Citation
(2015), "News round-up", Human Resource Management International Digest, Vol. 23 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-07-2015-0133
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
News round-up
Article-type: News round-up From: Human Resource Management International Digest, Volume 23, Issue 7
Continuity as important as change, says professor
Regulators and HR specialists who call for culture change to prevent behaviors that led to the past financial crash are mistaken, according to research by the University of Greenwich’s Professor Colin Coulson-Thomas.
The evidence of a five-year investigation suggests that attempts to change corporate cultures can be counter-productive and are not necessary when there are quicker and easier ways of changing behavior, preventing undesirable conduct and ensuring compliance.
Colin Coulson-Thomas argues that: “Calls for general and fundamental change of structure, culture or procedures should trigger alarm bells. Continuity can be as important as change, particularly continuity of relationships and consistency of experience that meet customer expectations and requirements. Changes can create new opportunities for fraud, theft, hacking and other abuses. Uncertainty during a period of transition or transformation, or while changes are bedding in, can create new loopholes and vulnerabilities”.
He continues: “Customers, employees, business partners, suppliers and investors often represent diverse cultures, religions, values and nationalities. Various perspectives can spur creativity. General culture change is often advocated where there are affordable ways of quickly changing behavior and achieving other aims with existing people and cultures. Fraud and other abuses usually result from technical loopholes and vulnerabilities rather than deficiencies of general attitudes and values”.
Colin Coulson-Thomas suggests “many general corporate culture-change programs and associated training may be unnecessary if their purpose is to quickly alter specific behaviors in particular areas. Organizations may need to embrace diverse cultures and encourage various approaches and behaviors across different functions and business units. Performance support which integrates learning and working can be a cost-effective way of changing behavior, ensuring compliance, enabling people to innovate and remain current and competitive, and delivering multiple objectives without requiring a change of personnel, culture or structure”.
He points out that: “To a libertarian attempts to change attitudes, beliefs and values might be as unwelcome as the efforts of totalitarian regimes to change how their people think. One response to a desire or request for culture change could be questions such as change to what culture or to whose culture? Will the attitudes, beliefs and values of a chief executive, board or consultant hired to advise on culture change be better or worse, or more or less relevant and/or appropriate to various situations and contexts than an existing mixture of attitudes, beliefs and values?”
He continues: “Many HR specialists need to question whether they are helping or hindering. My investigations of what high performers do differently reveal large and measurable differences in performance among people trained, rewarded and compensated the same way. The variability of performance across members of key work-groups raises questions concerning the relevance and contribution of many training, reward and other HR policies and practices. Wide differences are explained by how many critical success factors are in place. The extent to which the job, task or activity is done in a winning or losing way determines outcomes”.
Colin Coulson-Thomas explains: “Training, reward or compensation do not appear differentiators in the many sectors in which the policies and practices of competing companies seem largely the same. For key jobs such as bidding for business, building key account relationships, pricing, purchasing, or creating and/or exploiting know-how, the approaches of winners - or those in the top quartile of achievement - are very different from those of losers in the bottom quartile of achievement. Evidence from reports that have examined critical success factors for key jobs suggests that however much people are paid, whatever their culture and however motivated and engaged they are, if they approach a task or activity in a losing way they are likely to fail. Increasing motivation or remuneration in the hope of a better result while people’s approaches and the support they receive remain unchanged could be like pouring money down a drain”.
He continues: “Reward and compensation policies and practices also contribute to mis-selling and other abuses. The prospect of commission payments can bias views, distort judgments, encourage risky behavior and result in a flouting of rules. There are other expensive practices and naïve behaviors, such as a policy of paying above average or in the top quartile to attract better people and then complaining about the cost of talent wars. Reward, compensation and other policies that companies pursue may have much less impact than those who champion them and/or have a vested interest in them claim”.
Colin Coulson-Thomas suspects: “Many companies pursue policies that are general, time consuming and disruptive when quicker, cheaper and more affordable options exist. In relation to training, reward and other HR policies and practices a ratchet effect may be in operation. The wrong policies may have a negative impact on behavior, while many expensive approaches deliver little in the way of positive benefits in relation to other and better ways of improving performance. Too often those in roles that are neither visible nor a source of competitive advantage or differentiation benefit the most from general remuneration policies. Supporting key work-groups is the key to success”.
Middle managers copy their bosses’ bad behavior
Middle managers will mirror top management’s bad behaviors, regardless of how ethical they are as individuals, research from Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University shows.
The study, conducted in partnership with Cambridge University, shows that in cases of unethical leadership at the top of an organization, middle managers will treat their subordinates unfairly if the social and spatial distance between them and the top management is low. In turn, this will lead to employee dissatisfaction, lower organizational commitment and increased employee turnover.
In contrast, the effect is reversed if the social and spatial distance between managers and top management is high. Middle managers who are unfairly treated by their bosses will treat their employees fairer if, for example, they are based in different offices or buildings from their managers, and the social distance is high.
Researchers undertook five studies, gathering their data from business students and a large variety of the working population. Their sample amounted to more than 400 participants.
Dr Gijs van Houwelingen says: “We demonstrate that higher level management unfairness can have detrimental effects throughout the organization and it is passed down from high management to middle management, but only if the spatial and social distance is low.
“It is crucial that organizations understand the threats of overly close and highly interdependent relationships between lower and higher management in the organization. Managers at all levels in any organization need to strike a balance between a certain sense of closeness to ensure efficiency and some sense of distance to ensure that negative top-level behavior does not spread unhindered through all layers of the organization”.
Many organizations lack a cohesive talent-management strategy
Many organizations across the UK, Australia and New Zealand lack a cohesive talent-management strategy, especially when it comes to the departure of senior leaders.
Dr Emma Parry, a reader in human-resource management (HRM) at Cranfield School of Management, which carried out a study with Halogen Software, said: “The research shows that the critical issue of succession planning and the development of a pipeline of talent for key roles are still taking a back seat. This is why so many organizations are not prepared for the departure of senior leaders. Key employees such as leaders and those with specialist skills can leave at any time, with potentially devastating results if a succession plan is not in place.
“The results suggest that rather than taking a long-term, strategic approach to managing talent, employers are still being reactive and not developing joined-up strategies to ensure that they have the skills and competencies that their organization needs”.
Key findings from the report are:
Less than half of the organizations have a talent-management strategy, and over a third of respondents think their strategy is not working well.
Only 19 per cent of respondents are prepared for the departure of senior leaders.
Only 17 per cent of employers are making effective use of HR technology to support talent management.
Less than half of the organizations are using HR analytics to link HR activity to business performance.
The highest priority for investment in HR technology is in performance management.
“Although the findings show that technology investment to support strategic talent management is still maturing in the majority of organizations, it is positive to see the priority being put on performance management first”, says Nick Kemp, the Regional Director for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Halogen Software. “A strong performance-management process and system is critical to creating alignment and engagement, which support better business results”.
Emma Parry went on to say: “Evidence suggests that many organizations are only just beginning to realize the benefits of a holistic talent-management strategy. Organizations must adopt an integrated approach to talent management in order to support the longer term needs of the business”.
More organizations favor internal development
Internal knowledge-sharing initiatives such as job shadowing and social learning are becoming increasingly commonplace, according to a survey of learning and development specialists by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
To maximize the value of learning and development to staff and the wider business, the report highlights that learning and development specialists need to be versatile, facilitating knowledge development regardless of context and method, and with an aim of supporting long-term, sustainable business growth.
Coaching by line managers or peers was the method of learning most likely to grow in use in organizations over the next two years, according to almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of the respondents. Over half (53 per cent) of the respondents expected to see the use of in-house development programs increase, and on-the-job training (48 per cent) and internal knowledge-sharing events (46 per cent) are also expected to become more prevalent.
The findings imply a growing focus on organizational efforts to foster a learning culture in the workplace. This is supported by the fact that many organizations are increasingly using technology to support learning and development. After coaching by line mangers or peers, e-learning courses were the second most favored learning technique, with 59 per cent of the learning and development specialists expecting to use these more over the next two years. More than a third of the organizations (36 per cent) expect their use of virtual classrooms and webinars to increase, and a quarter think that their use of mobile device-based learning will also increase.
Ruth Stuart, Research Adviser for learning and development at the CIPD, commented: “Learning and development are continually affected by external factors and the wider organization, particularly as systems become smarter, new tools and techniques constantly come to the fore and resources ebb and flow. Learning and development teams face a stimulating and challenging future in meeting organizational and learner requirements in fast-pace and busy environments.
“This year’s learning and development survey shows companies becoming much more hands-on in the development of their staff and it is up to learning and development specialists to facilitate different ways of sharing knowledge throughout the organization in order to achieve long-term sustainable change.
“Collaboration and versatility are key to this. Learning and development teams need to keep an eye on the future and understand the evolving landscape while continuing to build the professional competencies needed today to drive and sustain organizational success”.
While the survey shows that learning and development specialists expect to draw on a full range of resources over the next two years, it also highlights that many organizations expect to reduce their use of some of the more traditional forms of learning. Almost a third of the organizations expect a decline in their use of external development events such as instructor-led training delivered off-the-job (30 per cent of respondents) and external conferences, workshops and events (25 per cent) over the next two years. However, this is not necessarily the case for smaller organizations. Companies with fewer than 50 employees are not only more likely to use external development events than internal ones, they are also more likely to report an increase in use of these over the next two years.
Ruth Stuart continued: “These figures show us that one size definitely does not fit all. It depends entirely on the needs of individual organizations, their workforce profile and their resources as to which learning and development initiatives work best. However, regardless of size, sector, access to resources or growth prospects, organizations need to make sure their investments in learning and development are the right ones and that activity is directed toward improving organizational performance.
“It is therefore crucial that learning and development specialists understand how different learning initiatives connect to people’s everyday roles and measure the impact of any learning and development initiative. New generations in the workforce will expect different things from learning and development and their careers, so constant evaluation is key. In practice, a blend of methods and a range of delivery channels is important, to really maximize the impact of learning and development on the workforce and the business as a whole”.
Young people’s development key area for employers
With three million 16-24-year-olds now part of the UK labor market, the development of young people in the workforce needs to be a key area of focus for employers so they can retain great talent and improve business performance.
This is according to a report from the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development, which highlights that recruiting young people is only half of the equation and that once in work, more attention must be given to developing individuals and building the skills they need for success.
The report, Developing the Next Generation, explores the issue through case studies from organizations including Fujitsu, ActionAid, CapGemini, Reed Smith and Barclays. It considers how organizations can identify the most effective learning and development programs for young people and the importance of outlining a clear business case for investing in their development.
The research found that a key step, but recurring challenge for organizations trying to develop young people, is establishing a clear business case. The case-study organizations discussed how their development programs for young workers have significantly affected the wider business, helping to drive engagement, increase efficiency and foster productivity.
Fujitsu said that focusing on developing young people has benefited the wider business both culturally and in terms of profit. By attracting a diverse range of young talent, it is starting to alter the demographic of the organization and is seeing improved gender diversity. By going a step further and developing young workers, retention is higher, recruitment costs have gone down and it is successfully creating a pipeline of future leaders.
Nick White, Graduate-Program Manager at Fujitsu, commented: “We can see real value in the programs and investing time, effort and money in making the programs work. It is about making sure we have future leaders, and that is actually happening. Some 30 per cent of those on our future-leaders program started as graduates in the organization”.
Ruth Stuart, Research Adviser for learning and development at the CIPD, said: “With over 300,000 young people entering the workforce every year, organizations need to establish effective development opportunities from the moment they are employed, so they can retain them and build on the skills they bring.
“To be successful, though, organizations must be clear on what they are trying to achieve. It is pointless to introduce a scheme without first considering its impact on the wider business and ensuring it fits with future resourcing needs.
“By providing an appealing alternative to university through their recruitment and development programs, for example, Barclays and CapGemini have been able to tap into and retain young talent, plug significant skill gaps and achieve substantial organizational benefits. This shows just how crucial a clear business case is in achieving a quality outcome”.
The report goes on to discuss how, once the business case is clear, learning and development and HR specialists must understand the strengths, skills and learning preferences of young people. Those the CIPD interviewed flagged a preference for bite-size learning, gaining knowledge from experience and receiving constructive feedback on actions. But although they admitted to being tech-savvy, when asked about which learning methods they disliked, the answer was unanimously “online training”. Organizations, therefore, need to be careful not to generalize or stereotype young people, as this could lead to false assumptions and ineffective development initiatives.
On skills, the case-study research highlighted that young people bring enthusiasm and drive, innovative thinking and technological understanding to the workforce. However, analysis of the literature shows that young people need to develop deeper skills in self-awareness, acceptance of criticism and emotional intelligence.
In response, the CIPD recommends that employers should focus on providing a strong support network, clear objectives, regular feedback and opportunities for upward communication.
Ruth Stuart continues: “Young people have enormous potential to contribute to a business’s success if their strengths and skills are recognized and enhanced. Organizations need to carefully select the right kind of programs to ensure they have the chance to make an impact at an early stage.
“Learning and development and HR specialists need to collaborate and communicate to pinpoint the learning preferences of new generations. Line managers also have a crucial role to play in developing and implementing initiatives. In the longer term, we should be looking to instil a sense of self-awareness and confidence at an earlier age to deal with certain skill gaps. The responsibility here lies with policy-makers and educational leaders, as well as employers. But for now, the key is to understand young people and develop blended programs using different methods that suit their learning preferences, while staying in line with the overall business objectives”.
Developing the Next Generation has been published as part of the CIPD’s Learning to Work program, which promotes the role of employers in reducing youth unemployment and champions the business case for investing in the future workforce.
Employees want a family feel at the heart of their organization’s culture
Most employees, regardless of the size of the organization they work for, want to work for a firm that has a family feel and is held together by loyalty and tradition.
In research by the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development, in partnership with Halogen Software, nearly 50 per cent of the 2,226 employees surveyed described the culture of their organization as “a formalized and structured place to work, where procedures govern what people do and hold people together”. This was highest in the public sector (74 per cent), in the voluntary sector (43 per cent) and in large organizations with over 250 employees (59 per cent).
In contrast, just a quarter (26 per cent) of the employees describe their current organization as having a family feel, but when asked what their preferred working environment would be, over half of the respondents (55 per cent) specified that they would prefer to work in an organization “with a family feel, held together by loyalty and tradition”. This was higher for women than men (60 per cent compared with 50 per cent), but a consistent choice across all age groups.
The CIPD’s survey also found that employee engagement was at a three-year high, rising from 35 per cent in 2013 and 38 per cent in 2014 to 39 per cent in the 2015 survey. Just 3 per cent of the employees claimed to be disengaged, a slight decrease of 1 per cent on the year before. However, the majority of people (59 per cent) considered their engagement as neutral.
Jessica Cooper, Research Adviser at the CIPD, comments: “This is a defining moment for businesses. After the uncertainty of the recession, we have now reached a point of stability which is seeing improved engagement from employees. However, far too many people are still sitting in the ‘neutral’ camp. Now is the time for businesses to engage with their talent to understand how they can reinforce and evolve their organizational culture […].
“Employees want to work somewhere with a ‘family feel’, where they can really feel like they are part of something. Culture is one of the few things that can define a business and if organizations can get it right, it will give them a competitive edge and a strong foundation for business growth. Culture cannot change overnight, but organizations can start to think about ways in which they can make changes to better suit their talent’s preferences. Equally, employees should consider culture when moving jobs in order to have a more satisfying role”.
Further findings include:
Employee attitudes toward senior leaders are continuing to steadily improve. The area where senior leaders continue to be weakest is consulting with employees on important decisions.
Over two-thirds of the employees are very satisfied or satisfied with their relationship with their line manager (64 per cent). When asked what they consider to be the most important line-manager behaviors, employees in the survey cited fairness (32 per cent) and being open and honest (29 per cent).
Some 18 per cent of the respondents said that they never receive performance feedback, whether formally or informally. Only 56 per cent of the respondents said that they have objectives set as part of their performance-management process, and of those who do have them set, only half again (53 per cent) said that they help them perform better, with just 37 per cent agreeing that objectives help to advance their career. However, the vast majority (79 per cent) of the respondents said that feedback should include clear objectives and be balanced.