+1 (208) 254-6996 essayswallet@gmail.com

WEBC06 05/26/2017 1:39:13 Page 133

what authorities said was wrongdoing at the plant, including the cover-up of evidence in the 2000 death of Alfred ‘Al”e’ Coxe in a forklift accident” (Salamone, 2016).

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
WEBC06 05/26/2017 1:39:13 Page 133 what authorities said was wrongdoing at the plant, including the cover-up of evidence in the 2000 death of Alfred ‘Al”e’ Coxe in a forklift accident” (Salamone, 2016).
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

The other is American Cast Iron Pipe (Acipco), which was the “rst “rm in its industry to appear on Fortune’s list of the best places to work in America and was named one of Birmingham’s most admired companies in 2012. Barstow and Bergman write that “several statistical measures show how different Acipco is from McWane. At some McWane plants, turnover rates approach 100 percent a year. Acipco—with a work force of about 3,000, three-“fths the size of McWane—has annual turnover of less than half a percent; 10,000 people recently applied for 100 openings” (2003c, p. A15).

Which of these two competing visions works better? Financially, it is dif”cult to judge, because both companies are privately held. Both have achieved business success for roughly a century. But in January 2003, at the same time that Fortune was lauding Acipco for its progressive human resource practices, the New York Times and a television documentary pilloried McWane for its callous disregard of both people and the law. By 2012, a chastened McWane was describing itself as an industry leader in employee safety and offered data suggesting that safety problems in its plants had declined steadily.

CONCLUSION The human resource frame highlights the relationship between people and organizations. Organizations need people (for their energy, effort, and talent), and people need organiza- tions (for the many intrinsic and extrinsic rewards they offer), but their respective needs are not always well aligned. When the “t between people and organizations is poor, one or both suffer: individuals may feel neglected or oppressed, and organizations sputter because individuals withdraw their efforts or even work against organizational purposes. Con- versely, a good “t bene”ts both: individuals “nd meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed.

Global competition, turbulence, and rapid change have heightened an enduring organizational dilemma: Is it better to be lean and mean or to invest in people? A variety of strategies to reduce the workforce—downsizing, outsourcing, use of temporary, part- time, or contract workers—have been widely applied to reduce costs and increase !exibility. But they risk a loss of talent and loyalty that leads to organizations that are mediocre, even if !exible. Emerging evidence suggests that downsizing has often produced disappointing results. Many highly successful organizations have gone in another direction: investing in people on the premise that a highly motivated and skilled workforce is a powerful competitive advantage.

People and Organizations 133

EET’ Imai



WEBC06 05/26/2017 1:39:13 Page 134

NOTES 1. Featherbedding is a colloquial term for giving people jobs that involve little or no work. This can

occur for a variety of reasons: union pressures, nepotism (employing family members), or “kicking someone upstairs” (moving an underperformer into a job with no signi”cant responsibilities).

134 Reframing Organizations



WEBC07 05/25/2017 14:30:14 Page 135

c h a p t e r 7

Improving Human Resource Management

Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.

—Theodore Roosevelt

Google, with more than 500 applicants for every job opening in recent years, is harder to get into than Harvard. In 2017 it was once again

number one on Fortune’s list of the best places to work (Fortune, 2017). Its king-of-the-Internet image helps, but the search giant knows it takes more to hire and retain the brainy, high-energy geeks who keep the place going and growing. As one Googler put it, “The company culture truly makes workers feel they’re valued and respected as a human being, not as a cog in a machine. The perks are phenomenal. From three prepared organic meals a day to unlimited snacks, artisan coffee and tea to free personal-!tness classes, health clinics, on-site oil changes, haircuts, spa truck, bike-repair truck, nap pods, free on-site laundry rooms, and subsidized wash and fold. The list is endless” (Fortune, 2016).

Few go as far as Google, but a growing number of enlightened companies are !nding their own ways to attract and develop human capital. They see talent and motivation as


Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, Sixth Edition. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal. ! 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by Jossey-Bass.



WEBC07 05/25/2017 14:30:14 Page 136

business essentials. That idea has taken a couple of centuries to gain traction, and many companies still don’t get it. They adhere to the old view that anything you give to employees siphons money from the bottom line—like having your pocket picked or your bank account drained.

A pioneer of a more progressive approach was aWelshman, Robert Owen, who ran into !erce opposition. Born in 1771, Owen became a wildly successful entrepreneur before the age of 30 by exploiting the day’s hot technology—textile mills. Owen was heavily attacked because he was the only capitalist of his time who believed it was bad for business to work eight-year-olds in 13-hour factory shifts. At his New Lanark (Scotland) knitting mill, bought in 1799, Owen took a new approach:

Owen provided clean, decent housing for his workers and their families in a community free of contagious disease, crime, and gin shops. He took young children out of the factory and enrolled them in a school he founded. There he provided preschool, day care, and a brand of progressive education that stresses learning as a pleasurable experience (along with the !rst adult night school). The entire business world was shocked when he prohibited corporal punish- ment in his factory and dumbfounded when he retrained his supervisors in humane disciplinary practices. While offering his workers an extremely high standard of living compared to other workers of the era, Owen was making a fortune at New Lanark. This conundrum drew twenty thousand visitors between 1815 and 1820 (O’Toole, 1995, pp. 201, 206).

Owen tried to convince fellow capitalists that investing in people could produce a greater return than investments in machinery. But the business world dismissed him as a wild radical whose ideas would harm the people he wanted to help (O’Toole, 1995).

Owen was at least 100 years ahead of his time. A century later, when Henry Ford announced in 1914 that he was going to shorten the workday to 8 hours and double the wages of his blue-collar workers from $2.50 to $5.00 per day, he also came under heavy !re from the business community. The Wall Street Journal opined that he was “committing economic blunders, if not crimes” (Harnish et al., 2012). The Journal got it wrong. Ford’s pro!ts doubled over the next two years as productivity soared and employee turnover plunged. Ford later said the !ve dollars per day was the best cost-cutting move he ever made.

Only in the late twentieth century did more business leaders begin to believe that investing in people is a way to make money. In recent years, periodic waves of restructuring and downsizing have raised age-old questions about the relationship between the individual

136 Reframing Organizations




WEBC07 05/25/2017 14:30:14 Page 137

and the organization. A number of persuasive reports suggest Owen was right: An excellent route to long-term success is investing in employees and responding to their needs (Applebaum et al., 2000; Barrick et al., 2015; Collins and Porras, 1994; Deal and Jenkins, 1994; Farkas and De Backer, 1996; Becker and Huselid, 1998; Lawler, 1996; Levering and Moskowitz, 1993; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998, 2007; Schwartz and Porath, 2014; Waterman, 1994).

Changes in the business environment have made human resource management more critical than ever. “A skilled and motivated work force providing the speed and “exibility required by new market imperatives has increased the importance of human resource management issues at a time when traditional sources of competitive advantage (quality, technology, economies of scale, etc.) have become easier to imitate” (Becker and Huselid, 1998, p. 54). Yet many organizations still don’t believe it, and others only “irt with the idea:

Something very strange is occurring in organizational management. Over the past decade or so, numerous rigorous studies conducted both within speci!c industries and in samples across industries have demonstrated the enormous economic returns obtained through the execution of what are variously labeled as high involvement, high performance, or high commitment management practices . . . But even as positive results pile up, trends in actual management practice are often moving exactly opposite to what the evidence advocates (Pfeffer, 1998, p. xv).

Why would managers resist better ways of managing people? One reason is that Theory X managers fear losing control or indulging workers. A second is that investing in people requires time and persistence to yield a payoff. Faced with relentless pressure for immediate results, executives often conclude that slashing costs, changing strategy, or reorganizing is more likely to produce a quick hit. A third factor is the dominance of a “!nancial” perspective that sees the organization as simply a portfolio of !nancial assets (Pfeffer, 1998). In this view, human resources are subjective, soft, and suspect in comparison to hard !nancial numbers.

GETTING IT RIGHT Despite such barriers, many organizations get it right. They understand the need to develop an approach to people that “ows from the organization’s strategy and human capital needs (Barrick et al., 2015; Becker and Huselid, 1998). Their practices are not perfect but good

Improving Human Resource Management 137


reletless < Iringais

Ñwmv –



WEBC07 05/25/2017 14:30:14 Page 138

Exhibit 7.1. Basic Human Resource Strategies.

Human Resource Principle Speci!c Practices

Build and implement an HR strategy.

Develop and share a clear philosophy for managing people. Build systems and practices to implement the philosophy.

Hire the right people. Know what you want. Be selective.

Keep them. Reward well. Protect jobs. Promote from within. Share the wealth.

Invest in them. Invest in learning. Create development opportunities.

Empower them. Provide information and support. Encourage autonomy and participation. Redesign work. Foster self-managing teams. Promote egalitarianism.

Promote diversity. Be explicit and consistent about the organization’s diversity philosophy. Hold managers accountable.

enough. The organization bene!ts from a talented, motivated, loyal, and free-spirited workforce. Employees in turn are more productive, innovative, and willing to go out of their way to get the job done. They are less likely to make costly blunders or to jump ship when someone offers them a better deal. That’s a potent edge—in sports, business, or elsewhere. Every organization with productive people management has its own distinct approach, but most include variations on strategies summarized in Exhibit 7.1 and examined in depth in the remainder of the chapter.

Develop and Implement an HR Philosophy “Systematic and interrelated human resource management practices” provide a sustainable competitive advantage. The key is a philosophy or credo that makes explicit an organization’s

138 Reframing Organizations





NOVethno 5- mm

s Roisin’Ñqa

6 .

HR strategy

faith credo uÑnRñwÑio



WEBC07 05/25/2017 14:30:14 Page 139

core beliefs about managing people (Becker and Huselid, 1998, p. 55). The credo then has to be translated into speci!c management practices. Most organizations lack a philosophy, or they ignore the one they claim to have. A philosophy provides direction; practices make it real.

Wegmans, a supermarket chain in the northeastern United States that consistently gets top marks for both customer satisfaction and employee well-being, has been on Fortune’s list of the 100 Best Companies to Work every year since 1998. It offers a succinct statement of “What We Believe:”

AtWegmans, we believe that good people, working toward a common goal, can accomplish anything they set out to do.

In this spirit, we set our goal to be the very best at serving the needs of our customers. Every action we take should be made with this in mind.

We also believe that we can achieve our goal only if we ful!ll the needs of our own people (Wegmans, 2016).

Hire the Right People Strong companies know the kinds of people they want and hire those who !t the mold. Southwest Airlines became the most successful carrier in the U.S. airline industry by hiring people with positive attitudes and well-honed interpersonal skills, including a sense of humor (Farkas and De Backer, 1996; Labich, 1994; Levering and Moskowitz, 1993). In one case, interviewers asked a group of pilots applying for jobs at Southwest to change into Bermuda shorts for the interviews. Two declined. They weren’t hired (Freiberg and Freiberg, 1998).

Even though Hertz had a 40-year head start, Enterprise overtook them in the 1990s to become the biggest !rm in the car rental business. Enterprise wooed its midmarket clientele by deliberately hiring “from the half of the class that makes the top half possible”—college graduates more successful in sports and socializing than the classroom. Recruiting for people skills more than “book smarts” helped Enterprise build exceptional levels of customer service (Pfeffer, 1998, p. 71). In contrast, Microsoft’s formidably bright CEO, Bill Gates, insisted on “intelligence or smartness over anything else, even, in many cases, experience” (Stross, 1996, p. 162). Google wants smarts, too, but believes teamwork is equally important—one reason that its hiring is team-based (Schmidt and Varian, 2005).

The principle seems to apply globally, as illustrated by a study of successful midsized companies in Germany (Simon, 1996). Turnover was rare in these !rms except among new hires: “Many new employees leave, or are terminated, shortly after joining the work force,

Improving Human Resource Management 139


Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP