Showing posts with the label human resources

Managing for Others or Managing for Yourself

Managing is an art form that relied heavily on critical thinking and communication skills to keep large groups of people working toward the same goals. Stronger managers focus on the development of their teams to meet market needs. People who can manage for others versus themselves is a great asset any organization. Managers who can meet performance goals and do so in a way that creates a better department should be in high demand.  It is in our natural best interest to manage for ourselves and this can make it a difficult competing ideology against managing for others. When someone becomes aware they should manager for others they have done so against the backdrop of years of learning, insight and reflection.   People who create these conclusions have thought about what is important. They must also be able to step above their biological and emotional needs to take a higher road in workplace decisions. When choices are required they look to promote the group over themselve

Organizational Justice Builds Better Companies

Organizations are collectives of people that create mini-societies with rules , beliefs , and symbols . As a society , there are inherent values that each person expects from their employer that helps build greater forms of trust and commitment . When those values are inconsistently applied and result in distributive and procedural injustice the financial failure of the company is not far into the future . Distributive Justice determines who receives rewards in an organization while procedural justice describes the treatment of employees based upon the policies & procedures of the organization (Fields, Pang & Chiu, 2000). Employees expect that companies are willing to reward them fairly based on effort as well as have their rights protected by the organization . When distributive and procedural justice breaks down it is usually the result of the inappropriate application of rewards and

Is Affirmative Action Still Effective?

As the twentieth century begins and in midst of Ferguson conflict and Selma fiftieth memorial march, a legitimate question emerges as to whether or not Affirmative Action and its application are still effective and compulsory. The historical background, legal ground and current social changes introduce many challenges to the half-a century-old policy. The authors wrote a solid reading of the policy from an academic perspective which presents a trial to understand the past, the present and the future for this act.   This paper traces the elements of Affirmative Action from past to present towards a new approach for the act, using an analytical framework called the Archeology Method (Foucault, 1972). This qualitative method reviews past discourse and events, evaluating artifacts in order to assimilate different historical processes and draw conclusions for what is happening in the present.  The authors modeled Affirmative Action in a multi-dimensional approach to purposefully

Using Action Plans to Increase Performance

Action plans offer the opportunity help people think through the various challenges they face and apply some type of plan on how to overcome these difficulties. Whether discussing students, employees our yourself it is beneficial to consider the benefits of implementing action plans in a way that encourages greater insight by the person writing them. Insight sometimes leads to higher levels of performance. In my experience in labor relations and as a professor in business I find that performance issues may not be willful but are a result of a lack of experience or understanding. For example, in labor relations I have found attendance to be a major employer concern. Through the standard grievance process employees can promise to make it to work on time but without an action plan the problem isn't likely to be resolved soon. The same idea applies to students who consistently fail to turn their work by class deadlines. Each assignment they scramble for some excuse that will get th

Are Rude and Aggressive Managers Destroying Your Business?

We have become accustomed to the hard nosed manager that guides employees on the really important aspects of business. The problem is, such managers, even though well intentioned, lower satisfaction in the workplace and are counterintuitive to development. A study of 200 full-time adults found that positive relationships superseded mentoring even though both contributed to organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010). The image of the strong and tough manager that gives it to their employees straight is something that should be left in the manufacturing plants of yesteryear. The same can be said of the sarcastic and aggressive personality we often associate with upward mobile career oriented people. Their ability to develop greater commitment and satisfaction among employees is likely as them having a sunny disposition. Researchers found that mentoring behaviors and positive verbal communication created higher levels of communication sa