Critically assess the approach to ‘people management,’ both espoused and practiced, within your own organisation or one which you are familiar. Within your response you should compare your findings to relevant theories and models and justify your conclusions with relevant examples.
This essay will assess how Carole Nash Insurance approach people management activity by looking at both what is said they do and what is actually done. This has been tackled by firstly referring to the company’s HR strategy, which outlines the plan of what the company is trying to achieve. Secondly, by giving the background to the history of the company so it can be understood why some changes have taken place. And finally, by looking at examples of practice: issues surrounding people management, the specialist knowledge of the HR consultant and the legal implications of devolving responsibility to the line. Storey’s Twenty Seven points of difference (1995) has been used to assess the approach taken by Carole Nash in conjunction with various theories to understand why the company uses the practices it does. Carole Nash Insurance was taken over in December 2006, introducing new directors to an already established personnel culture; many changes came with the transition. According to Storey the company appears to use more of an HRM than personnel approach. Some of the elements that make up these approaches will be looked at. Carole Nash was a family run business before the take over and used a personnel approach to people management. This was due to a lack of experience by top-level management as the majority of them had started on a non management level with the company and had been promoted from within. The promotions were not based on skills, competencies or achievements but on length of time doing the role. Top-level management made decisions and lower management implemented. There was little employee engagement and no focus put on retaining staff or establishing why staff left. An amalgamation of being bought by a large corporate and the enforcement of regulation has seen the company change its approach to people management. Theorists have identified key perspectives by which HRM can be identified, according to them, Carole Nash appears to be more unitarist in its approach moving away from the pluralist approach it had before the take over. This change has taken place due to new director’s and an experienced and knowledgeable leadership team who work together as a group to achieve the two main business objectives. They focus on employee commitment to give the company competitive advantage. They introduced values and a mission statement, which lays out the expectations of how the company wants to be viewed and the behaviours that need to be displayed to help us in being a success. However, the HRM approach is not consistent throughout the company as some managers have been with the company many years and have not adapted to the changes so still have a personnel type approach. The HR department now has its own plan, shaped by the business strategy on how it will meet the overall company strategy. It focuses on developing frameworks and models that enable the organisation to achieve its strategic plan, implemented by developing a performance management system that links to reward and implementing a talent management programme. Secondly, it looks at improving the capabilities of staff to deliver the strategic plan; implementation of this is via the leadership capability being strengthened and by checking that all staff have a personal development plan. Thirdly, it wants to define organisational vision and values by updating the communication model and monitoring how culture is embedded. The HR strategy shows that it is trying to achieve a HRM approach as it contains some of the key elements of this approach. Storey’s model states that performance related pay and the nurturing of staff make up this approach which...
References: Buckingham, M (2006), What a waste, People Management
Cannell, Mike (2004), Personnel management: a short history, CIPD
Cunningham, I and Hyman, j (1995), “Transforming the HRM vision into reality: the role of line managers and supervisors in implementing change”, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No.8, pp.5-20.
Gennard, J. and Kelly, J. (1997), “The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRM function”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27-42
Guest, D and King, Z. (2001), “HR and the bottom line’, People Management, 27 September, pp24-9.
Guest, D.,King, Z., Conway, N., Michie, J. and Sheehan-Quinn, M. (2001), Voices from the Boardroom, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London
Harris, L.. (1999:289-290) Book unknown copy attached
Storey’s Twenty Seven Point Checklist 1995’
CIPS staff (July 2008), CIPD, Employee Relations: an overview
Please join StudyMode to read the full document