After her 2-month orientation course at head office, Sarah joined the team at Forstairs, which was the new factory site in the throes of being built. The completion date was in October, 5 months ahead, but the management team had been appointed and all the planning was under way. HR at the site consisted of herself and Scott Hammond, HR Manager, who was 29 and had joined the organisation as a graduate 5 years ago and had experience of a similar unit together with 2 years in the head office function as a training specialist.
In the first week on site, they set a day aside to start to draw up the HRP. Scott had already discussed the Forstairs business plan with the site director, so he had a clear view of the planned culture for the site, the operations labour force, its skills and objectives. Scott suggested that they divide the day into two. The first part would be concerned with the ‘number-crunching’ side, working out the number of employees needed, their skills, profiles and training programmes. The second part would be concerned with the strategic elements, including the details of pay, incentives and benefits, the performance management system, the communication and involvement policy for the workforce and equal opportunities arrangements. From the start, Scott emphasised that the HR policies would have to fit together into a coherent collection, or ‘bundle’ as was the current phrase.
The first part was dealt with smoothly with Sarah given the job of producing a Gantt chart that summarised the plan. She drew it up as shown in Figure 2.7.
Employees would be phased in over the 3-month period in batches of 20. Sarah would produce a similar chart for all other groups of employees and these charts would be prominently displayed in her office and on the main noticeboard, and the progress to date would also be indicated. She also agreed to carry out a thorough pay survey to confirm that the original data collected 12 months ago as a basis for the project proposal had not changed greatly. A final set of proposals would encompass the equal opportunity aspects of recruitment, selection, training and promotion, which would take into account the nature of ethnic mix in the locality.
The discussions on strategy and policy took a good deal longer. They were required to work within a competence framework that had been designed by consultants some months back. This framework was divided into core competencies that all employees should develop, including problem solving, quality focus and innovation plus sets of specific competencies for departments and roles.
Scott considered that this framework should be the lynch-pin for many of their activities. For example, he wanted to test applicants to see how they matched the core competencies. How close the resulting match came out would influence selection decisions. He also suggested that the performance management scheme should have a very clear focus on employees’ performance in line with the competencies. Sarah was less happy with the proposal that decisions on wages and salaries should be a direct outcome of such an assessment. She considered that a period of ‘bedding-in’ for the framework was required before too much was weighted on it. It might crumble if it was not found to be sufficiently robust. She proposed instead a system of skills-based pay for the operatives with simple and transparent increases when individual skills modules had been achieved. Scott could see the merit in this proposal and asked her to put up a scheme in the next month although he wanted a continuous stress on performance as part of the culture of the unit.
They needed a further meeting to discuss the system of employee representation, communication and involvement. Scott had some unhappy experiences of working with unions and wished to avoid having to recognise them. He proposed setting up an influential Employee Council from the start that had a strong role in consultation, a ‘Kaizanstyle’ employee recognition scheme to encourage employees to join in the innovation process and briefing groups, and regular departmental meetings as an important part of communication process. This ‘bundle’ would, he felt, direct the employees towards positive support of the company’s activities rather than the more negative aspects he associated with trade unions. Sarah agreed with the main drift, but pointed out the difficulties associated with this approach that may cut across representation rights recently legislated.
They felt this was a good start and Scott agreed to arrange a meeting at the end of the month with the general management team to discuss them in detail.
Figure 2.7
