HRM\'s Emerging Role as Cultural

HRM's Emerging Role As Cultural Stewards

Human Resource Management can be described as "The comprehensive set of managerial activities and tasks concerned with developing and maintaining a qualified workforce -- human resources -- in ways that contribute to organizational effectiveness." (DeNisi and Griffin, 2004)

Organizational culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors and understanding. Simply, a company's structure and design can be viewed as its body, and its culture as its soul (Neal, Cossack, & Collis, 2008, p. 34)

Role, Past and Present

The history of HRM in the United States may be said to have started when the NCR Corporation established a separate personnel office in the 1890's. This occurred, in part, because the corporation had reached such a size that specialization was the rational thing to do. American values and American life in that period also played a role. The values of individualism and free enterprise capitalism were strong. The workforce was mobile and contained many immigrants. All of these led to an impersonal, task-oriented relationship little colored by the values of paternalism and obligation that are more common in societies with a feudal heritage. Apprentice systems and labor unions had not spread into the new style corporations so that employers had few constraints on the hiring and firing decisions. The hiring of new employees could be done objectively based on criteria relevant for the job to be accomplished. Employees were a factor of production whose costs were to be handled as rationally as the costs of the factors of production. The task of those pioneer personnel managers at NCR was to establish a method by which they could best discern, among a large and diverse applicant pool, the individuals who would make efficient and cost effective employees (Pieper, 1990).

Scientific management, which Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced in 1912, was clearly attuned to the needs and values of the American industrial revolution. Taylorism met the demand of employers to utilize efficiently a larger labor pool containing many immigrants. Employees could be easily trained and as easily replaced for the routine, repetitive tasks prescribed by Taylor. The theory was immensely successful during the period when industry was straining to meet the production demands of World War I. By the 1920's Taylorism began to lose its preeminence as a theory but the remnants of the practice of it still exist in some American organizations. Job analysis, which is very much a part of modern HRM, is also one of its legacies. Perhaps, the most important legacy of Taylorism is that it made science the hallmark of HRM in that early stage of its development (Pieper, 1990).

In the decades that have followed, with all the schools of HRM that have come and gone, the one consistent factor has been that hallmark. The belief that the selection and motivation of a workforce is an endeavor that is amenable to objective, rational, and testable criteria permeates the field of HRM today and directly traces back to its roots in the needs and values of the American society of a century ago.

The second key hallmark of American HRM is the linking of the theory and practice of personnel management with the field of psychology. The relevance of psychological tools was demonstrated by the famous Hawthorne experiment of Elton Mayo of the Harvard School of Business Administration which took place between 1927 and 1932. In the 1950's the term "human resource management" began to be used to designate the expansion of traditional personnel management to include modern psychology (Pieper, 1990).

The development of HRM is influenced predominately by two schools of psychology. Behaviorism is an uniquely American branch of psychology which traces to the work of John G. Watson, who was a contemporary of Taylor. He believed that the study of man could be objective and scientific. The work of behaviorists has led to the development of tests and evaluation methods that are so much a part of modern HRM. Humanistic psychology is the other school that has influenced American HRM. It began in the 1930's, when Abraham Maslow broke with behaviorism and started a "third force" in American psychology (Pieper, 1990).

Maslow was extremely influential in shaping the human relations theory of HRM which gained popularity in the 1950's. Maslow's "hierarchy of human needs" is known by every HRM practitioner and its relevance for this profession is unmatched. "Humanistic psychology" says that employees can no longer be regarded as replaceable parts of the production process. Employees have needs for security, self-expression, communications and recognition that must be met by employers in order to achieve a stable and productive workforce. Goble (1971) says that in1969 a survey of 302 companies found that 80% of those companies acknowledge the importance of psychology to productivity and profitability (Pieper, 1990).

By the 1970's the latest development became the human resource approach which combined elements of earlier theories. Employees are now perceived as a resource with needs that are compatible with the needs of the organization. HRM is now defined as "that area of organization life that focuses on the effective management and utilization of people" (Walters 1985: 4).

HRM today is a much more scientific and broader field than it was in NCR a hundred years ago. HRM has moved into a central role in modern organizations and put tremendous pressure on its practitioners. Recruitment, job analysis, training and development, human resource planning, management succession planning, designing cost effective benefit packages, managing employee harassment programs, and dealing with employee right to privacy, to name a few, are tasks the modern HRM department must undertake (Pieper, 1990)

Developing and Valuing Culture in the Workplace

A supportive workplace culture has been associated with a variety of benefits for both employees and employers, including higher levels of affective commitment to the organization, lower intention to leave the organization, higher levels of job satisfaction, lower levels of stress and the experience of less conflict between work and family responsibilities (Workplace culture, 2009).

In addition to the direct positive effects of a supportive workplace culture, perceptions of a supportive workplace culture are associated with greater utilization rates of work-life balance policies. The culture in the organization is crucial for determining whether employees will use the policies and their general attitudes towards the organization. For employees and employers to enjoy the benefits of work-life balance policies, the culture and work environment need to be addressed when implementing such policies.

So, just offering the policies is not sufficient as employees need to feel comfortable using the policies. Both managers and colleagues can make employees feel uncomfortable using benefits. Family-friendly policies will be useless or counterproductive if the work culture does not support them (Workplace culture, 2009).

The development and implementation of policies is a gradual process, which requires dealing with certain behaviors, attitudes and expectations held by employees and management within the organization.

It is vitally important that both senior and middle management get behind the development of culture change. Active and visible support from senior management is crucial to the effective introduction of work and family policies. Managers supporting a traditional organizational culture, which emphasizes the pursuit of work goals and ignores employees' personal lives, undermine the success of work-life balance policies (Workplace culture, 2009).

Middle and line managers are particularly important in the development process as they are more directly in touch with the work environment of the employees. Implementation of policies will be more effective if line managers are convinced of the need to implement the policies. Line managers need to know why policies are introduced and how they will improve organizational performance.

An important issue that should be addressed when trying to develop a workplace culture are the characteristics of an organization that reflect and support its workplace culture; the most important one being the organization's key values and norms (Workplace culture, 2009).

When trying to develop a workplace culture, it is most critical to address the key values and norms. It is important for organizations to think about the key values and norms that the existing organizational structures and practices communicate to employees. For example, some organizations may send out messages about the organization's key values and norms through its reward system. Organizations may discourage using work-life balance policies when they provide rewards purely based on the number of hours worked, instead of employees outputs and performance.

The organization could also consider including a statement on the organization's commitment to work and life balance in the organization's value statements, which outline the core values, as this may help reinforce work-life balance as a key value of the organization.

Helping Employees Navigate the Workplace Culture

Changing key values and norms may prove very difficult. However, there are things organizations can do which may assist in this process. Change common myths about work-life balance through education. For example, a common myth about work-life balance issues is that it is only relevant to women. Educating people about the benefits of these policies for both women and men may help change this common myth (Workplace culture, 2009). Give profile to people in the organization who are high performers and who also use the policies to create a view that success and work-life balance can go hand in hand. Organize some social functions at times suitable for children as well as adults and specifically invite the employees' family members. Introduce awards for managers or supervisors nominated by employees for having provided an environment where both employees' work productivity as well as their personal needs are addressed and enhanced. Organize award ceremonies for those employees who are playing an important role in changing the workplace culture. Finally, allow people to have pictures or other personal objects in their work area (Workplace culture, 2009).

Developing and valuing a workplace culture does not happen overnight and requires commitment from both employers and employees. It is important to build consensus for culture change from the top down as well as the bottom up. Education about the importance of work-life balance, the benefits provided by work-life balance policies and the role of workplace culture is necessary to convince managers and front-line employees of the importance of a supportive 'work-life balance' culture (Workplace culture, 2009).

Organizational culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors and understanding. Simply, a company's structure and design can be viewed as its body, and its culture as its soul (Neal et. al., 2008).

Because industries and situations vary significantly, it would be difficult and risky to propose a one-size-fits-all culture template that meets the needs of all organizations. Nonetheless, research does propose that if an organization's culture is to improve its overall performance and effectiveness, that culture must be strong and must provide a strategic competitive advantage. In addition, its beliefs and values must be widely shared and firmly upheld (Neal et. al., 2008)

An organization that develops and maintains a strong organizational culture may realize benefits such as enhanced mutual trust and cooperation, fewer disagreements and more efficient decision-making processes, an informal control mechanism, facilitation of open communication, a strong sense of identification, and a shared understanding.

Finally, regardless of whether supporting evidence exists to establish a definitive link between culture and effectiveness, valuing different viewpoints and styles as well as developing concrete ways to facilitate organizational learning from differences can prove to maximize organizational structure, procedures and processes (Neal et.al., 2008, p. 34).

Diversity Training

There has always been a tremendous amount of controversy over the term "diversity training" and just how effective it is. For that matter, there is also much debate over the word "diversity" and what it really means. Not all, by far, are in favor of diversity training. As a matter of fact, TIME magazine came out with a significant article a couple years ago that described a study which proved diversity training did not work at all. More on that later. Of course, there have been studies which say just the opposite and praise the effectivity of sensitizing people to the cultural and ethnic differences between them.

Many companies hold training sessions regularly to ensure employees are up to speed in this area of the work lives. It has become essential to prove the fact that they are much attuned to diversity and have programs to prevent any racial, sexual, cultural, or ethnic harassment.

Critical Measures, a company that specializes in diversity training defines diversity this way:

"diversity includes, but goes well beyond, race and gender. To us, diversity includes age and generational differences, disability, religion, language, national origin, culture and cultural norms, marital status, sexual orientation, union and non-union, differences in personality style and many other characteristics. In short, diversity is any difference that can make a difference at work" (Our approach to diversity training, n.d., para.1)

The debate is, "does diversity training make us more, or less, sensitive to diversity?"

Does keeping it "on the front burner" make the situation better or worse? When we start including marital status, differences in personality, union and non-union, in mandatory diversity training in the workplace, have we gone too far? Or not far enough? Is HRM overstepping their bounds? Are they bringing people together to understand cultural differences -- or forcing eveyone's beliefs on everyone else? Experts and studies show evidence both ways.

The training company, Critical Measures, will tell us that, "New research shows that most human bias is unconscious. Teaching people about the nature of bias helps them move beyond guilt to understanding. We discuss how personal, cultural and organizational biases can affect recruitment, hiring and retention decisions/practices."

TIME magazine, on the other hand reported the results of a major decades-long study concerning diversity training and said this:

"A groundbreaking new study by three sociologists shows that diversity training has little to no effect on the racial and gender mix of a company's top ranks. Frank Dobbin of Harvard, Alexandra Kalev of the University of California, Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota sifted through decades of federal employment statistics provided by companies.

Their analysis found no real change in the number of women and minority managers after companies began diversity training. That's right -- none."

(Hutchens, 2007, para.2)

They are not alone by any means. Social psychologists have many theories to explain why diversity training doesn't work as intended. Studies show that any training generates a backlash and that mandatory diversity training in particular may even activate a bias (Hutchens, 2007).

So what does work? The study's findings in this area were striking too: at companies that assigned a person or committee to oversee diversity, ensuring direct accountability for results, the number of minorities and women climbed 10% in the years following the appointment. Mentorships worked too, particularly for black women, increasing their numbers in management 23.5%. Most effective is the combination of all these strategies, says Dobbin (Hutchens, 2007).

Facilitating Change Due to Diversity in the Workplace

Managers and supervisors have a unique challenge. These leaders have to not only accept change and manage change themselves, but they are most often charged with the task of helping others to cope with change. Change has become so prevalent, in fact, that in order to be successful, leaders not only have to accept change, they must drive change. So says the University of Notre Dame, Office of Human Resources.

Diversity will continue to place increasing demands on and present formidable challenges for businesses, educational institutions, health care systems, the criminal justice system, and other governmental entities, and the individuals who work within these systems. The demands and challenges center on change (Soto, 1999).

Diversity will demand that we rethink and revise our list of the competencies needed to work effectively at a professional level within an environment of increasing racial, ethnic and cultural diversity (Soto, 1999).

Currently, and more so in the future, professionals, and Human Resources Management must be culturally competent, that is, they must possess a wide repertoire of skills and a broad cultural knowledge base to interpret and understand the world views, communication styles, and unique ways of "thinking, being and doing" of others. Further, professionals will be required to use this new knowledge, skills, and abilities to accurately assess needs and select the best strategies and techniques to manage the dynamics of difference within their changing organizations (Soto, 1999).

There are literally hundreds of questions we should be asking ourselves, on an ongoing basis. Our individual and collective answers to these questions will give us insights as to our own "cultural baggage" and will also serve as an indication of how prepared we are to coexist in a world increasingly marked by diversity and change, work effectively across cultures, and serve as social-change agents. The journal, Black Issues in Higher Education, (Vol. 15, No. 20, 11/26/98), offered a list of questions. Following is just a small sample:

Have you established clear expectations and goals in the areas of diversity and affirmative action for your area of responsibility?

Do you actively and enthusiastically participate in diversity programs and initiatives on a frequent and ongoing basis?

Do you actively solicit input and support for diversity-related initiatives from "higher ups" (e.g., your supervisor, the board of directors/trustees) in your organization?

Do you "walk the talk" of diversity, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, or are your efforts more symbolic, token, and geared toward public relations?