Taking a look at organizational design this week, one of the
main areas of a design that resonated with me was the process in which an
organization picks its employees.
When utilizing the Star Model, an organization’s human
resource policies ‘…produce the talent required by the strategy and structure
of the organization, generating the skills and mind-sets necessary to implement
the chosen direction’ (Galbraith, p. 4).
In Contingency Theory, the psychological factors of an organization’s
employees are of extreme importance, and must be taken into account when making
any decisions regarding the company’s design.
When it comes down to it, you cannot achieve the goals your
organization’s strategy sets out to accomplish without the right people in
place to execute the plan. An
organization that has taken this concept to heart is O2, a mobile-network
operator in the United Kingdom. In 2007, the company began using a new
recruitment process in hopes of recruiting up to 1,500 new employees to its
contact center.
Using a performance-based selection process, the
organization recruited 950 employees.
The process ensured that employee engagement began from the moment a
person was selected, and continued throughout the employee’s tenure with the
company. The candidates interacted with
management from the moment they are affiliated with the organization in any
way, allowing them to grow and develop new skills. The prospective employee was assessed using
very specific role requirements, so both parties were able to go in with an
understanding of what the job entails and how it fits the employee.
Candidates then provided feedback on the process during and
after the hiring experience. Feedback
continued through an anonymous discussion forum and an O2 employee online
discussion forum. But while this summary
of the company’s processes provides a great example of how an organization
selects its people in order to fulfill its strategy, how it treats those
employees going forward is the main point I took from the profile I read.
O2 utilizes a variety of incentives and perks to keep its
employees happy and motivated towards achieving the organization’s strategic
goals. Employees have an opportunity to
influence the direction of the company through the ‘Real Director’s Program’,
in which selected employees on the organization’s front lines get to go into
the board room and share their insights.
They are also able to earn
company awards, such as the ‘Spirit of O2 Awards’ in which fellow employees can
nominate a single person or a team who they feel has truly made a difference in
the company.
The results?
According to the journal article, 72 percent of the company’s employees
believed the company is really trying to help them in 2007, and 76 percent felt
they could make a valuable contribution to the organization’s success and were
excited about where the company was going (Pollitt, p. 23).
The morale of the story:
You can have the best process for finding the top talent, the talent
that will help you achieve your organization’s goals. But unless you motivate that talent, and
cultivate an organizational culture that will motivate and challenge them to
grow, you will not meet your strategic goals, and you won’t keep your talent.
O2 has turned into the U.K.’s leading provider of mobile
phones and broadband Internet, no doubt the company’s strategic goal from the
outset. They’ve accomplished that by
picking the right people to work in their organization – and by making sure
those people stay motivated towards achieving the company’s goals.
References
Galbraith.,
J.R. (2002). Designing Organizations, pp. 1-8.
Galbraith.,
J.R.. (2011). The Star Model, pp. 1-6.
Pollitt, D.
(2007). O2 makes the right connections
with employees: Company among
top five in UK for staff satisfaction. Human Resource Management International
Digest,
15(7), pp. 23-24. Retrieved February 6, 2012,
from ABI/INFORM Global.
(Document ID: 1369371241).
|
Nice post, Andrew. I particularly liked that you mentioned that the rewards or incentives offered by O2 align the individual's goals with the organization's goals. As we saw in the reading, this alignment is key to successful organizational design.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that prospective employees get very specific role requirements. Worley and Lawler (2006) explain, "Instead of telling employees what their jobs are, built-to-change organizations encourage people to find out what needs to be done. In lieu of job descriptions, frequent goal-setting reviews help establish what individuals and teams are expected to accomplish in the near future" (p. 19). Because of O2's specific job requirements, do you think the org would have a tough time changing or adapting to its environment?
Courtney,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I do think that, based on the article's summary of O2's system, that they would be able to change or adapt to an ever-changing environment.
The article speaks about some of the incentives the organization offers, specifically the 'Real Directors' program. I think, that, while this is portrayed as an incentive to the employees, this is actually a way for the higher-ups to be able to get a more accurate sense of where their business is headed, and what short-term advantages they might be able to exploit. Who better to tell you where you can improve, or where the industry might be headed, then the people on the front lines who are doing the bulk of the research and development? If you have people who fit your organizational design, more then likely you are going to have people who are constantly looking to improve their skills and their knowledge of the field. So in O2's case, while their specific role requirements may not make them the prototypical 'built-to-change organization' on the surface, some of their incentives have been cleverly - in my opinion - designed to be able to combat that.
Thanks again for the response!
Hi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYour post is an excellent representation of the key components of the Star Model. Talking about a cross-unit, cross-functional organization. It would appear that the senior management of O2 truly understands the changing needs of people, and went to great lengths to get that "fit" that was discussed in our Star Model reading. From what I read, this company got off the ground with a "reconfigurable, changeable structure." And since it apparently started in this manner, employees who were determined to be a good "fit," immediately bought into the progressive corporate culture, where they have been able to thrive and meet their own goals of personal satisfaction. If only all companies could take O2 as an example of how to do things right. Great analysis!
David
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the reply. The reason why this company stuck out to me is because they went to such great lengths to get the right people in their company, right from the recruitment stage. But most importantly of all, once they found those people, they did everything they could to keep them.
I've never understood when people say things like, 'You'll never hear your boss tell you how great you are at your job". Why? Isn't that what everyone wants to hear? Do people assume that because they say that, then you'll come back and say, 'Well why don't you pay me more money then?'. I have never followed that logic.
If you have a talented employee that you value, why not let them know you value them? Show them with incentives, show them with increased opportunities, and show them through how much you value their voice. These are the people that are the lifeblood of your organization, and carry out the strategic goals of an organization that is built-for-change. If you don't take care of them and make them care about what you're doing, why would they ever stick around? I loved how O2 took a more personal approach to their employees, and it's really paid off for them.
Thanks very much for the response!
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI share your enthusiasm for the importance of hiring to an organization's success. O2 is a great example of this and I think in many ways that an organization is only as good as the people who make up that organization. When I was reading your description of O2's hiring process I thought about the implications of a well-thought-out rigorous interview process.
In your post you state that at O2 "the prospective employee was assessed using very specific role requirements, so both parties were able to go in with an understanding of what the job entails and how it fits the employee" (Mees, 2012). I immediately thought about the Galbraith (2002, Chapter 6) reading where the author makes a point that, not only does the hiring process allow you to select the best employees for your organization, but it also sends a message to the prospective employee about the dedication, style, work ethic (etc.) required of them once they accept a position at the company. I experience this first hand with my last company, Stryker. Stryker's interview process was so intense and rigorous that it sent the message to me that I would have to be equally intense and agressive once I joined the company. The interview process should give employees a taste of the organization culture and expectations.
I enjoyed your post.