Descripción de los casos de uso del negocio

Much has been written about the various roles of HR professionals and how they have changed over time. As far as HR strategy formulation and implementation are concerned, there is little doubt that this has generally fallen to HR directors, charged with forging the links between the business strategy, organisational culture and the HR strategy. There is also little doubt that since the 1980s the presence of HR directors on the boards of both public and private institutions has increased. A prerequisite for board membership is the ability to use the business, financial and strategic language used by boards.

In larger or more complex organisations, HR directors have recognised the level of detail required in strategy work and in common with other functions, have created specialist posts for middle ranking HR professionals, to support them in their strategic responsibilities (rather as a politician might have support staff conducting research etc. or civil servants responsible for overseeing implementation of political decisions). In a few organisations these have developed into strategy units, with responsibility extending into HR policy and procedure but stopping short of transactional processes.

HR strategy

HR effectiveness

Financial performance Business

strategy

HR practices

HR outcomes employee:

competence commitment flexibility

Quality of goods and services performance

Productivity

The HR Strategist as Executive, Advisor or Consultant

Armstrong, in Strategic Human Resource Management: A guide to action, notes:

That coherent and integrated human resource strategies are only likely to be developed if the top team understand and act upon the strategic imperatives associated with the employment, development and motivation of people.

This will be achieved more effectively if there is a human resource director who is playing an active and respected role as a business partner.

The effective implementation of human resource strategies depends on the

involvement, commitment and co-operation of line managers and of staff generally.

There would seem to be no basic process, therefore, for formulating effective strategies but we can make some general comments and statements about the possible routes.

Formulating a human resource strategy is the start of effective human resource management but implementing it is the main task. Strategies tend to be full of general aims and rhetoric and these must be translated into concrete action plans with clearly stated, measurable objectives and the resources to achieve them. All too often there is a gap between the fine words of the strategy and what actually happens on the ground! There are a number of reasons for this:

Complex or ambiguous initiatives may not be understood by those who have to carry them out or may be perceived in a way which is different to what was intended

There is a tendency for people to accept only those initiatives which they perceive to be relevant to their own areas

Where initiatives represent change of some sort, people may resist that change for a number of reasons

If the initiative appears to be contrary to the organisation's culture, it will be resisted (for example, delayering in a culture where role within the organisation is a driving force)

If the initiative is seen as a threat, for example, to job security

If the initiative is perceived as unfair

Inertia can lead to initiatives being only partly implemented.

Armstrong identifies a number of "barriers" to the implementation of human resource strategies, such as:

Failure to understand the strategic needs of the business with the result that human resource strategic initiatives are seen as irrelevant or counter-productive

Inadequate assessment of the environmental and cultural factors that affect the content of the strategy

The development of ill-conceived and irrelevant initiatives, possibly because they are current fads or because there has been an ill-digested analysis of best practice that does not fit the organisation's requirements

The selection of one initiative in isolation, without considering its implications on other areas of human resource practice or trying to ensure that a coherent holistic approach is adopted

Failure to appreciate the practical problems of getting the initiative accepted by all concerned and of embedding it as part of the normal routines of the organisation

Inability to persuade top management actively to support the initiative

Inability to achieve ownership among line managers

Inability to gain the understanding and acceptance of employees

Failure to take into account the need to have established supporting processes for the initiative (for example, performance management to support performance pay)

Failure to recognise that the initiative will make new demands on the commitment and skills of the line managers who may have to play a major part in implementing it (for example, trying to implement an appraisal system without training line managers in the skills necessary to carry out the process)

Failure to ensure that the resources (finance, people and time) are available to implement the initiative (for example, failing to train managers in appraisal systems because there is no budget to finance that training)

Failure to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy and to take swift remedial action where things are not going according to plan.

A planned approach to strategy formulation and implementation should help to avoid many of these barriers. A thorough analysis of the needs of the business, coupled with an analysis of likely barriers, will ensure that steps can be taken to avoid difficulties. It is important to consider the monitoring and evaluation of the initiative during the implementation stage so that problems can be identified and dealt with quickly.

Caldwell (in "The changing roles of personnel managers: old ambiguities, new

uncertainties", 2003) carried out an exhaustive review of 98 organisations randomly selected from 500 major UK companies, ranked by (financial) turnover. HR specialists in senior positions were asked to specify their role based on four descriptive types:

Advisor/internal consultant to senior and line management

Service provider called upon by line managers to provide specific HR assistance and support

Regulator formulating and monitoring the observance of HR practice

Change agent proactively pushing forward an agenda concerned with culture change and organisational transformation.

By far the most common role fulfilled by the HR specialists in the sample was that of advisor, and next most important was the change agent role. These results support the findings of other research which suggests that top managers as well as HR specialists themselves believe that a number of HR activities are critical to the firm's competitive advantage – particularly, reward and remuneration schemes, performance-related pay systems, and managing employee skills and performance.

Sources of Authority, Influence and Power for the HR Strategist

In the same way that the content of an HR strategy must "fit" with the internal and external environments, the process of implementation must fit. Since every organisation is different every implementation strategy must fit.

Clearly, board membership or at least a voice on the board, is a great aid to implementation.

HR practitioners are often confused about who is their prime customer: the staff, the unions, line managers or the board? The customer for HR strategy must be the board and

particularly the chief executive. With the ear of the chief executive, implementation is much more likely to be successful.

Lower down in the organisation there is also a need for champions; individuals who:

Understand the strategy to be implemented

Are committed to it

Have social capital locally in order to facilitate implementation locally.

The problem with champions is that:

To have credibility, locally, they will have been in post for a while

They are often talented people whose career is characterised by frequent moves.

The combination of these two factors means that champions are not always as useful in practice as the theory would suggest.

Marchington and Wilkinson in People Management and Development (2002) suggest five reasons why HR strategy is blocked or slowed:

(a) A disconnect between managers responsible for implementation and senior managers responsible for the strategy. This may be ideological ("them up their have now idea what work is like down here in the real world") or cynicism about the commitment to the strategy in the long term ("they will have another grand plan by next week").

(b) Work overload and therefore, the conflict of priorities.

(c) A lack of competence in implementing change – this may reflect the need for training in interpersonal or managerial skill.

(d) The desire for supervisors to maintain flexibility by adapting the rules

(e) A lack of awareness of the rules by both the formulators and the implementers of strategy.