account the Supreme Court decisions. In a case, the Court ruled that voluntary quota systems are acceptable to the extent that employers do the following ( 1988): (1) avoid quota systems when no evidence of past discrimination exists; (2) develop plans that do not require the discharge of or have other significant ill effects on majority workers; (3) avoid setting minority quotas of greater than 50 percent; and (4) develop plans that are temporary in nature and will end once the negative effects of past discrimination are corrected.
Additionally according to (2002), often, employees will not file an EEO complaint unless they think they have been mistreated. Perceptions of mistreatment often result from situations in which employees’ or applicants’ expectations have not been met. Therefore, employers should not only provide realistic job previews for employees but also make sure they provide honest performance feedback and expectations. While it may be painful in the short term, providing honest feedback and expectations to employees is a good management practice that may reduce legal problems in the long run. In the end, organizations can avoid many of the potential problems associated with the HRM legal environment by engaging in sound management practices—management practices that are part of the organization’s strategic initiatives, supported by the HRM function. Organizations must be proactive in addressing the challenges presented by the legal environment in general and EEO regulations in particular.
(1989) found that labour-management committees that cooperatively addressed health and safety issues tended to improve the parties' attitudes toward each other, resulting in lower grievance rates and an increased willingness to resolve grievances informally. In particular, when relations are improved through joint projects, as suggests, boundary-role factors become more cooperatively predisposed. For example, constituents who feel better about the other side will encourage their officials to approach the grievance process more cooperatively. Furthermore, counterparts who feel better about each other will approach worker complaints differently, attempting with greater vigour to resolve them informally at first and searching for mutually satisfying solutions to those complaints that eventually are reduced to writing. Interactions during contract negotiations also have a moderating effect on the determinants of grievance orientation. Almost by definition, cooperative contract negotiations will result in more mutually satisfying bargaining agreements, containing clearer and more specific contract language than if the parties' negotiations had been characterized by defiance and reluctant compromise ( 1993). And these contractual aspects, in turn, promote cooperative grievance behaviour. Moreover, the attitudinal dimensions of cooperative contract negotiations are likely to filter over into its interpretation and administration. In short, in addition to having an influence on the mode of interactions during joint projects and contract negotiations, the orientations of grievance officials are subject to feedback effects from their activities. The complexities of these interactions deserve further attention from researchers.
Practical Difficulties in Managing Employee Discipline
According to (2001), the discipline process involves more than just managerial instinct or intuition to resolve workplace performance problems. Most organizations have objectives or union agreements in place to protect employees' rights from arbitrary dismissal and lack of feedback. Managers must provide fair, factual, and timely disciplinary feedback. Management has traditionally reserved the right to determine which employees receive work and job security. Discipline, including dismissal as the ultimate punishment, has remained a major management tool in this respect. Today however, union presence and the resulting collective agreements barring discipline without just cause protect a large number of workers. Thus, management’s right to discipline and fire in organized settings where such agreements exist has the correlative responsibility of ensuring that the decision is just. For example, it is the responsibility of the employer to adhere to the mutually established grievance procedure to ensure organizational justice. Even in non-union settings where workers are not protected by grievance and arbitration procedures, the employer's right to discipline has been tied by some courts (e.g., in some cases involving exceptions to the at-will rule) to the correlative responsibility of ensuring good cause and job-relatedness. Thus, obtaining and keeping good performance appraisal records on which to base future decisions becomes an important management responsibility. In addition, it is the employer's responsibility to make sure that workers receive equal treatment by being consistent in the application of disciplinary measures. Periodic training of first-line supervisors or other managers may be necessary to avoid inconsistency. Thus, it is also the employer's responsibility to ensure that the appropriate personnel are well trained and knowledgeable in the organization's discipline and discharge policies.
While management is, in general, opposed to any legislation, federal or state, that could assert statutory just-cause provisions for terminating an at-will employee, there is an increasing awareness of the need to take some action that would be protective against large punitive damage awards in the event a discharged employee contests his termination. Employers may approach the problem in that it would involve the establishment of specific rules or procedures that, if violated, could be the basis for just cause or good cause discharge and the communication of these rules or procedures to all employees by some means. It is incumbent upon an employer adopting this approach, however, to ensure that such rules and procedures are complete and in line with other company personnel policies. The difficulty in establishing such a listing of rules and procedures, the violation of which could lead to discharge, may be emphasized, however, by noting the large number of discipline and discharge cases heard by impartial arbitrators each year. When it is realized that the vast majority of these cases involve employers and employees operating under collective bargaining agreements that may contain extensive rules and procedures developed over a period of several years, the magnitude of the problem becomes more obvious.
‘The danger of discipline lies in its overuse’ ( 1993). If managers attempt to reinforce good behaviour through punishment, when the punishment is removed, the employee will likely continue the old behaviour. Discipline should never be used as a leverage to force an employee to act unethically or work outside his or her job description because to do so would constitute coercive power and violates all codes of ethics. When discipline is abused by management, it quickly leads to resentment, lost trust and respect from subordinates, and poor relations between management and labour. Managers who address small violations will lose the respect and trust of their employees. In summary, ‘The goal of discipline is not to win battles but to create responsible employees’ (1990: 95).
MARKS & SPENCER’S ANALYSIS
Introduction
Over the recent years, one may have observed how organisations are realising that their likelihood of sustained success is most dependent on learning to get the maximum out of their employees ( 2002). The management of human resources within an organisation is an aspect of administration that is comparatively harder to imitate than such other aspects as technology, manufacturing processes, products, and strategy ( 2004), therefore representing a unique competitive advantage (1998) on the part of the firm exercising it effectively. With the increasing amount of academic literature focusing on the subject of managing people within the organisation, there is the need to take an existing organisation, scrutinise how it carries out the management of their human resources and arrive at a conclusion whether such management practices are effective or not and how it contributes to the overall growth of the firm. The organisation in focus in this section is Marks & Spencer, the British high street store known internationally and is included in the Forbes list of top 40 largest United Kingdom companies ( 2005).
COMPANY BACKGROUND
In 1894, formed a partnership with to venture on the retailing business[1]. The first shop opened in 1904 at , West Yorkshire. In 2004, the organization celebrates their 120th anniversary, appoints as the Chief Executive of Marks & Spencer and the head office staff started to move into their new registered office at originally headquartered in , London for many years. At present, they have over 600 stores worldwide, 450 of which are located in UK and the remaining 150 outlets operating in 30 countries around the globe, with sales amounting to U.S.$ 14.6 billion and a market value of U.S.$ 11.6 billion and profits posted at U.S.$ 1.1 billion and assets totalling to U.S.$ 8.1 billion ( 2005). is the current Chairman while is the Director of Human Resources for the organization and is mainly responsible for personnel management. The executive directors compose of the Chief Executive (), Group Finance Director () and the Executive Director for marketing, e-commerce, store design and development (). The non-executive team includes the Chairman ( ), Senior Independent Director (), Non-executive Directors ( ) and Group Secretary and Head of Corporate Governance (). The various directors of the British retailer include Director of Womenswear & Girlswear (), Director of Menswear & Boyswear (), Director of Lingerie (), Director of General Merchandise Planning (), Director of Food (), Director of Home and Beauty (), Director of Retail (), Director of Human Resources (), Director of Property (), Director, International and UK Outlets (), Director, IT (), Director of GM Supply Chain and Logistics (), Director of Sourcing (), Director of Far East Procurement () and Director of Communications ().
Strategic Challenges
As with any other business organisation, Marks and Spencer faces several strategic challenges which they are continually attempting to overcome through excellent strategic management. In line with these strategies, the human resource department of the multinational enterprise is working hand-in-hand with the administrative section of the firm in order to face these strategic challenges head on. Being in retailing for over a hundred years, Marks & Spencer’s already has a distinct competitive advantage over their counterparts in the business in the reputation that they have established with their customers, employees and suppliers. Their customers have long associated the company with total dependability and value for money; the internal architecture of the company was cantered round permanent employment relationships, strong organizational routines, and a shared sense that there was a Marks & Spencer way of doing things, which the employees benefit from; and the suppliers relationship with the firm in that the external architecture of Marks & Spencer’s organisation was built around an almost Japanese relationship with suppliers – detailed influence on product specification and design as part of relationships sustained over many years ( 1999). They also have strong environmental and community responsibilities, (as cited in 1994) part of their corporate responsibility. As stated by , ‘Marks & Spencer have pioneered and excelled themselves in a whole range of 'modern' management methods, notably strategic marketing, consumer research, product innovation and development, personnel management, staff training and management development, quality assurance and technological-oriented purchasing’ (1985).
Overall, the strong and identifiable corporate culture of Marks & Spencer that operates to get the best out of relatively ordinary employees have continued to produce exceptional corporate results over many years and through many changes in the economic environment ( 1995). Although there have been downfalls for the hardy retailing perennial over the years largely due to economic crises, they have managed to surmount all the stumbling blocks through an resilience that their competitors view as unnerving. With taking over the Marks & Spencer helm, he is unveiling sales figures for the quarter to 1 April of more than double analysts' expectations, predicting full-year profits ahead of City projections and paying a bonus to shop floor staff, on top of an incentive already announced, in less than two years when he first took charge ( 2006). Businesses do not exist in a vacuum; they exist within an external environment consisting of the actions of other players who are outside the business, some of which are the competitors, the economy, the social system and the environmental system (‘n.d.). The primary competitors of the company are department store industry. Marks & Spencer also competes in the apparel & accessories retail, grocery retail, and home furnishings & house wares retail sectors (2006). Worth mentioning are the Associated Dairies (ASDA) Group Limited, British Home Stores (Bhs) Next, Tesco, Sainsbury and Arcadia. A slowing economy, rising unemployment and hefty personal debt that eats into the consumer purse in a system within which the firm operates contributes to the slowing down of retail sales across the United Kingdom ( 2005). This affects not only the company in discussion but also the retailing industry as a whole.
The social system is the ‘fabric of ideas, attitudes and behaviour patterns that are involved in human relationships. In particular, businesses are influenced by consumer attitudes and behaviours that depend on such factors as the age structure of the population and the nature of work and leisure’ ( n.d.). In order to meet the changing lifestyles of their customers, Marks operates different store formats located where the customers are most convenient, have a central customer services team, commissions a monthly monitoring of opinions and starting in 2003 conducts extensive research into what the customers expect from them on corporate social responsibility. They have found out that their customers deem the following important: meeting customer needs, being a good employer, being fair to suppliers and their workforces, selling responsible products and operating in a considerate manner. The Marks & Spencer brand, and consumers' immense trust in it, had been built on offering value for money, ‘quality’, but not cheap prices, and the company had adopted a low-key approach to advertising, store interiors and the pursuit of the customer. Against this background and as a crisis-management strategy, M&S was almost doubling its ad budget for national TV campaign. This was one of their most daunting strategic challenges yet, to reach out to the other segments of the market when their brand have been built around quality coupled with high prices. With respect to the environmental system, an environmental policy was formulated as a guide for the whole company to follow in the conduct of business that takes the natural environment in consideration. , head of Corporate Social Responsibility, was quoted as saying, ‘Climate change is still a relatively new issue in our sector. Our contention is that, for retailers, the footprint of stores and Lorries probably accounts for less than 10% of your actual carbon footprint. The true impact lies in your supply chain, and in the use and disposal of products. Although I am cautious about positioning Marks & Spencer as a ‘leader’ we are certainly taking the initiative in considering these wider implications’ (as cited in n.d.). The firm, as well as other English chains encoded a distinctive cultural repertoire into their shopping environments, which was organised around the themes of prettiness and neatness,
transparency, cleanliness and uniformity. This was a marketing discourse of
pleasurable but restrained consumption, which fed into and reshaped some of the existing routines of the petty bourgeoisie. It spoke most directly to women newly ‘enfranchised’ by their participation in the ‘clean’ and ‘efficient’ consumer
industries of the 1920s and 1930s, or who were empowered by the styles of modern household management promoted in contemporary women's magazines. The presentation of the body, the cultivation of aesthetic sensibilities, as well as
important aspects of these women's mental horizons, were transformed by the
consumerisation of personal and domestic life (2000).
HRM Strategies
Marks and Spencer’s has been known to have cared for their employees over the decades that they have been operating. Although this is so, they still face certain issues regarding their human resource management. In face of all these, Marks remains steadfast in their mission to bring quality products to consumers through maintaining a high-quality workforce who is contented with the environment in which they work in. In the 2005 count, there were 70,500 Marks employees around the globe (‘ 2006). The firm wanted the employee composition to be diverse in order to reflect the nature of the people that patronize them, exactly as diverse. They have written commitments to equal opportunities covering age, disability, race, marital status, political opinions, colour, gender, hours of work, national origin and religious beliefs. They also provide a mix of flexible working arrangements including leave for paternity, adoption and IVF treatment, as well as child breaks and career breaks that help encourage workforce diversity. They operate employee representation forums called Business Involvement Groups (BIGs) in every store and office area that encourage employees to share knowledge and promote debate about the business. Regarding the pay and benefits, the firm has reward packages that include elements of fixed pay, a wide range of benefits and variable performance related pay. As for the training and development of their employees, the trainings they offer are designed to develop individual talent and capability. In 2005/06, Marks provided over 102,000 days of training. The company also claims to operate a system to ensure workplace health & safety is safeguarded and we provide a range of occupational health services. To provide guidance on the behaviour of the members of the organization, they have developed a new consolidated Marks & Spencer Code of Ethics that sets out values and the responsibilities they have to their customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, government, communities and the environment.
The various departments within the organization are driven to perform their individual responsibilities in contribution to the overall growth of the company. Marks & Spencer works closely with various external partners to ensure that the environment within the confines of the organization is at the optimum level conducive to high performance and harmonious working relationships. ‘Each business unit develops its own corporate social responsibility strategy based around the brand value of trust. The issues tackled in the strategies are identified from a combination of customer research, understanding within the business and by talking with other key stakeholders, NGOs, government etc. For each issue an action plan is developed which balances customer and stakeholder expectations and other commercial pressures’ (2005). To this end, it is evident that the organization places high value on their corporate social responsibility and takes it seriously. The corporate culture of Marks revolves on how they respond to the environment, the customers and their own employees.
Implications of the HRM Strategies
With the strategic challenges that they are facing, the human resources of Marks & Spencer should have a hand in attempting to surmount the obstacles that the business environment hurls at them. With this in mind, the Marks & Spencer organization is dedicated to providing products in ways that help protect the environment, their employees and the people who use them. The competitive advantages, the external and internal environment in which they operate show evidence that the firm is striving to maintain their dedication. Granted that there are critics to the company, as there is always the presence of groups who are not very satisfied with the business’ performance, available figures and statements from business experts give evidence to Marks & Spencer’s continuing commitment in making sure that they are will be the standard against which others are measured, which is the company’s stated vision. One of their greatest competitive advantages lies in their ability to maintain a high performance staff that contributes to the overall development of the company. The company’s strategy in providing their employees with an internal environment favourable to maximizing the individual’s potential and growth is one of the key factors why they are able to keep the types of people who are willing to do most anything to help the organization grow. ‘Marks & Spencer placed ergonomics at the heart of a major design program for new retail equipment, resulting in an innovative design which not only ensures the safety and comfort of customers and staff but also meets exacting business requirements (‘ 2003). Overall, the company displayed a keen interest in getting the most out their human resources through designing a management system in which the employees could, as a result, give impetus to Marks & Spencer’s progress.
The major problem of human resource management in Marks, as (1986) claimed about human resource management in general, it has developed under assumptions of bureaucracy. With the developments and expansion that the organization has witnessed in the past few years that they have been operating, it is but inevitable that they develop a bureaucratic system within which to operate. The large number of M&S stores operating without the reach of the top management is such that the bureaucracy surfaced, much to the dissatisfaction of their employees. Without fully knowing the lines of authority to report to and to follow, employees, especially those in the trans-national branches, are having a hard time dealing with situations which need the direct supervision of those in the top. The assumptions, including the consistency of job roles and descriptions, the clarity of cause and effect relations concerning the actions employees take and their outcomes, and the centrality of individual performance as opposed to group performance, come
under attack when the environment is fast-changing (. 1990;
1992). In an era of increasingly intense competition, global markets, changing technology, and regulatory reform, there has been a good deal of attention given to how firms act in times of fast-changing environmental conditions ( 1991; 1990). Especially in the retail industry in which Marks & Spencer operates, it is imperative to adapt to the fast and continuous changes that are happening in order for them to survive the rat race involved in doing business in a contemporary setting.
The human resource planning, recruitment and selection practices of Marks & Spencer is affected by the internal and the external environments in which they operate in that all factors involved in that the two environments need to be taken into consideration in the process of formulating the strategies. For instance, in the context of the economy, practices which cuts cost and at the same time brings the most out of the human resources such as outsourcing is currently being applied in Marks & Spencer. However, there is the need to constantly review such practices, as changing times may indicate a need to improve current business practices to adapt to such changes. The extensive use of the information technology (IT) is being utilized by most retail competitors in the United Kingdom, and it would do the business well if they, too, capitalize on the benefits gained from the use of IT. As stated by (2003), IT can help the company in its human resource management through record keeping, human resource transactions, deliver expert advice to managers and employees in areas such as selection, career development, and compensation and many other tasks, thus enabling HR managers to spend more time on strategic business support. As a whole, the human resource practices of the company is admirable, as there are only few other trans-national corporations who can compare with how they take care of their employees in line with the realization of their ultimate goal, which is business growth.
Conclusion
In the increasingly boundless global market for the retailing giant Marks & Spencer, achieving desirable results from ever more complex global business activities requires them to pay increasing attention to more than the development of international operations, research and development, sales forces, and accounting systems. Increasingly, top-level attention must also be paid to the human aspects of cross-border business, to the merger of global workforces and cultures in acquisitions, joint ventures, and alliances, and to the development of the individual employees who represent multiple corporate and national cultures, speak multiple languages, and have widely varying perspectives on customer, product, and business issues. Marks must focus on the difficulties encountered in the development of HRM systems that deal with global human resource problems, such as global pension and health care systems, management development throughout the global enterprise, global employee and management recruiting, global compensation systems, etc. In the end, finding ways to develop a corporate ‘glue’ that will hold the organization effectively together through effective HR management will be a key to corporate success. As succinctly stated by (2004), in the global firms of the future, HR departments will need to be more closely linked into the actual management of the business, through development of HR philosophies (values, culture, vision), policies (guidelines for action), and programs, practices, and processes (involving line managers at every step) that fit the vision and strategy of the firm.
REFERENCES
0 comments:
Post a Comment