Papers by Rosario Longo Hrm
How Situational is Situational Leadership? - HR Professionals, 2019
The role, scope and to many respects the reputation of HR has considerably evolved during the las... more The role, scope and to many respects the reputation of HR has considerably evolved during the last decade. Originally exclusively associated with compliance and administration, HR is more recently increasingly regarded by CEOs as business advisor, change agent and ultimately strategic partner, which has clearly contributed to enhance in turn the function reputation. The growing influence exerted by HR on organizational management can be in part explained by the tremendous significance attached by employers to the resource-based view of a firm. According to this approach, originally developed by Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991, 1995) building on the idea early expressed by Penrose (1959), who defined a firm as a collection of productive resources, organizational success is essentially based on the way the strategic assets of an organization sustain each other (Mueller, 1996). An organization attains competitive edge hence only whether its strategic resources are valuable and effectually used and coordinated. Human capital is increasingly considered by employers as their most important asset and resource; by extension, the main pillars underpinning the resource-based view of a firm have been used to support the development of HRM models and a resource-based view of HR has been canvassed. The resource-based view of strategic HR stems from the assumption that in order for employers to gain competitive edge these need to recruit and develop talented individuals whose competencies and skills are rare and extremely difficult to imitate and replace. Inasmuch as human capital, as the most significant resource of a firm, takes centre stage in every initiatives employers implement, HR represents the seminal organizational function in developing people. Employers attach a growing critical importance to HR in that this is the organizational function in charge of taking care of people. It essentially assumes full responsibility for individual performance from the moment every single person joins an organization; it is in fact HR which manages the selection process, develops and implements talent management practices, supports employers in managing succession planning and develops new approaches to employee retention. It clearly transpires that in most respects the present and future, and as such the past, of an organization largely rest in the hands of HR. In order for HR to effectually play its role it needs to perform a large number of activities and sub-activities. People management, for instance, is concerned with the constant identification of effectual ways to motivate and engage individuals and help these to expand their competencies and skills so that these can increasingly contribute to enhance organizational productivity, ultimately enabling employers to gain competitive advantage over their competitors. To successfully perform this feat, HR needs to develop and implement a fairly complex plan of action, which is habitually approached adopting the bundle methodology, that is, a number of coordinated programmes aiming
The primary concern of recruiters is that of attracting and selecting the right person for the ap... more The primary concern of recruiters is that of attracting and selecting the right person for the appropriate position, that is to say seeking, finding and hiring the so-called perfect match or best fit for each role. To successfully attain their objectives recruiters need, first and foremost, to pinpoint what the real organizational need is and hence meet the employer, or rather, as it usually occurs in practice, the hiring manager expectations. Recruiters and hiring managers habitually formulate job posts on the basis of the unit current needs and of the requirements necessary to properly perform the vacant role, but in some others instances these aim at recruiting individuals who, in addition to properly fill the current vacancy, have the qualities and the potential to perform more demanding and complex activities in the future. Individuals on the other hand do no longer aim at finding just a job, but rather at being hired by organizations which can offer them a meaningful role, a pleasant workplace, flexible working arrangements, a competitive salary, valuable benefits and opportunities for growth. More often than not, recruiters' task, especially whether not supported by a strong employer branding, may hence prove to be particularly daunting to perform. Employers, albeit with some difficulties, can virtually fulfil all of these expectations, but can hardly ensure to all of their employees what they care for the most, to wit: genuine, practical and valuable career prospects. In many instances, after the initial excitement generated by the new position vanishes into thin air and individuals realize that their current employer cannot offer them any further opportunities for growth, people make the drastic decision to leave their employer. " I'm looking for a new challenge " is a phrase recruiters are very acquainted with. In some cases it hides a different true, but in the vast majority of the circumstances people do leave their employer in that they genuinely aim at working in a different, more varied and challenging environment. Offering genuine opportunities for growth to all of its employees clearly represents a virtually impossible task for any employer; yet, all too often individuals overestimate their abilities and potential so that these easily establish unrealistic expectations, which employers can hardly fulfil. This clearly represents a conundrum for many employers, but the adoption of a forward-looking and in many respects creative approach to human capital management can indeed help employers to meet the increasingly challenging expectations of both talented and less talented individuals. Inasmuch as employers need talented individuals, that is to say people who possess, typically but not necessarily inborn, remarkable capabilities, which enable these to effectually perform complex tasks and take high degrees of responsibility; employers need less talented but capable and reliable individuals who perform less complex activities not entailing any particularly considerable degree of responsibility, but which are equally important for the organization to attain its performance objectives. It clearly emerges that employers need the
Despite change is and has always been with us, especially during the last decades change, with pa... more Despite change is and has always been with us, especially during the last decades change, with particular reference to the exogenous environment, has occurred at an increasingly fast pace. This circumstance has accounted for employers feeling the urge to acquaint themselves with change and to virtually constantly be involved in the implementation of change initiatives within their organisation. As contended by Kotter (2008), over the centuries the rate of change has been going up and down not following a linear and clearly identifiable trend so that it could be argued that, over the past century, the rate of change has been averagely creeping up. More recently, however, the frequency change takes place has remarkably increased, insofar as change which has been traditionally deemed episodic can nowadays be regarded as continuous. Leading change is typically considered as a difficult feat by reason of the energy it requires and the efforts managers have to make to oppose the harsh and fierce restraining forces usually emerging during its introduction. As properly summarised by Kanter (1983), change is considered " exhilarating when done by us and disturbing when done to us. " To achieve the intended results managers should drive change providing first and foremost a sense of direction, purpose and meaningfulness to the overall process. Yet, since for the successful attainment of the final aim people definitely represent a key factor, managers efforts need to be directed to, and focused on, engaging and truly involving in the process all of an organisation employees. The activities performed by managers to implement change invariably encounter the harsh resistance opposed by the individuals who feel threated by the employer initiative. To counterbalance and win individual resistance, managers might be at times tempted to resort to methods which could be apparently considered questionable and controversial so that the need to answer the question whether it could be considered appropriate applying in change management the Machiavellian dictum " the end justifies the means " emerges somewhat of spontaneously. An additional significant point is represented by the behaviour exhibited by managers when implementing change and more specifically whether these might be considered as acting with integrity and ethically in the event should manipulate information. Analysing the most widely recognized change management models developed so far we can actually identify in some of them a few traits which could apparently (but just apparently) be considered very closely linked to information manipulation. The change management frameworks developed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (Kanter et al, 1992) and John Kotter (1996) consider indeed both crucial for the successful introduction of change
The frequency change takes place in the external environment, and hence in the organisational con... more The frequency change takes place in the external environment, and hence in the organisational context, is relentlessly increasing; change, nonetheless, can differently impact an organization operations, structures, processes and procedures. Albeit change, with the opportunities it offers and the treats it poses, is nowadays affecting all the organizations at large, irrespective of their size and sector of industry, the impact and effect it produces in practice upon these are normally quite different; as it is indeed variable the relevance of the effect produced by the different types of change implemented over time within the same business. In the light of this aspect, a hypothetical representation of the change continuum would not result in a flat horizontal line, but rather in an uneven line characterised by the presence of several and irregular up and down levels as showed in table 1.
It is an axiomatic fact that human capital represents the real distinctive organizational compone... more It is an axiomatic fact that human capital represents the real distinctive organizational component genuinely and effectually enabling employers to attain competitive edge. Beyond the rhetoric which may at times surround this principle, it can be definitely averred that whether an organization attains determined objectives this is thanks to the contribution of its people. Unquestionably, employers can imitate, on occasions even promptly, every move made by their most successful competitors in the market but their people. Whether an employer has been successful in attracting the best talents existing in a determined area, this could practically boast the achievement of two simultaneous important feats: employing the best people and averting these to be hired by its competitors. Despite talent can be defined in many ways, in the business field every definition associates with it particularly significant features and characteristics essentially enabling individuals to yield remarkable results and reach outstanding, above-than-average performances. Talents could be thus defined as those individuals who possess distinguishing skills and capabilities enabling them to effortlessly perform at well-above-the-standard and who can effectually support the employer in the pursuit of its strategy and in the attainment of its intended objectives. Yet, these individuals can be considered as talent-dynamic, that is, people whose current capabilities and skills are predisposed to further grow and develop over time and who can consequently help the organization to sustain its growth and ultimately gain and preserve competitive advantage. With particular reference to the business world, it can be averred that talent is not as widespread and promptly available as employers desire it to be. By contrast, the number of individuals who can actually make a difference and effectually help organizations to yield the desired results is relatively small. This has triggered and exacerbated over time a borderless competition amongst organizations, which have ever since devoted a growing attention to the design and development of practices aiming at attracting this significant category of individuals. So harsh has become the competition for talented people over time as in 1998 the consulting firm McKinsey formulated the self-explanatory expression " war for talent " to label this new phenomenon. With the passing of the years, employers realized that attracting particularly talented individuals is not enough, it is in fact also crucially important for organizations to retain and further develop these. The need for the adoption of a structured and clear approach specifically aiming at investigating new and effective ways of attracting and retaining talents gave later birth to a new specialism widely known as " talent management. "
The earliest idea of psychological contract dates back to a study conducted by Argyris in 1960, i... more The earliest idea of psychological contract dates back to a study conducted by Argyris in 1960, in which the term " psychological work contract " was used to describe the implicit relationship existing between a foreman and the employees this was in charge of supervising. The concept was later developed by Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl and Solley (1962), who referred to the term " psychological contract " to outline the set of mutual expectations the two parties involved in the employment relationship might be at best just vaguely aware of, but which exerts a controlling influence on their relationship. Ever since, several definitions of psychological contract have been formulated by many academics and sociologists; amongst these that of Schein (1965) who, drawing from Argyris and Levinson et al studies, stressed the circumstance that this type of contract unrelentingly produces effects throughout the employment relationship. The reason why the psychological contract has invariably aroused academics keen interest lays in the fact that it is supposed to considerably influence and govern each individual employment relationship. Albeit unwritten, the effects this contract produces are pervasive and profound in that it essentially relies on the employee and employer mutual trust and respect. The psychological contract is underpinned by a set of obligations and expectations, which are habitually established by employees and employers only once the legal, written contract of employment has been signed and the employee has actually started to work with the new employer. Employees traditionally commenced establishing and raising their expectations, which more strongly influence their behaviour vis-à-vis their obligations, after having gained some experience in the new workplace. As contended by Schein (1965), the psychological contract needs to be constantly renegotiated, but this does not typically happen in the first weeks or months of employment, but rather later on, once individuals become acquainted with the new organizational environment and become fully aware of the practices and culture driving the organization. Up till a few years ago, individuals chose their employer on the basis of companies' reputation and, whether possible, according to the information obtained by means of their relatives, friends, acquaintances and eventually media. The material collected thanks to media, nonetheless, more often than not, was mostly financial-related rather than concerned with the businesses working conditions, never mind with the culture and HRM practices fostered and implemented within the organization.
The pace change occurs in the external environment is constantly quickening, and the effect this ... more The pace change occurs in the external environment is constantly quickening, and the effect this produces upon the organizational context is increasingly dramatic. Change typically requires individuals to adopt a different approach to work and to modify their behaviour in the workplace, but more often than not change also entails individuals to learn new skills and enhance and hone their professional ability. Inasmuch as each individual, of any given change target group within an organization, is prompted to exhibit a different behaviour and gain new competencies to properly perform his/her job, HR professionals should show to be in the front line as regards their professional development in order to strengthen their credibility as change agents and change facilitators. Despite the numerous assumptions and allegations, at times anecdotal, made now and then about the future of HR, just because this or that company has come up with a new way to perceive the HR Function, HR is definitely here to stay, at least as long as robots will not totally replace human beings. Since change management is essentially concerned with managing and controlling the likely impact change may make on individuals, the pivotal role played by HR in change management can be definitely taken as axiomatic. As contended by some of the prominent proponents of the socio-technical system from the British Tavistock Institute (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Rice, 1958; Trist, 1960), organizational effectiveness and success rely on the adoption of their model. Whether employers should focus on the technical system only, to the detriment of the human social system, change may in fact prove to be extremely difficult to introduce, never mind to sustain over time. HR professionals, notwithstanding, cannot on no account rest on their laurels, let alone can they assume to be those in charge of planning and introducing change whether they are unable to set a good example to the other employees. To effectually perform this daunting task HR should, first and foremost, constantly strive to expand its professional expertise and competence so as to prove employers, and the entire employee population, to be able to autonomously introduce and execute change when required. Whereas HR professionals should be well acquainted with change management models and approaches, and with the relevant theories enabling them to carefully analyse the impact that change may potentially make on individuals so as to timely identify the countermeasures to oppose to the resistance eventually offered by employees to it, not all of the HR professionals might be fully acknowledged with some technical skills which
Whether a truly and genuine need for change, aiming at better meeting customers' needs and expect... more Whether a truly and genuine need for change, aiming at better meeting customers' needs and expectations, clearly emerges and objective evidence supporting the existence of this need, namely a gap between the requisites dictated by the exogenous environment and the internal structure and system, have been gathered, this unquestionably means that time has come for the business leaders concerned to develop the plan of action necessary to introduce and implement change. When performing this delicate and significant activity, employers should neither neglect nor underestimate the effects habitually associated with change and the likely employee adverse reaction and angry response. More often than not in fact individuals offer a sharp resistance to any change initiative fostered by employers. Mayo (2002) avers that the main reason for individuals being sceptical about change is usually due to the circumstance that " organisations are littered with the debris … of yesterday's (change) initiatives. " According to Mayo, people have learned through their experience that change attempts are essentially all too often associated with failure and deterioration, rather than success and improvement. This would indeed explain why the first individual reaction to change is suspicion, incertitude and mistrust. Inasmuch as the main cause for individuals being habitually wary about change depends on their awful experience from the past, individuals actually resist change only whether they perceive it as being in some ways detrimental to them. Cunningham (2005) suggests that it is not true that people resist change at large, individuals rather " resist some change " : that change that they fear could undermine their status, position and stability. Individuals oppose therefore change which they perceive and fear could cause a deterioration of the status quo, whereas they would clearly " welcome change that makes things better " , that is, change which they perceive is intended to improve their status, working conditions and wellbeing at large. One of the most, arguably the most, interesting and valuable approach aiming at thoroughly investigating and analysing the advantages and disadvantages of change is definitely represented by the Force Field Analysis (Lewin, 1947), which for simple it may deemed to be certainly still represents an incredibly useful model. This approach is underpinned by the basic assumption that change is subject to both driving and restraining forces. As long as these opposite sets of forces are counterbalancing one another, or even worse restraining forces are prevailing over the driving ones, it will be virtually impossible for an organisation's business leaders to successfully introduce and implement any type of change. In this case, still considering
Once the need for change and its feasibility have been both objectively ascertained, also by mean... more Once the need for change and its feasibility have been both objectively ascertained, also by means of some specific tools, employers need to draw up a detailed plan of action aiming at introducing and implement it. Burns (2004) suggests that the dimension and scope of a change project, and the relationship between these, can be analysed and investigated by means of a change continuum model, table 1. The continuum encompasses at one end incremental changes, that is to say small scale change projects not implying and not intended to introduce radical changes, and at the other end transformational changes, those changes which, by contrast, relate to large scale projects and which can be thus considered as having remarkable, widespread effects upon the organisation. Examples of transformational changes are those consequent to merger, acquisition and restructuring.
It is an axiomatic fact that the phase of execution of any business-related strategy assumes a ce... more It is an axiomatic fact that the phase of execution of any business-related strategy assumes a central and pivotal importance for the successful and coherent achievement of the pre-identified organizational objectives. Notwithstanding, more often than not organizations find it difficult to consistently attain in practice their strategy aims so that it can be argued that in many cases a gap between intended strategy and what it is attained in practice actually exists; the most likely and obvious reason for the emergence of such a gap can typically be related to the inadequacy of the execution process. In this instance the direction the employer was expected to go to is different from that in which the organization actually finds itself, by reason of the ineffectiveness of the strategy implementation process. Albeit the effectual execution of strategies necessarily needs the truly and genuine involvement of all of the organization employees, from the shop floor to the executives directors, particularly important for the successful attainment of this aim is the support and thus the role played by line managers. This is even truer for those organizations not having an HR department where the responsibility to perform and coordinate people management activities totally rests with the line managers. Armstrong (2006) and Smith (2006) argue that the line managers role is of paramount importance for the successful implementation of HR practices and that the " effective implementation of HR strategies depends on their involvement, commitment and cooperation. " This is indeed unsurprising in that line managers unquestionably represent the people within any organization who better know the individuals composing its workforce and spend most of their time with these. Since organizational strategy is also pursued by means of the implementation of the practices and policies designed and developed within any business, it is sorely appropriate and coherent devolving this activity to the line managers. These individuals are in fact those who have a direct, constant contact with the employees and have thus the opportunity and the capability to motivate, control and promptly respond to the employees' queries (Ulrich, 1997; Budhwar and Khatri, 2001). The full and active involvement of LMs both in the HR and business strategies implementation processes on the one hand contributes to enhance their own role, whereas on the other hand enables the business to create and consolidate an " harmonious relationship " between staff and their managers (Gilmore and Williams, 2009). LMs and employees are essentially working together and in synergy for the attainment of a mutual purpose, that is, their organisation success. This approach is clearly reversing the trend once characterizing the practices widespread across the UK,
Despite organizational culture may be influenced by the events taking place in the exogenous envi... more Despite organizational culture may be influenced by the events taking place in the exogenous environment, the full accountability for shaping and developing corporate culture should invariably rest with an organization founder and management (Who develops, shapes and controls organizational culture?). The identification of the organizational values and of the type of behaviour individuals should exhibit in the workplace as well as the adoption of a metaphor aptly summarizing, explaining, reinforcing and in many respects linking all of these components together, so as to help individuals to establish a clear line of sight between them, should be in fact invariably regarded as a typical business founder responsibility. Corporate culture is increasingly assuming a greater importance to employers, who are learning from experience that this cannot be merely considered as a discretionary organizational component, but rather as the founding pillar of organizational strategy, whose pursuance it is essentially intended to support, sustain and ease. Business culture requires hence the constant employer attention and active control in that its unintended derailment might produce irreversible, harmful effects on the execution of an organization strategy and ultimately upon the business stability. Corporate culture, nonetheless, is not only exposed to the pressure coming from the exogenous environment, but it is indeed also sorely subject to the effects produced by the occurrences taking place in the endogenous environment. Amongst these, particularly detrimental to an organization may prove to be the deliberate or inadvertent employee attempt to alter or reinterpret the culture fostered by the business founder. This circumstance is likely to occur when a business founder leaves the organization and when the management diverts its attention away from the importance of consistently and continually fostering the culture originally developed and nourished by the business founder. The executives and managers of an organization should be particularly cautious and vigilant from this point of view and should do whatever they can to prevent employees from influencing corporate culture, whether their reinterpretation or redefinition may threaten to derail the founder original vision and spirit. This may prove to be a definitely daunting feat to perform in that this employee initiative may be actually triggered by the business management incapability to firmly, convincingly and consistently foster and sustain, for a wide range of reasons, the existing culture. Yet, in some instances, managers might not become aware of the problem until it may be too late, let alone to resolve it once clearly emerged. The role of HR The first question to ask is whether HR actually has a role in corporate culture. Since culture is essentially concerned with the organizational values, shared beliefs, individual
Longo, R., (2010), The importance of identifying the best fit between organizational structure an... more Longo, R., (2010), The importance of identifying the best fit between organizational structure and strategy; HR Professionals, [online].
It is an axiomatic fact that organizational culture and corporate strategy are of equal great sig... more It is an axiomatic fact that organizational culture and corporate strategy are of equal great significance for employers aiming at attaining competitive edge. Organizational culture can make or break corporate strategy, but a strong organizational culture would prove to be pointless whether not supportive of an effective and winning strategy. A clear line of sight must hence to be necessarily established between the two in order to ensure strategic cohesion and consistency, and secure organizational success. Fostering an appropriate, suitable corporate culture and developing a potentially effective, winning, sustainable organizational strategy, notwithstanding, cannot of their own ensure employers the attainment of their intended objectives. Strategy definitely represents a complex and intricate organizational component, whose main difficulties are associated not only with its development, formulation or formation, but also with its implementation. Despite corporate culture plays a significant role in strategy implementation, the quality of execution is not indeed exclusively depending on and associated with this; the two components need thus to be considered separately. Yet, appropriate formulation and good execution have not to be regarded as mutually exclusive; in contrast, these definitely need to coexist. Effective formulation coupled with poor execution, like good execution combined with ineffective formulation will not enable an employer to obtain any positive result. Table 1 – The strategy mix paradigm All in all, it clearly emerges that it does indeed exist a strong relationship between corporate culture, strategy formulation and strategy execution. Nonetheless, the significance and worth of strategy execution and corporate culture risk being overshadowed by the lack of quality of strategy formulation. Whereas this has been developed with the aim of inadvertently taking the employer to the wrong place, organizational culture and strategy execution would finally prove to serve the wrong purpose. Organizational success can be attained by employers only whether strategy execution is properly sustained by corporate culture; each component, nonetheless, plays a
The importance for an organization of a clear, broadly shared strategy can be taken as axiomatic,... more The importance for an organization of a clear, broadly shared strategy can be taken as axiomatic, insofar as some management measurement models have identified strategy as a valid factor on the basis of which measure and report human capital management effectiveness. The framework developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), called " Excellence Model " ® , for instance, lists amongst its nine criterion, which are divided into five enablers and four results, the way organizations develop, review and execute strategy. This model considers processes as the best means employers can have recourse to in order to enhance the performance of their talents and enable these to yield tangible, impressive results. More in particular, the Excellence Model ® , which is essentially based on the TQM philosophy, measures strategy effectiveness on the basis of the processes and procedures involved in formulating and implementing an organization's intended strategy. " Policy and strategy " , which are regarded in the model as " enablers " and are expected by extension to produce " results " , are based on five sub-criteria: 1. Should be developed according to the present and future needs and expectations of stakeholders; 2. Have to be based on the information gathered from performance measurement, research and learning-and creativity-related activities; 3. Once developed have to be constantly reviewed and updated; 4. Must be deployed through a framework of key processes; 5. Have to be properly communicated and implemented. The unique aim of this model, which can be actually used as a real tool, is to help its users, that is to say those who follow the processes and procedures it suggests, to manage successfully and obtain excellent results. The model is not indeed intended to enable organizations to formulate quality strategy, but rather to put its users in a position to formulate a strategy likely to produce positive, measurable results. The procedure, by means of the proposed sub-criteria, enables business leaders to use a thorough and effective process to formulate or review strategy and subsequently, by means of a score system, to assess the results produced by this. Whether quality would imply production of positive results, this model might have been considered helpful to develop strategies of good quality, but the attainment of results is a concept much more likely to match the idea of effectiveness, rather than that of quality. Inasmuch as effectiveness is not antonym of quality, effective results are not necessarily achieved by means of quality or excellent strategies; these may in fact also be the effect of good execution. Sometimes appreciable results can be attained thanks to mediocre means, whereas quality of its own accord is not invariably a guarantee of results.
Uploads
Papers by Rosario Longo Hrm