| Knowledge Base |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
# 2 Workforce Design Approaches |
Workforce / Job Design Referred to as the 'building blocks' which underpins critical human recourse processes and functions such as recruitment, selection, training and development, performance management, reward and workplace relations (De Cieri et al. 2008; Nandervic, Compton and Baird 2008), workforce and job design approaches are clearly seen as a critical human resource systematic practice that aids organisations in the pursuit of greatness. There have been many documented approaches to workforce /job design (Wilhelm, 1990; Pearn and Kandola, 1993; Gatewood and Field, 1990; Nankervis, Compton & Baird, 2008; De Cieri et al.,2008) with overwhelming support that such processes positively adds value to an organisations' overall performance. Intense global competition, continuous change in technology; the increase of virtual corporations; environmental issues such as global financial markets; changing employment legislation; social/demographic trends; privatisation of government agencies - all create endless opportunities and great challenges for Australian business. But those that manage their HR practices and process in line with business strategy will be better positioned to address the changing landscape of recruitment, retention and development of a global workforce. '..traditional international influences from the United States and the United Kingdom are being supplanted by the regional pressures of Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and South Korea' (Nankervis, Compton & Baird 2008). The mining boom in Western Australian and Queensland along with China's growing demand for resources has heightened the war for talent; competitive remuneration packages and employment conditions. In the wake of the 'new economy'; the emergence of 'knowledge workers' (Drucker 2002) and the above mentioned challenges are now and very real. The pursuit of competitive advantage through the attraction and retention of knowledge workers begins to take on the holly grail metaphor of an organisations' desire to succeed (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1996; Davie, 1998; Matusik and Hill, 1998; Svieby et al. 1997:9). Once battled with the 'the skill shortages epidemic', organisations are now simply trying to stay alive by doing more with less employees. Australian manufacturers and telecommunications giants are off-shoring production, desperately trying to reduce labour costs. As a result, focus is moving away from traditional human resources processes to more sophisticated organisational design/workforce design strategies. Choosing the right organisation structure to address such complex changes to the environment is a challenge in itself. De Cieri et al. (2008) notes that there is however, 'no one best way' to structure organisations or design a workforce or jobs since "...the organisation needs to create a fit between its environments, competitive strategy and philosophy, with its jobs and organisational design on the other. The changing world of work, including increased global competition, greater use of information and communications technology, and changes in workforce demographics, has led to many changes in the structure of organisations..." In light of these overwhelming challenges presented across literature, we will review the contribution of workforce design to particular organisational challenges such as attracting, retaining and motivating talent. Due to the large amount of literature surrounding numerous design approaches, our research will predominately focus on workforce design approaches specific to job/competency analysis; however draw reference to flexible labour solutions and managing knowledge/workers as two additional approaches that contribute to the attraction, retention and motivation of talent. It is to be noted however, that during our research, we did not come across literature which did not support the positive contribution of workforce/job design to the attraction, retention and motivation of employees, although suggestions have been made that in order to remain competitive, flexible approaches to workforce and design needs to be taken into consideration considering the ever changing external conditions and that there are advantages and disadvantages across most approaches. The approach taken will depend on your each unique organisation landscape. JOB/COMPETENCY ANALYSIS/DESIGN As mentioned earlier, De Cieri et al. (2008.) and Nandervic, Compton and Baird (2008), referred to it as the 'building blocks' of all HR activities. Other writers (Schuler and Jackson, 1996; Sherman et al., 1998 and Dessler et al., 1999) view job analysis as the 'backbone' or 'cornerstone' of nearly all HR activities. The process is seen as the first steps for organisations in building effective workforces and organisational capability. As the '...process of identifying the tasks, responsibilities and context of a role, and the knowledge, skills and abilities required to fill the position' (AHRI Research Staff; 2000), job analysis and design sets the framework necessary to attract, retain and motivate talent. Attracting Talent: Analysing and defining a job aids in the attraction and selection process. It sets the parameters in which to design specifications of the role in the advertisement and assists in accurately attracting the right candidates with the right skill set. Once the right candidate is appointed, the job description clearly outlines what the expectations of the role will be and how they will be performed and to some extent, managed. The process serves as the basis of key HRM decisions across a number of interrelated areas which directly impact attraction, retention and motivation of employees, such as training and development, performance appraisal, compensation and health and safety (Cascio, 1998). There is enough supporting literature to expect a positive impact of job analysis on organisational performance (Siddique, 2004). Due to the complex and turbulent global environment in which organisations are required to compete in, or just simply survive, the need to analyse jobs beyond the standard approaches of job-related data (task responsibilities, knowledge, skills and abilities, working conditions etc) is becoming a key focus for HR professionals. The competency-focused approach (critical incident approach) places greater emphasis on motivation, adaptability, teamwork orientation and other similar characteristics of employees considered essential when attracting employees and for successful job performance (Siddique, 2004; Field, 1990). Notable writers on the subject (Cardy and Dobbins, 1992; Langdon and Whiteside, 1996; Siegel, 1997) believe that the competency-focused approach is an essential improvement over the standard approach to achieve organisational goals. Focusing recruitment and selection strategies to accommodate competencies together with technical skills and knowledge enables organisations to attract the desired culture required to achieve overall business objectives. The data collected should provide evidential support for two aspects of the selection process:
Retaining and Motivating Talent: Because it is difficult to retain employees if they are not motivated (in what they are employed to do or the environment in which they work; or an organisation does not present opportunities for development or enrichment), we have chosen to group both of these approaches as one outcome. As highlighted earlier, the competency-focused approach to job design places greater emphasis on motivation, equally, incorrect analysis and design of jobs can impact on employee retention and motivation. Contributing to the misalignment between business strategy and HR, inaccurate data gathering and classification of jobs has the potential to leave employees confused about the purpose of their role and the contribution they make to the overall success of the organisation. In majority of cases, employees accept a position with an organisation based on the role description. Clearly then, if jobs are inaccurately designed and misrepresented, they very quickly impact motivation levels. Employees begin to develop trust issues with the employer and their desire to remain with the organisation is greatly reduced. The motivational approach is another form of job analysis for organisations keen to increase engagement levels. This approach focuses on increasing the complexity of jobs through such interventions as job enlargement, job enrichment and the construction of jobs around socio-technical systems (Griffin and McMahan 1993; Dunphy 1987). Additionally, job rotation and self-managed work teams continue to improve the quality of work life and work-family balance, contributing to employee absenteeism, retention and motivation. Wallace (1991) states that such approaches to job design illustrate an important insight; that the nature of work has a substantial impact on an employee's performance and attitude. Although there is considerable job enrichment through the adoption of these approaches, Campion and Thayer (1987 believe that they can also present disadvantages. Disadvantages include increased training time; lower utilisation levels; greater likelihood of error and greater chance of mental overload and street Vecchio, Hearn and Southey (1992) state that organisational commitment and job satisfaction are two factors of employee turnover and believe workforce design approaches may have a positive impact in reducing turnover and absenteeism. The research found that this was strongly influenced by: increased employee participation in the decision making process; the degree in which employees are supported by their immediate co-workers; job satisfaction and the clarity of what their job entails and what performance outcomes are expected of them. Flexible workforce solutions: The need for greater flexibility in the way work is designed is not only driven from an organisations perspective (driven by external changes as discussed earlier), but employees' demand for family-work balances have changed the way work is structured. Earlier we discussed flexible work approaches such as job enlargement, rotation and enrichment and self-managed work teams; but the increased demand for flexible work schedules such as flexitime, job sharing, telecommuting, part-time and home based work have also been adopted in pursuit of greater dynamic work structures that enable organisations greater flexibility to continue building capability (Parker 2004; Nankervis, Compton and Baird 2008; De Cieri et al. 2008). 'As the nature of work has changed, so have workforce attributes' (AHRI Research Staff 2008). Workforce attributes such as; age distribution (Murray and Syed 2005; gender representation (Rance 2005) and diversity (ethnic and generational) (De Cieri et al. 2008; Nankervis, Compton and Baird 2008), present continued challenges in the attraction, retention/motivation and performance of employees. Managing knowledge: Over the years, particularly in the last decade, knowledge management has become a critical focal point for organisations desperate to maintain market share. This phenomenon is not only exasperated by the fact that our population is aging, but as the war for talent intensifies a greater importance is placed on retaining top talent and holding onto important knowledge when employees leave the organisation. Knowledge is seen as a catalyst for innovative ways in servicing customers. Creating flexible retention strategies to hold onto aging workers longer is top on the HR agenda, however finding ways to capture and share that knowledge would mean the difference between increased organisation capability and declining organisation capability with regards to business continuity and customer excellence. As explicit knowledge is easily articulated and captured, HR practitioners would need to adopt innovative methods to capturing tacit knowledge - you don't know what you know (Davidson & Voss, 2002) As important as managing intellectual capital is in today's complex economy, the attraction, retention and motivation of knowledge workers is where organisations can truly experience innovation and competitive advantage (Kim & Mauborgne). Drucker (2002) notes that "Increasingly, performance in these new knowledge-based industries will come to depend on running the institution so as to attract, hold and motivate knowledge workers. When this can no longer be done by satisfying knowledge workers' greed, as we are now trying to do, it will have to be done by satisfying their values, and by giving them social recognition and social power. It will have to be done by turning them from subordinates into fellow executives, and from employees, however well paid, into partners. Keeping knowledge workers motivated requires unique methods of job design. Drucker suggests jobs for knowledge workers be designed taking into consideration: that the nature of tasks does not program the worker; they are self managing with greater autonomy and responsibility; responsibility for innovation; are offered ongoing development and learning opportunities; they are managed based on quality derived rather than quantity and finally, they must be considered as assets not costs (De Ciere et. Al 2008) Conclusion Concluding our literature review on the contributions of workforce/job design to the attraction, retention and motivation of talent , there is supporting evidence that flexible approaches to workforce design contribute to an organisations' ability to build capability by addressing prevailing issues such as absenteeism, turnover, flexible working arrangements and diversity to name a few. As the 'building blocks' of all HR functions, organisations can select a variety of job analysis and design approaches to best suit the needs of their organisation and employees. It creates the foundation for establishing appropriate policies and procedures in the attraction and selection of highly effective workforces which inturn heightens the organisation's ability to complete in a continuously changing global economy. Written by Kez Tacar, Director, The HR Landscape Pty Ltd, 2008. All rights reserved References 1. AHRI Research Staff 2000, Job analysis and design, HR Monthly, February pp.24-6 2. AHRI Professional Diploma of Human Resources 2008, Unit 3, Topic 2: Designing jobs.pp.8-9 3. Campion, M.A. & Thayer, P.W. 1987, Job design: approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 15, pp.66-79 4. Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. 1992, Job Analysis in a Dynamic Environment. News (Academy of Management, Human Resources Division) 16, pp.4-6. 5. Cascio, W.F. (1998) Managing Human Resources Boston, MA-Irwin/McGraw-Hill 6. Davidson, C. & Voss, P. 2002, Knowledge Management, Tandem Press, Auckland, NZ. 7. Davis, M.C. 1998, Knowledge management, Information strategy, vol.15 no.1. Fall 8. Dessler, G., Cole, N.D. and Sutherland, V.G. (1999) Human Resource Management in Canada Scarborough, ON-Canadian 7th edn, Prentice Hall Canada 9. De Cieri, H., Kramer, R., Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M. 2008, Human Resource Management in Australia, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. p.188 10. Drucker F. Peter 2002, Managing in the Next Society; GB, Butterworth-Heinemann. P24 11. Dunphy, D. 1987, Organisational Change by Choice, McGraw-Hill, Sydney, p.163 12. Gatewood, R.D. & Field, H.S. 1987, Human Resource Selection, Dryden Press, Orlando FL. 13. Griffith, R. & McMahan, G. 1993, Motivation through job design, in J. Greenberg (ed), OB: The State of Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 14. Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R. 1999, Strategy, value innovation and the knowledge economy, Sloan Management Review, 40 (3), p.52 15. Langdon, D.G. & Whiteside, K.S. 1996, Redefining Jobs and Work in Change Organisations. HR Magazine May, pp.97-101 16. Matusik, S.F. & Hill, C 1998, The utilisation of contingent work, knowledge creation and competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, vol.23, no.4 October 17. Nandervis, A. Compton, R., & Baird, M. 2008, Human Resource Management: Strategies and Processes, 6th edn, Thomson, Melbourne 18. Nonaka, I. 1991, The knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review, vol. 69 (6), pp.96-104 19. Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H. 1995, The knowledge creating company; How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 20. Parker, L. 2004, Can you afford casual labour? hrmonthly, April, pp.57-9 21. Pearn, M. & Kandola, P.S. (1993), Job Analysis: Manager's Guide, IPM, London 22. Rance, C. 2005, About time, hrmonthly, September, pp.23-9 23. Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. 1996, Human Resource Management: Positioning for the 21st Century St Paul, MN-6th Edn.; West Publishing 24. Sherman, A., Bohlander, G. and Snell, S. 1998, Managing Human Resources Cincinnati, OH-11th edn.; South Western College Publishing 25. Siddique, C.M. 2004, Job analysis: A strategic human resource management practice, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 15, no.1, pp. 219-44 26. Siegel, G. (1997) Job Analysis in the TQM Environment. Public Personnel Management 25, pp. 485-495 27. Svieby, K.E. 1997, The knew organisation wealth & measuring knowledge-based assets. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco 28. Vecchio, R.P., Hearn, G. & Southey, G. 1992, Organisational Behaviour: Life at Work in Australia, Harcourt Brace, Sydney 29. Wallage, D. 1991. Writing job ads in an uncertain climate, hrmonthly, May, p.10 30. Wilhelm, W.R. 1990, Revitalising the human resource management function in a mature corporation, Human Resources Management, Summer 1990, vol. 29, no.2, pp.129-44 |
|||||
| Privacy Policy |
|
| © 2010 - 2011 The HR Landscape Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |