3.6.1 Setting human resource objectives

Can't assume hiring + training staff is enough. Gallup Poll - only 13% staff worldwide fully engaged in job. If aren't engaged + interested, will never give 100%.

Problem - no reason to suppose HR professionals any real solution to problem. Engagement diff to motivation, HR approach diff (unlike motivation, not best addressed through job enrichment). HR approach - pretend employee engagement can be achieved through financial devices + bureaucratic devices eg staff appraisal.

Herzberg would see little value in this. Given prevalence of HR depts today, 'engaged' figure of 1% clear pointer to need for diff approach.

For some businesses, key to LT success - training + motivation of staff as whole. Some circumstances, focus may be on talented few. Eg Southampton FC been leading light in football talent development, consistently devoting large chunk of budget to developing youth players. The result - generated enough transfer cash to justify policy.

Other businesses - graduate 'fast-track' schemes, view that those w/ extra talent should be given every opp for career progression as rapid as talents allow. Risk that focus on talented few come to expense of majority. Unlikely to help morale.

Herzberg - 'the more a person can do, the more you can motivate them' - therefore, training to do more + w/ more confidence, represents big potential step forward.

However, not much evidence that UK firms understand this fully. Like to blame schools + unis for failing to prepare students for world of work, but own reluctance to train odd.

Eg Greggs website, photos of executive directors - all male. 3 female non-exec directors, but exec directors the ones that count. Lack of diversity by age, gender + race.

Companies would benefit from diversity. Why some set obj of diversifying middle + senior management teams. UK organisation '30% club' wants to see women making up at least 30% women of board directors. Focus on female representation risks sidelining race as issue.

2014, 2/3 Britain's Top 100 companies - no non-white FT executive board members. Case for diversity clear; drive to achieve it less so.

Business author Jim Collins - businesses spend too long worrying about new mission or vision. Would be stronger if spent more time aligning staff to organisation's core values.

Suggests firms should work at identifying core values, then make sure every employee sees values as central to decision-making throughout business. Recruitment + induction training should focu on making sure there's a true fit b/ween staff + values. Shouldn't only ensure ethical issues tackled in moral way, but should also help build sense of purpose throughout staff - may help / motivation + retention levels.

Organisations continually changing in terms of work being done + way it's done - reshaping requires HR input - responsible for making sure business has right number of people at right time w/ right skills + attitudes. Lack of appropriate staff -> delays for customers, rushed + poor-quality work, + inability to accept some contracts.

If HR requirements met, business more likely to be able to provide HQ service + fulfil explanations of customers. Achieving right number staff easy if can simply recruit more people when need them. But, can be LT process involving lots of planning eg long training period for drs + surgeons. NHS plan years in advance for number of doctors needed.

Location - HR depts like staff to be willing to move around eg Portsmouth -> Manchester - for most staff, impossible, so careful planning equired to make sure Manchester has right manager at right time.

German industrial giant Siemens - bribery scandals, 2005. Response - appoint new boss from outside company (Peter Loescher). Encouraged company to develop bureaucratic style of 'ethical tick boxes' - made staff reluctant to take responsibility for decisions. Undermined efficiency of business -> poor engineering project management, contract losses + dismissal of Loescher in 2013.

Past experiences, character + ambitions of any newly appointed chief executive.

Any financial pressures felt by business eg cash flow problems requiring quick fix.

Changing marketing objs eg decision by Aldi to move upmarket in UK in 2011. Would have forced change in recruitment + training from HR perspective.

Economy most important. When econ growth sustained for few years + unemployment falling, HR depts work to attract best recruits. If recession occurs, HR objs recert - efficiency maximisaton - redundancies, switch to temp + PT working + outsourcing.

Whether business plc or large family-run business affects timescales of HR + other objs. 

Social + ethical climate: sometime media + public develop concern for specific issues eg Fairtrade supplies; HR objs must take this into acc.

Legal factors - 2014 Labour opp warned might feel need to legislate to enforce greater ethnic diversity in Britain's boardrooms.

Regard employees as necessary if unwelcome cost; people are input required to get job done, but add little to value created by business. Managers see themselves as 'thinkers'; develop best way of doing things + employees expected to get on w/ it. Fits w/ 'scientific management' of Taylor. Top-down management style - employees directed + controlled. Employees expected to fit in w/ deisgn of organisation. Instructed + monitered by mangers. Jobs broken down into small units so one person not much control, replacement easy.

Benefits: outcomes predictable, employees easily replaced, managers retain control for decision-making - reduces risk of major errors.

Disadvantages: possible failure to build on skills, experience + insights of employees; can -> dissatisfied employees + low morale. Danger organisation at risk b/c relies on senior managers; if make mistakes, whole business could fail as no input from lower levels.

Takes view employees add lot of value to organisation, + business should develop, enhance + build on interests, skills + abilities. Managers see themselves as facilitators - there to coach + help employees do job properly - training etc.

Advantages: organisation building on skills + experience of employees; may enable business to be more creative, innovative + differentiated from comp. May be able to keep + develop skilled employees w/ expectations of career w/in business. Individuals encouraged to contribute, may make organisation more flexible + adaptable to changing market conditions.

Disadvantages: time taken in discussion + consultation rather than 'getting job done'. Employees may not have ability or inclination to get involved; may just want to be told what to do + be rewarded for it - soft HRM may be inappropriate + ineffective.