Solving HRM Issues - Essay Example

Human Resource Management Introduction This paper is an attempt to explore, understand, analyze, and find solution to an HR issue. Without any doubts, for the past few decades, as the human resource management function is gaining more and more prominence and importance amongst organizational strategists and gurus, more and more challenges and issues regarding the same are coming up on the scene. Experts have identified issues like workforce diversity, globalization, forecasted labor shortages, equal employment opportunities, employee motivation, job satisfaction, job design, work/life balance, rewarding and compensation, variable pay programs, and others as some important challenges and issues in the field of human resource management. However, this paper has selected “work groups and teams” issue as the topic for discussion. Despite the fact that not much research has happened on groups and teams in organizations as challenge and issue for Human Resource Managers but it definitely is one of the challenges and issues. Human resource manager in most of the cases assume the responsibility of all the human resource of the organization. However, interestingly, they do not deal with each employee individually rather they also make their policies and strategies considering the work groups and teams (Mathis & Jackson, pp. 23-27). Therefore, it becomes extremely important for them to understand groups and work teams, behaviors of individuals in groups and other myths and variables associated with groups and teams. Often managers fail to understand that dealing with groups is an entirely different dimension and requires special attention and homework from the managers. This paper would now discuss all the important elements, variables, concepts and issues related to groups and individual behavior in groups, followed by providing with solutions and tips and tricks for managers to deal with problems and issues presented earlier. Discussion One of the biggest issues that the HR managers encounter with groups is of their productivity and activity levels. Groups that are temporary in nature always come into existence for achieving some goals or objectives. However, they HR managers while performance appraisals find out and complain about their inefficiency and tendency to avoid work. They always seem to be complaining that groups do not seem to be achieving their targets within the deadlines. This creates an environment of rift and tension and obviously leads to situations that are even more problematic and complex to handle. Important here to understand that research has proven that behavior of temporary groups working with deadlines constraints always follow an specific model called the “punctuated-equilibrium model” that best explains their activity and working levels and behaviors (Dessler, pp. 62-68). This study divides the time equally into two phases starting from the first meeting to the final deadline. This theory tells that usually these groups show low performance during the first phase of activity. However, as they enter into the second phase, and realize that half of the time has passed: the group accelerates its performance in an exponential way. This burst out of activity continues until their last meeting and even after that, their performance jumps to a further more level and continues until their completion. Important here to note is that these groups do compensate their laziness in the first phase by working like crazy in the second phase. Moreover, it is human psychology that when a group or individual has used half of its time allotted for some job, they try to accelerate and move at a faster pace as the deadline comes closer (Dessler, pp. 62-68). Therefore, it is important to note that these groups work on self-corrective mechanisms and interfering in their work would only increase tension but not performance. Moreover, the only way to increase their performance is not by putting extra pressure on them but by strategically making them feel that the time is running out. The only reason why there is a performance increase half way through the project is due to the realization of the deadline coming closer. Therefore, the only thing that the manager can do is to show them the clock ticking. Many problems with groups occur because HR fails to understand some of they key variables related to groups. These are “roles, norms, status, size, and cohesiveness” (Torrington, Hall & Taylor, pp. 14-18). All groups require their group members to act and behave according to their role requirements. However, if any individual fails to understand his or her role or play their part in the group, then it means that there is some problem with either the role identity, role perception or the role expectations. Role identity refers to “certain attitudes and behaviors that are consistent with a role” (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 58-59). If role identity is clear than people do not find much difficulty in adjusting to the specific roles because they that how are they supposed to act under the given situations. Moreover, role perception and role expectations are the individual’s and the people’s view of the same respectively. The second important element is group norms. Usually all groups develop some norms whether voluntarily or involuntarily or in an active or passive manner. These norms have a significant impact on an individual’s behavior while working the groups. Norms can be of different types like “performance norms, appearance norms, social arrangement norms and allocation resources norms” (Jennings, pp. 19-23). Moreover, another important concept in this regard is of “conformity, which is adjusting one’s behavior to align it with the norms of the group” (Jennings, pp. 19-23). Research and many studies indicate that conformity pressures are intense and powerful enough to change the attitudes, behavior, thoughts, approaches, and style of an individual. This is because people like to have acceptance from their groups and that can only happen when an individual aligns his or her behavior in line with the norms of the groups (Robbins & Judge, pp. 40-48). Now, here comes an important solution to the individual productivity and efficiency problem. Managers often complain regarding the productivity and performance of some specific individuals within groups. In the light of the above-mentioned details, the solution appears to be quite simple. The HR manager should first focus on promoting performance as a norm within the group thus making it difficult for low performers to stay in the group without working on their performance levels (Jennings, pp. 19-23). The third variable is the variable of “status.” According to its basic definition “status is socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others” (Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, pp. 74-79). Without any doubts, this is an important force, having the capability to determine, erect or mold an individual’s behavior in case of any disparity in the perceived, expected and present status. It is also important to understand that the power of a person over others, performance levels and personal characteristics are the three most significant sources of status. All these concepts become more important and contributing when studied with their impacts on norms, group interaction, and cultural variables. HR people may find that despite of making performance as the most important norm and even with the presence of conformity factor at its best, some individuals still may have the power to take a different course of action than the group (Dessler, pp. 62-68). These people are usually the ones with high status in a group because they feel less pressure than others to conform to the group’s norms. Quite understandably, someone who has a considerable impact and influence over the group and occupies a central position enjoy some freedom to go against the norms. This explains why star athletes, great singers, and actors, celebrities, excellent researchers, and other top-level people can take an alternative course of action than their peers (Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, pp. 74-79). However, it is important to note that status in different cultures can have different sources. For example, in South and East Asian and Latin American countries status comes with age. Since those cultures are more nuclear family orientated and collectivist in nature, therefore, they prefer the senior most male to have the highest status. Status in European countries like France is very important (Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, pp. 74-79). Moreover, in countries like Australia, United Kingdom and United States and Canada, status depends more on your performance rather than your age or other factors. Therefore, depending on cultures and other situational variables the HR managers need to identify the potential member who have a higher status and holds the power to show deviant work place behavior. Then it becomes the job of the HR manager to keep an eye on that person as to make sure any potential disturbances (Lumsden, Lumsden & Wiethoff, pp. 156-159). Another question that bothers HR manager a lot is regarding the size of work groups and teams. The answer very much depends upon the purpose and task of groups. Groups formed for completing some work quickly need smaller sizes since many members can hamper the process. However, if the task of the group is exploratory and diverse output is a need then large groups are the best option. It is also here to note the common stereotype of people that by increasing the number of people we can increase the productivity of a group (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 58-59). However, this may be true but the productivity would increase in a decreasing manner. In other words, the sum of the individual potential effort would not be equal to the total output of the group. Max Weber was amongst the first ones to identify this phenomenon. Usually people tend to lower their outputs when working with groups. Experts call this process as “social loafing.” A cartoon printed back in 1999 has these words, which explains why social loafing occurs. It says, “Few things in life are less efficient than a group of people trying to write a sentence, the advantage of this method is that you end up with something for which you will not be personally blamed” (Torrington, Hall & Taylor, pp. 14-18). Quite understandably, absence of personal responsibility is the prime reason. Since this process is disastrous for the overall organization manager do their best to avoid this and catch “free riders” (Miner, pp. 5-9). One way is by increasing the personal responsibility of individuals and by clear division of tasks amongst them. Moreover, constant checks can also do the job. Another interesting element is that is not consistent and applicable in collectivist cultures like those of South Asia, China, and Israel (Lumsden, Lumsden & Wiethoff, pp. 156-159). People living in these countries come from strong central family systems and value affiliation and relationships largely. These people actually showed an increase in their performances while working in groups. However, people coming from individualist cultures like people from United States, and other European countries showed the phenomenon of social loafing to some considerable extent (Dessler, pp. 62-68). This is because these people value self-interest over the interests of others and groups and desire recognition and appreciation under their name and not under the names of others. Therefore, managers by looking at the cultural backgrounds of the employees would get an idea that would they perform better in groups or in individual capacity. Lastly, it is regarding the understanding or “cohesiveness” of the group, which really matters a lot. “Cohesiveness is the degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group” (Torrington, Hall & Taylor, pp. 14-18). People say that a more cohesive group would be more productive than a less cohesive group. Despite the fact that it is true but not in all situations. A lot also depends upon the norms of the group as well. For example, a group with high cohesiveness and mainly performance norms would perform better than any other group. However, the same group with low performance norms would perform the worst despite the fact that the cohesiveness is high (Robbins & Judge, pp. 40-48). Therefore, managers need to look for the norm factor first. Moreover, attaining the goal of cohesiveness is achievable by decreasing the group size, increasing the time that the members are spending together, by isolating the group from the external environment, by increasing the status as compared to other groups and by acknowledging the group as whole for their achievements rather than the group (Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, pp. 74-79). Therefore, by increasing cohesiveness and performance norms at the same time HR can create an ideal situation of highest productivity. Works Cited Dessler, Gary. Human resource management. Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Fisher, Cynthia D., Schoenfeldt, Lyle F., & Shaw, James B. Human resource management. Houghton Mifflin Co., 2005. Griffin, Ricky W., & Moorhead, Gregory. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Cengage Learning, 2009. Jennings, Matthew. Leading Effective Meetings, Teams, and Work Groups: In Districts and Schools. ASCD, 2007. Lumsden, Gay, Lumsden, Donald, & Wiethoff, Carolyn. Communicating in Groups and Teams: Sharing Leadership. Cengage Learning, 2009. Mathis, Robert L., & Jackson, John H. Human Resource Management. Cengage Learning, 2007. Miner, John B. Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe, 2007. Robbins, Stephen P., & Judge, Timothy A. Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 2009 Torrington, Derek, Hall, Laura, & Taylor, Stephen. Human resource management. FT Prentice Hall, 2005. Read More