|
PEOPLE
MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Planning
For some time
now, in most organizations, work roles have been defined by job specifications, from which job descriptions are drawn up, perhaps
accompanied by a person specification. This system works reasonably well:
it makes sense because it ensures that employers and jobholders have a
clear and mutual understanding of a given job’s requirements. Recently
though, as employers have increasingly required people with the ability to
work ‘outside the box’, job specifications – and even job
descriptions which are normally more flexible, are seen by some as too
rigid and too narrow a way of defining work requirements.
One problem with the traditional, fixed job specification is that it is
tailored to the individual, and does not ‘fit’ well into scoping the
responsibilities of a dynamic work group. This is a significant drawback
for the matrix type of organization seeking to develop multi-functional or
multi-skilled groups. An alternative approach is to define objectives for
‘work packages’ and to negotiate their achievement, perhaps with the
team, but more likely with the team leader who will have a range of
options for achieving those objectives (including sub-contracting part of
the work). This involves classifying the work to be done so that it is
understood, is rational in its nature, and acceptable to the people
concerned. It may effectively mean that the task of job specification is
passed down the line: it will certainly mean that tasks and
responsibilities are intermingled.
These trends are developing against a backdrop of ever changing
legislation on employment. It is of course prudent for any manager not
only to keep abreast of new and amended legislation, but also to consider
the implications for his or her own areas of responsibility. Managers
should not need reminding that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable
reason for inadvertently breaching it! Yet national surveys continually
reveal alarming levels of non-compliance or ignorance on well signposted
employment legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act (1996),
working time regulations (1998), the statutory Minimum Wage (1999) and the
imminent rulings on entitlements for part-time workers, and gender
re-assignment.
It is axiomatic that legislation alone will not alter the way people work.
Employee representatives have some small impact; the employees themselves
are somewhat more influential, but the main impact on the organization and
performance of human resources comes from management discretion in the
exercise of its prime responsibilities.
| POINTS TO
PONDER |
 |
|
