ngurjar
50

Management Consulting, Management Development, Transformation, Project Management
@ (Cite Contribution), The Tata Steel case is great, only... it was done with an external consultant! I know that consultants are still helping TS even today. Especially after having visited the shambles out in the Corus plant a few years ago, it is quite expected :-)
@ Anayaat, Thanks for your opinion.
Nikhil Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs

From United States, Daphne
ngurjar
50

Management Consulting, Management Development, Transformation, Project Management
@Harmeet, there is an inherent contradiction in the posts... HR kind of stays away from technical evaluations. This is ascertained by the posts as well. So, the question of the 'good or better' candidate from an overall perspective is not a HR evaluation. Secondly, from your own business perspective, considering your value-chain, the position is expected to deliver a particular value for the stakeholders. If you consistently skew that equation, you are bound to jeopardize the value proposition of the business. Just think of it from the 'value' perspective.
@Hussain, On recruitment: That is a great point. At the same time, you might want to promote a Contract-to-Hire Mechanism in the company. I agree with everything you say. It really tells us some of the failure points...
Nikhil S. Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs

From United States, Daphne
Hussain Zulfikar
26

HRIS Implementation, Payroll, Recruitment, Appraisal, Training and Seperations
Hi (Cite Contribution)

Thanks for your input, I agree with you, what I have mentioned in my experience are not over all HR failures, but it can be termed as HR failure in the organization due to type culture of management thinking, Companies like TATA or any company which is publicly held where shareholders are not running the company directly and hire a team of professionals experts of respective functions then a company is managed professionaly depending on the leadership of the management, we can even call it company is run on democratic lines.. In my case its family owned business group. so more or less it runs like a monarchy :-) , however what I have mentioned in functions of HR, I think we all face it at some point, as human bias, emotions are always at play.

This can be true for HR professionals also, when HR professionals conduct preliminary interview, there are chances of personal bias, favouritsm, prejudice coming into play indirectly. as per your point, this could be, where HR is decision maker, takes an initiative but fails to achieve what is targeted. that is unbiased, neutral judgement.

Thanks or your feedback, I m new in here, and I need to learn a lot. more I know .. more I want to know.. !

Thanks and best regards

Hussain

From Kuwait, Salmiya
Hussain Zulfikar
26

HRIS Implementation, Payroll, Recruitment, Appraisal, Training and Seperations
Dear Mr Nikhil Thank you for the response, please provide some information on contract to hire mechanism, How it may help HR functions in recruitment. Thanks and Best Regards Hussain
From Kuwait, Salmiya
ngurjar
50

Management Consulting, Management Development, Transformation, Project Management
@Hussain, Contract-To-Hire is an arrangement where you first hire a person for a specific task. This is, typically, a limited timeframe (usually around 6 months). Once he is on the job, you get to evaluate how he works and you can consider extending his tenure, by hiring him as a perm, at the end of the stipulated period.

The advantages are many... (refer my newest post on contract hire)... but I will list a few:
1. It allows for quick recruitment.
2. Since it is a contract recruitment, the incumbent is typically paid by the hour, meaning that you have better control over his productive time.
3. The recruitment is to fulfill a specific task. Hence, it offers more flexibility to the employer when it comes to cultural fitment, etc. Unlike a regular recruitment, where the relationship is treated as a 'married-for-life' situation :-)
4. The incumbent doesn't get any benefits of perm employees. Thus, the long-term costs are typically lower.
5. Unlike a probation, this is easier to terminate because there is no commitment for the employer.
6. Typically, agencies are seen to offer better service levels depending on the culture of the company (which is why they are popular in the first place).
7. Company doesn't have to invest in employee training.

I have seen numerous biases when it comes to recruitment. However, contract employees... well, they are the people who worry the staff less than anything else... So, it is more objective and focused on the job that the company has in mind.

Thanks and Regards,
Nikhil

From United States, Daphne
Cite Contribution
1853

Community Manager
Greetings,

One of the many cases with data. May not be the ideal case for this discussion, but might add to certain HR based features we are brain storming here. http://citeman.com <link updated to site home>

I had invited my firends to join in, here's their comments:

Allwyn Lobo: Let's take the latest example... Most of the companies have announced their Q2 results... Not even in a single company did I see the H R the part of the announcement ..It only involved the CEO and CFO..what about the CPO ? ..(Chief Peoples Officer ). Is time for the Industry to change....however when my CEO made the Q2 announcement... Showed him an H R involement in it

David Whitehead: I maintain HR people never can reach the highest levels of Ulrich's model

I agree with Allwyn, even if the announcements include HR , its barely about the initiative , no quantified [Revenue based ] result is ever shared. The dashboard maintained offers data on Recruitment and attrition . Training is counted by hours and not the after training consultation and realtime implementation. I am not asking for the testimonials on training programs, but effort to collect data on how have the training and the effort invested are showing results.

Waiting to listen from our fellow HRs

Regards,
(Cite Contribution)


From India, Mumbai
ngurjar
50

Management Consulting, Management Development, Transformation, Project Management
Hi (Cite Contribution),

Thats an interesting example. I am unable to get specifics from the example.
How small was the co?
How many people were in the team?
What difference in pays are we talking about (5%, 10% or 50%)?
etc...

Commenting on the case, therefore, will be rather premature. All in all, it appears that the pay structures, the work loads and the capability of the individuals were the issue. Many times, the 'headcount' approach that is popular in scientific management, simply bombs!!! I have seen that at a few companies myself. The logic applied is: If he could do it, you could too!!! And this often comes from the owner of the company, who has lesser understanding of the possibilities there.

Some generic remarks though...
1. I don't think attrition has ANYTHING to do with training! One is for the job (internally focused) and the other is for greener pastures (usually economically driven and externally focused).
2. With a 6 month average employment span, naturally, there is inadequate incentive to work longer. Looks like the job was a springboard to a career elsewhere.
3. Other forms of profitability checks might be more interesting... looking at contracts for specific tasks (whereby the person also gets the flexibility to keep his utilization optimized).

It is often a problem that needs changes at the business owner's end. The way forward would, therefore, be that the HR manager must work closely with the head man (since you said its a SME, this should be possible), and get him to understand the critical business drivers. This would be critical. A buy-in from the head is essential and educating him to the business realities from a HR perspective is important. Most times, professionals stop at making management aware. They need to go a step further and EDUCATE the management. This is ONE MAJOR AREA THAT CAUSES A DICHOTOMY AND THE HR FAILS.

I don't know what you do for a living, employed or in business. Anyway, anything you do, thereafter, must have answers to the following three questions from the CEO, the shareholders and the employees:
1. Whats in it for me in this quarter?
2. Whats in it for me in the next 9 months?
3. Whats in it for me in the next 1.5 years?
Most initiatives you have identified, though well meaning, do not actually answer this question to the desired level of detail or 'intensity'. It makes sense to look at these questions in the context of your suggestions. This is another MAJOR REASON why HR fails and is also answering the question as to why HR doesn't feature in the Q2...

Lastly, you cannot make a very capable system with incapable people and faltering infrastructure. Staffing has multiple perspectives. It is essential to explain and educate the other departments on the implications of this factor. At a software company that I worked in, the entire 2000 employees had just 2 HR personnel. There were 6 outsourced individuals. But those two were far more capable... Bottom line, your measures have only partially addressed capability... I might be a trained driver. But if I were to drive 500 km every day on Indian road conditions, I might have issues...

Please don't take this as a criticism otherwise. As management consultants, we focus in a different way at times. We are very appreciative of your responses and your blogs. Thanks for the same.

Reg,
Nikhil Gurjar
President
Consulting Connoisseurs
<link no longer exists - removed>

From United States, Daphne

This discussion thread is old and is closed for new comments. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post a new thread. Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™