Case Study Strategic Human Resource Management

Question: Write about the Case Study forStrategic Human Resource Management. Answer: HR Practices at Runway The Devil Wears Prada features a human resource department that is not well versed in the roles of hiring. Employees are subjected to bizarre hiring criteria that include their body weight and physical appearance. This is subjective, and is not grounded on the individuals ability to perform their roles. Industry best practice requires the human resource department to use empirical approaches to hiring, where the suitability of the candidate is objective. The recruitment process should also be strategic, and not be conducted on the whims of a powerful individual or the department in need of the additional personnel (Bugg, 2015). The compensation package is unclear, and in many cases unfair. Andrea is frequently subjected to working long hours, outside the normal 8 hour working day. There is no overtime, neither is there any clear communication on this will be resolved in future. Human resource management should ensure that salary and other compensation is not only fair, but that it reflects the firms profitability, and the value the company places on the employee. This does not happen at the Runway (Khalid Diab, 2010). The manager is a bully, constantly intimidating Andrea to do her wishes or be fired. The employee obliges because she needs the job, has been promised better jobs in future. However, the company is permissive of bullying, with the senior management clearly unable to do anything to reign in on Miranda. Instead, there should be no tolerance for bullying at the organization. The company should provide help for Andrea, instead of leaving her at the mercy of her boss (Fapohunda, 2013). Job descriptions are important in guiding employees on what is required of them in an organization. This is not the case at Runway. Andrea is frequently subjected to treatment that is humiliating, and is not related in any way to her job. She is more of a personal aide to her boss, being forced to take on tasks that are not in any way related to her job. She is asked, for instance, to attend a party thrown by her boss or risk being fired. A clear job description would have assisted Andrea in standing up to bullying, and performing her core duties more effectively (Royer, 2010). Strategies to change the toxic working environment at Runway The toxic environment at Runway is testament to the failure of leadership at the company. While Miranda continues to oppress her employees and treat them as her personal staff, there is no one able to stand up to her and stem her excesses. With an effective board and senior management, this could be possible. Companies can take charge of toxic environments by changing the ineffective leadership, or impressing on the leaders that failure to perform their duty jeopardizes the firms long term success (Housman Minor, 2015). Toxic employees are the second focus of strategy. These employees should be coached on ways to stop the behavior that poisons the company, and prevents people working to the best of their ability. When this is possible, as is likely to be the case at Runway, the toxic workers should be removed. This will be a great boost not only to the employees, but to the organization as whole, as other employees are more able to express themselves through their performance (Housman Minor, 2015). The organization is permissive of bullying and other negative attributes that help make the environment toxic. Employees feel that it is their responsibility to submit to their leaders bullying without question. In instances where they disagree, they risk being sacked without any recourse from the human resource department. This has helped perpetuate a culture of bullying that should also be addressed urgently. To do this, the organization should carry out large scale training and communicate, as well as mentoring to help reverse the organizational culture. The human resource department should be more assertive in protecting employees who are bullied (Housman Minor, 2015). Performance review process currently used at Runway and better way of managing performance Performance review process t Runway does not follow any formal structure. Employees performance is not based on their deliverables for the job, but for how well they are able to please their manager. Since their job description is not clear, it is impossible for them to know what exactly is expected of them, and what they need to do to meet these objectives. As a result, employees are vulnerable to subjective managers who may use their personal subjectivity in appraising their performance, and thereby affect the progression of their careers (Hartel Fujimoto, 2015). Instead of doing this, the human resource department should be geared towards a process where key performance indicators are set, and then reviewed periodically. This ideally happens every six month, though the frequency may change depending on the job. The use of smart objectives in appraisal has been widely acclaimed. Smart objectives involve targets that are closely aligned with organizational strategy. Additionally, these objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic and time bound. This way, employees know what is expected of them, how to achieve it and within which timeframe (Hartel Fujimoto, 2015). New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 and dealing with poor performance leading to discipline or dismissal The Act was passed in 2000 to prevent organizations from firing employees on flimsy grounds, while protecting them from losses arising from actual substandard performance and indiscipline. The act demands that before an employee is dismissed or otherwise disciplined, the employer must show enough reason for doing so. Subjectivity in the process such as firing employees because they do not conform to arbitrary performance targets set by subjective bosses is not allowed under the Act, and can actually lead to legal action being brought against the manager and organization (Alibekova Campbell, 2006). To help avoid such situations, a clear process as outlined below should be undertaken. The first part of the process is to determine whether the performance of the employee is sufficiently below par to warrant disciplinary action. To determine this, unsatisfactory performance should be clearly spelt out by the organization. The performance is also supposed to have bee unsatisfactory for a reasonable amount of time. It is also deemed that all other attempts to increase performance have failed. Secondly, the organization should give the employee a hearing on the reasons behind their unsatisfactory performance. Here should be a chance, where necessary, for the employee to prove themselves. Where this is not possible, the employee should then be informed of the decision, and be given the opportunity to appeal. If the appeal fails, the employee is then dismissed (Alibekova Campbell, 2006). References Alibekova, A., Campbell, D. (2006). Employment Law. Frederick: Aspen Publishers. Bugg, K. (2015). Best Practices for Talent Acquisition in 21 Century Academic Libraries. Library Leadersip and Management , 29 (4), 1-14. Fapohunda, T. (2013). Managing Work Place Bullying. Journal of Human Resource Management , 1 (3), 39-47. Hartel, C., Fujimoto, Y. (2015). Human Resource Management. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. Housman, M., Minor, D. (2015). Toxic Workers. Harvard Business Review , 4-38. James, S (2014) Human Resource. New York: New York Publishers. Khalid, S. R., Diab, M. A. (2010). Compensation Practices and Plan Effectiveness in Saudi Arabia . Compensation and Benefits Review , published online. McCrea, B. (2007). Developing an Effective Business Plan. London: DigitalPulp Publishing. Royer, K. (2010). Job Descriptions and job analyses in practice. College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, DePaul University , 50.