(September 05,
2002) - Please
accept our apologies for yesterday's 'rant'. Although we certainly don't want
to waste your time, ever, occasionally our quality control system breaks down
and a mind-number escapes from the editorial queue. It's an inherent risk when
you are trying to describe things that defy conventional terminology.
We're seeing three distinct
types of company emerging: those that view human capital as disposable (Type
1), those that view it as Mission Critical (Type 2) and those who are trying to
build a system that views HC as mission critical but are not there yet (Type
3).
The Type 1 Company views
Recruiting and Personnel development as market interfaces for purchasing
purposes. It has a mechanistic view of people and their 'interchangeability'
The Type 2 Company views
'talent' as its central asset and has policies and procedures designed to
manage the asset to produce optimal returns. CEOs of these companies are often
heard saying, "At closing time, I watch my entire business leave the
parking lot. I lose sleep hoping that they'll return in the morning so that I
can still have a business." These firms usually have an executive at the
top level whose entire responsibility involves the acquisition, development and
maintenance of human assets.
The third type of company
usually has a strong team of recruiters and trainers but little in the way of
top level support. Their problem is how to bring about internal change.
Very interestingly, the Stanford Project On Emerging
Companies (SPEC) tried to grapple with similar categorizations. Home to a
way of thinking called Organizational
Ecology, the SPEC project produced a paper that categorized HR models
in emerging companies. They found that the company's founder shaped the
view of HR for much of the life of the company (explaining why some HR
departments feel like our Type 3). Their models (from the paper) are:
·
The bureaucracy
model involves attachment based on challenging work and/or
opportunities for development, selecting individuals based on their
qualifications for a particular role, and formalized control.
·
The autocracy
model refers to employment premised on purely monetary motivations,
control and coordination through close personal oversight, and selection of
employees to perform pre-specified tasks
·
The engineering
model involves attachment through challenging work, peer group control,
and selection based on specific task abilities.
·
The star
model refers to attachment based on challenging work, reliance on
autonomy and professional control, and selecting elite personnel based on
long-term potential.
·
The commitment
model entails reliance on emotional-familial attachments of employees
to the organization, selection based on cultural fit, and peer group
control.
The foundations for these
models are summarized below:
|
Attachment Mechanism
|
Selection Basis
|
Coordination/
Control
|
MODEL
|
|
Work
|
Potential
|
Professional
|
Star
|
|
Work
|
Skills
|
Peer/cultural
|
Engineering
|
|
Love
|
Fit
|
Peer/cultural
|
Commitment
|
|
Work
|
Skills
|
Formal
|
Bureaucracy
|
|
Money
|
Skills
|
Direct
|
Autocracy
|
The study found that
a change in the basic model always produced turnover but from different
segments in the workforce. Take a moment to read it.
-John
Sumser
interbiznet is now offering single topic reports for the Industry.
The first offerings are:
The 21st Century Advertising Agency
Recruitment Branding Part I
Recruitment Branding Part II - The Mechanics
Email Colleen Gildea for your copy in PDF Format.
View Table of Contents at http://www.interbiznet.com/briefs/.
Order Today. Only $24.95.