Since its inception in January 2005, this column has principally been focused on articulating a best-practice agenda for workforce management hence the term ‘Workforce Solutions’. The term ‘workforce management’ can be used interchangeably with ‘human capital management’ and or ‘human resources management’. In recent times, we have also noticed the growing preference for ‘people management’. Whichever term one has a penchant for, there can be no denying the centrality of ‘workforce’ or ‘human’ in modern-day management! It is precisely for this reason that we are also now talking about ‘strategic workforce management’ or ‘strategic human resource/capital management’.
This article focuses on the evolving subject of strategic workforce management. It gives a conceptual framework of the discipline and proceeds to articulate an agenda for the discipline in Zimbabwe going forward. The formation of an inclusive government has ushered a halcyon phase in Zimbabwe which requires a paradigmatic shift in workforce management from the uncontrollably exuberant days of the past. Indeed, this point was well-said recently by strategic guru Professor Lonnie Strickland when he urged local managers to learn to manage under normalcy.
Internationally, there is a growing body of research that explores the critical role of strategic workforce management in improving organizational outcomes with some evidence of a measurable and positive impact on organizational performance (see Financial Gazette of April 26- May 2 2007). This is happening at a time when workforce managers are calling for increased recognition within their companies.
Indeed, there are growing calls for a boardroom seat for workforce managers. In fact, in the United States of America, the C-level (board level) position of Chief Workforce Officer is now entrenched in most organizations. In Zimbabwe, it has been noted that while organizations are claiming to recognize the strategic role of workforce management, very few organizations actually have a workforce manager/director who has a boardroom seat (Global Workforce Solutions, 2007). A key reason for this sad state of affairs is that workforce management professionals are not doing enough in linking the overall firm performance to focused strategic workforce management initiatives that they would have adopted in their organizations. This takes us to the conceptual framework of strategic workforce management.
Strategic workforce management is all about linking workforce management practices to organizational performance. Its key mediating driver is employee commitment or engagement. The seminal work in this area was produced by Huselid (1995), who examined the relationship between workforce management practices and corporate turnover, profitability and market value. Huselid surveyed senior workforce management executives in a sample of 968 publicly traded corporations in the US regarding the percentage of employees who were covered by a set of workforce management practices generally considered representative of a High Performance Work System (HPWS). After controlling for a number of variables, he found that his workforce management index was significantly related to the gross rate of return on assets (a measure of profitability) and Tobin’s Q (the ratio of the market value of a firm to its book value).
A related study by Delery and Doty (1996) examined the relationship between workforce management practices and profitability in a sample of banks in the US and they found that, in general, workforce management practices were positively related to profitability. Similarly Guthrie (2001) examined the impact of workforce management practices on turnover and firm productivity among a sample of firms in New Zealand. He noted that workforce management practices had an impact on turnover, and that the relationship between retention and productivity was positive when firms implemented high-involvement workforce management practices, but negative when they did not.
Two major studies at the plant level have been conducted examining the relationship between HR practices and firm performance. MacDuffie (1995) found that the workforce management practice ‘bundles’ he measured were related to quality and productivity on auto assembly lines. Meanwhile, Youndt et al (1996) discovered that human-capital enhancing workforce management practices were related to operational performance among a sample of manufacturing plants.
Looking at Zimbabwe at this juncture, there are several areas of workforce management which call for a strategic orientation. Take for instance the aspect of performance management. Going forward, workforce management professionals have to identify those practices which support and reward a culture of high performance. Allied to this has to be a strategic orientation to training and development in organizations to deal with the issues of employee retention and motivation. Of the 27 High Performance Work Practices identified by Huselid in 1995, there is unlimited potential for their use and adoption by local workforce management professionals in championing this strategic orientation. Essentially, workforce management professionals need to come up with local empirical studies that confirm existing literature as part of justifying their role at boardroom level.
Armed with the kind of empirical evidence cited in the foregoing, it is no longer a matter of conjecture that organizations can achieve sustained competitive advantage through the adoption of focused and sustained strategic workforce management practices. Workforce management professionals have to demonstrate to top management how their actions today define corporate success tomorrow. Their ability to do that qualifies them for the so-called ‘C-level’ status or boardroom position alongside the Finance Directors and others.
This article focuses on the evolving subject of strategic workforce management. It gives a conceptual framework of the discipline and proceeds to articulate an agenda for the discipline in Zimbabwe going forward. The formation of an inclusive government has ushered a halcyon phase in Zimbabwe which requires a paradigmatic shift in workforce management from the uncontrollably exuberant days of the past. Indeed, this point was well-said recently by strategic guru Professor Lonnie Strickland when he urged local managers to learn to manage under normalcy.
Internationally, there is a growing body of research that explores the critical role of strategic workforce management in improving organizational outcomes with some evidence of a measurable and positive impact on organizational performance (see Financial Gazette of April 26- May 2 2007). This is happening at a time when workforce managers are calling for increased recognition within their companies.
Indeed, there are growing calls for a boardroom seat for workforce managers. In fact, in the United States of America, the C-level (board level) position of Chief Workforce Officer is now entrenched in most organizations. In Zimbabwe, it has been noted that while organizations are claiming to recognize the strategic role of workforce management, very few organizations actually have a workforce manager/director who has a boardroom seat (Global Workforce Solutions, 2007). A key reason for this sad state of affairs is that workforce management professionals are not doing enough in linking the overall firm performance to focused strategic workforce management initiatives that they would have adopted in their organizations. This takes us to the conceptual framework of strategic workforce management.
Strategic workforce management is all about linking workforce management practices to organizational performance. Its key mediating driver is employee commitment or engagement. The seminal work in this area was produced by Huselid (1995), who examined the relationship between workforce management practices and corporate turnover, profitability and market value. Huselid surveyed senior workforce management executives in a sample of 968 publicly traded corporations in the US regarding the percentage of employees who were covered by a set of workforce management practices generally considered representative of a High Performance Work System (HPWS). After controlling for a number of variables, he found that his workforce management index was significantly related to the gross rate of return on assets (a measure of profitability) and Tobin’s Q (the ratio of the market value of a firm to its book value).
A related study by Delery and Doty (1996) examined the relationship between workforce management practices and profitability in a sample of banks in the US and they found that, in general, workforce management practices were positively related to profitability. Similarly Guthrie (2001) examined the impact of workforce management practices on turnover and firm productivity among a sample of firms in New Zealand. He noted that workforce management practices had an impact on turnover, and that the relationship between retention and productivity was positive when firms implemented high-involvement workforce management practices, but negative when they did not.
Two major studies at the plant level have been conducted examining the relationship between HR practices and firm performance. MacDuffie (1995) found that the workforce management practice ‘bundles’ he measured were related to quality and productivity on auto assembly lines. Meanwhile, Youndt et al (1996) discovered that human-capital enhancing workforce management practices were related to operational performance among a sample of manufacturing plants.
Looking at Zimbabwe at this juncture, there are several areas of workforce management which call for a strategic orientation. Take for instance the aspect of performance management. Going forward, workforce management professionals have to identify those practices which support and reward a culture of high performance. Allied to this has to be a strategic orientation to training and development in organizations to deal with the issues of employee retention and motivation. Of the 27 High Performance Work Practices identified by Huselid in 1995, there is unlimited potential for their use and adoption by local workforce management professionals in championing this strategic orientation. Essentially, workforce management professionals need to come up with local empirical studies that confirm existing literature as part of justifying their role at boardroom level.
Armed with the kind of empirical evidence cited in the foregoing, it is no longer a matter of conjecture that organizations can achieve sustained competitive advantage through the adoption of focused and sustained strategic workforce management practices. Workforce management professionals have to demonstrate to top management how their actions today define corporate success tomorrow. Their ability to do that qualifies them for the so-called ‘C-level’ status or boardroom position alongside the Finance Directors and others.
It was a very effective options for the Strategic Workforce Management and best solutions for too for the people...
ReplyDeletePositive Workforce Solutions