1.2 RESEARCH AIM
The research gives an insight into the evolution of knowledge capital and a view of organizations as organisms rather than machines. Present world organizations aims at performing repetitive tasks efficiently but also encouraged the use of initiatives to deal with the non-repetitive tasks that they regard as far more important, by engaging the entire workforce and constructing a portfolio of knowledge workers.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- To understand the principle of independent thinking obedience.
- To understand that the gap between plans and outcomes concern knowledge management.
- Effective human resource planning involves employee engagement.
- Effectively using global capabilities and Professionals helps in driving intelligent solutions.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 WHAT IS LITERATURE REVIEW?
Saunders, et al (2007) describes “Reviewing the literature critically will provide the foundation on which research is built”. The literature review describes and critically analyses the published work of various authors and the subject of ‘organizational structure and knowledge management’. The reviewed literature also describes the notion of knowledge capital, its understanding, its development, the leadership structure and the managing style for bringing innovations into the organizations to handle multiple work activities.
2.2 EMPOWERMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE
The core assets of the modern business enterprise lie not in buildings, machinery, and real estate, but in the intelligence, understanding, skills, and experience of employees. The central managerial challenge of the modern business is harnessing the capabilities and commitment of knowledge workers in specific, and all the employees in general. (Bacal, 2004)
Unfortunately, it is a challenge that has not yet been met. Enlightened rhetoric of business leaders gave birth to different corporate ownership structures, governance systems, and incentives programs but the general system is still firmly planted in the industrial age. Organizations grant ownership rights only to the providers of financial capital, not to the providers of intellectual capital. They govern through small management teams at the top of hierarchies. People are motivated by carrot-and-stick incentives, combining a promised reward with a threatened penalty. (Bacal, 2004)
But on the other hand it is also true that business organizations have become less bureaucratic in recent years and that authority has been pushed down through the ranks. People at lower levels—unit managers, factory workers, customer service representatives have greater autonomy today than they did a generation ago. But such “empowerment,” as it’s commonly called, is limited. Workers are able to make decisions about their immediate jobs or to participate in somewhat broader decisions about their own units, but they still have little or no voice in decisions about the direction of the overall company. They remain essentially disenfranchised. Many knowledge workers, therefore, feel estranged from their organizations—their outlook distrustful, their attitude cynical, their loyalty tenuous. Empowerment of the worker is an essential step in the construction of Knowledge Capital. (Jacobson et al, 2005)
2.2 THE QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP AND POWER
Power in organizations is analogous in simple terms to physical power: it is the ability to mobilize resources (human and material) to get things done. Power is therefore a critical element in effective managerial behavior and gives birth to the concept of Leadership brand; a reputation for developing exceptional managers with a distinct set of talents that are uniquely geared to fulfill customers’ and investors’ expectations. A company with a leadership brand inspires faith that employees and managers will consistently make good on the firm’s promises. (Johnston et al, 2000)
Under the medieval guild structure, masters held the power over those who were employed. Power was clearly derived from ownership and control of the means of production. But modern organizations are designed to function as if they are a unitary organism. Power is structured into the organization design so that some will have more power than others. Power management and Leadership branding are therefore two important concepts to highlight the structures of organizations. Power management can further be explained by elucidating the difference between a Manager and a Leader. (Purcell et al, 2003)
A managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control. Whether his or her energies are directed toward goals, resources, organization structures, or people, a manager is a problem solver. The manager asks: “What problems have to be solved, and what are the best ways to achieve results so that people will continue to contribute to this organization?” From this perspective, leadership is simply a practical effort to direct affairs; and to fulfill his or her task, a manager requires that many people operate efficiently at different levels of status and responsibility. It takes neither genius nor heroism to be a manager, but rather persistence, tough-mindedness, hard work, intelligence, analytical ability, and perhaps most important, tolerance and goodwill. (Larry et al, 2008)
2.3 TAPPING IDEAS FROM ALL RANKS TO BUILT THE KNOWLEDGE CAPITAL
An important dimension strategic training and development in an organization is to engage the right people, at the right times, to the right degree in creative work. That engagement starts when the leader recasts the role of every employee and rather than simply rolling up their sleeves and executing top-down strategy, they ensure that employees must contribute imagination. As Torrington put it, “Traditional management prioritizes projects and assigns people to them. But increasingly, managers are not the source of the idea.”
In an article of Harvard Business Review, Cook tells a story of an eye-opening analysis of innovations at Google: “Its founders tracked the progress of ideas that they had backed versus ideas that had been executed in the ranks without support from above, and discovered a higher success rate in the latter category”. Similarly, he observed that Philip Rosedale, the founder and chairman of Linden Lab, the fast-growing company that manages Second Life, claims to give most workers enormous autonomy, and says the greatest successes come from workers’ own initiatives.
Cook also make an analysis of a research by Israel Drori, a professor at the College of Management in Israel, and Benson Honig, a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, highlighting the hazards of not distributing creative responsibilities across the organization. They observed a software company offering a new, sophisticated form of computer graphics from its inception in 1996 until its collapse, seven recently. While the venture enjoyed initial success, it was ultimately unsustainable because it depended too much only on the genius of its artist-founder—and took organizational creativity for granted.
2.4 AN INGREDIENT TO A LEARNING ORGANISATION
For most companies, organization design is neither a science nor an art; it’s an oxymoron. Organizational structures rarely result from systematic, methodical planning. Rather, they evolve over time, in fits and starts, shaped more by politics than by policies. The haphazard nature of the resulting structures is a source of constant frustration to senior executives. Strategic initiatives stall or go astray because responsibilities are fragmented or unclear. Turf wars torpedo collaboration and knowledge sharing. Promising opportunities die for lack of managerial attention. Overly complex structures, such as matrix organizations, collapse because of lack of clarity about responsibilities. (Worley et al, 2009)
Leaders may think that getting their organizations to learn is only a matter of articulating a clear vision, giving employees the right incentives, and providing lots of training. This assumption is not merely flawed—it’s risky in the face of intensifying competition, advances in technology, and shifts in customer preferences.
Organizations need to learn more than ever as they confront these mounting forces to construct a sound organizational structure. Each company must become a learning organization. The concept is not a new one. An organization is a system, with logic of its own, and all the weight of tradition and inertia. Therefore as the organizations keeps on learning, their working structures keep on evolving to construct the knowledge capital in the long run. (Martin et al 2010)
2.5 INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL = COMPETENCE x COMMITMENT
Commitment and competence are both embedded in how each employee of a company thinks about and does his or her work and in how the company organizes to get work done. Competency and commitment are both simultaneous in an effective organization. Competent employees with too many demands and not enough resources to cope with those demands quickly burn out, become depressed, and lack commitment. On the other hand a company can build commitment in three ways: First, reduce demand on employees by prioritizing work, focusing only on critical activities, and streamlining work processes. Second, increase resources by giving employees control over their own work, establishing a vision for the company that creates excitement about work, compensating workers fairly, sharing information on the company's long-range strategy, and providing new technologies. Third, turn demands into resources by exploring how company policies may erode commitment, ensuring that new managers and workers are clear about expectations, understanding family commitments, and having employees participate in decision making. (Dave, 2006)
2.6 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT’S NEXT GENERATION
Executives are the pivots of an organization and the knowledge economy demands a new kind of executive, one who freely shares ideas and expertise across the company while remaining fiercely committed to business unit performance. Morten T. Hansen and Bolko Von Oetinger propose Idea of T-shaped managers. The T-shaped managers are of the opinion that despite their best efforts, most companies continue to squander the greatest asset in today’s knowledge economy: the wealth of expertise, ideas, and latent insights that lies scattered across or deeply embedded in their organizations. They are of the opinion that capitalizing on these intellectual resources by using existing knowledge to improve performance or combining strands of knowledge scattered across the organization to create something altogether new—can help companies respond to a surprising array of challenges, from fending off smaller, nimbler rivals to integrating businesses shoved together in a merger. Many companies have tried to leverage this underused asset by investing heavily in knowledge management technology. The T-shape approach requires managers to change their behavior and the way they spend their time. The approach is novel but, when properly implemented, quite powerful.
The T-shaped management relies on a new kind of executive, one who breaks out of the traditional corporate hierarchy to share knowledge freely across the organization (the horizontal part of the “T”) while remaining fiercely committed to individual business unit performance (the vertical part). The successful T-shaped manager must learn to live with, and ultimately thrive within, the tension created by this dual responsibility. Although this tension is most acute for heads of business units, any T-shaped manager with operating unit obligations must wrestle with it. (Hansen et al, 2001)
A question one might ask is why organizations have to rely so heavily on managers to share knowledge? They can also construct a state-of-the-art knowledge management system which is good at transferring explicit knowledge—for example, the template needed to perform a complicated but routine task. But a direct personal contact is typically needed to effectively transfer implicit knowledge. Furthermore, merely moving documents around can never engender the degree of collaboration that’s needed to generate new insights. For that, companies really have to bring people together to brainstorm. (Boldman et al, 2003)
Morten T. Hansen and Bolko Von Oetinger suggest that effective T-shaped managers will benefit companies of almost any size, but they’re particularly crucial in large corporations where operating units have been granted considerable autonomy. Although giving business units greater freedom generally increases accountability, spurs innovation, and promotes sensitivity to local market conditions, it also can lead to competition between units, which may hoard, rather than share, expertise. By encouraging collaboration, a T-shaped management system can be a powerful counterbalance to such negative behavior.
A study in the Financial Times suggests that a research over the past years shows that few companies have recognized T-shaped management as a key to success and even fewer have enjoyed its benefits. In the following an example has been given to explain that how organizations successfully cultivate T-shaped managers and capitalize on the value they can create?
Energy giant BP Amoco is a sprawling enterprise with over 100,000 employees and operations in 100 countries. An in-depth examination of T-shaped management practices highlighted five specific types of value that T-shaped managers can generate. BP’s experience, in the following, suggests guidelines for creating an environment in which T-shaped managers will flourish. Such guidelines are important because the benefits of T-shaped management will not be realized if the concept is poorly implemented. The crux of the matter from various sources is that the senior executives must put in place mechanisms that simultaneously promote and discipline managers’ knowledge-sharing activities. (Rupp et al, 2003).
2.7 HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL TO BUILD KNOWLEDGE CAPITAL
Every manager knows that business runs better when people within an organization know and trust one another—deals move faster and more smoothly, teams are more productive, people learn more quickly and perform with more creativity. Strong relationships are the grease of an organization, is the believe of many managers. (Whitley, 2002)
Vroom has given a name of social capital to the relationships that make organizations work effectively. He suggests that the term nicely captures the notion that investments in these relationships return real gains that show up on the bottom line. In fact, it all sounds pretty simple and straightforward. Managers need only get their people connected with one another and wait for the payback.
Knowing that healthy relationships help an organization thrive is one thing; making those relationships happen is quite another. Eduardo Salas proposed that these are volatile times. Disruptive technologies spawn new products and markets daily and organizations have to respond with constantly changing structures. Businesses used to review strategies annually; now strategy is on the table constantly. Mergers and acquisitions are at an all—time high, throwing companies together and tearing them asunder at an alarming rate.
He analyze that these are virtual times, too. Most people used to work at the office from 9 to 5 every weekday. Now, aided by technology, work happens in every imaginable configuration of time and space. Telecommuters, virtual team members, and laptop have distorted the working space of traditional organiazations.
There are certain advantages to volatility and vitality. Volatility spawns opportunity: for every company crushed by new technology, a new one is born. And verticality gives employees flexibility, just as it gives companies the competitive weapon of being “out there” in the trenches. But volatility and verticality also erode relationships and for this reason managers must learn to invest in social capital. (Joanne et al, 1996)
SUMMARY
In the literature review the growing need of Knowledge capital and the respective importance of employee engagement has been highlighted. To analyze the practical aspect of the concept developed in the literature review, the theories are been applied on a software organization named as Aerelink. We begin with the structure of the organization, which is logically developed to form multidisciplinary teams around core processes, such as product development, order fulfillment, sales generation, and customer support.
Aerelink has a two-tier management structure, consisting of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board. The is responsible for the strategy, policy, aims, and results of Aerelink, while the acts as an advisory body for the Executive Board and oversees company affairs and Executive Board policies.
In addition, each of Aerelink’s is managed by a dedicated , the head of which reports directly to the CEO and Chairman of the Executive Board. Our research is concentrated to include Aerelink (UK) Ltd more specifically. It operates through two main brands, Network Delivery Service (NDS) & Network Integration and Support (NI&S).
Following are some of the issues to be explored.
- Recognizing employees as the most valuable assets?
- Do managers play an important role in talent management programs?
- Does empowerment of the employees leads to change management?
- Why is it easy to generate activity but harder to turn it into effective action?
- Is diversity a catalyst for innovation and creativity?
- Globalization has led to standardization of work activities?
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Patton (1990) methodology is defined as ‘the analysis of the principals of methods, rules and postulates employed by a discipline’ or ‘a development of methods to be applied within a discipline’. It also refers to more than a simple set of methods rather than philosophical assumptions. The multiple methods of explanatory and exploratory research techniques were used with the support of primary qualitative and quantitative data. Similarly Saunders et al (2003) came up with their ‘The Research Process Onion’ which comprises of different layers, where each layer explains the form and style of data to be collected from different areas of choice from any organization.
The classic model which looks like an onion is presented here in the form of an onion shaped figure. [Source: Saunders, M. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003)]
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACHES
Saunders et al (2003) has described two types of research approaches; one is called deductive and the other is termed as inductive. In the deductive approach there is the development of theory and hypothesis, and then there is a strategy to test that hypothesis. On the other hand as far as the inductive approach is concerned data collected is analysed leading to the establishment of a theory. Collis et al (2003) are of the opinion that in deductive approach the theory is ultimately destined to undergo a rigorous test. That is the reason that it is more popular in researches where natural sciences are involved. The major difference between the two approaches lies in the fact that the deductive approach normally involves collection of quantitative data and there is a journey from theory to data, whereas an element of close understanding is the life line of inductive approach. Here the theory results from the analysis and findings. So the inductive approach was followed while doing research on Aerelink.
3.3 RESEARCH STRATEGY
Saunders et al (2003) has defined research strategy as a plan laid out to carry out the research questions and achieving objectives. As far as this research is concerned, basically two types of techniques were the bottom line; one was the interviews and the second survey through questionnaires. As a matter of fact case study approach (Yin, 2003) provides the environment where all the techniques, for example, data collection and analysis can be applied. Saunders et al (2003) have declared the case study strategy as useful to justify the research questions and at the same time it is helpful in exploring existing theory. Morris et al (1991) have also stated that this strategy is helpful in gaining a rich understanding of the context in which research is carried out and the process involved to carry out. In this approach it is possible to employ different techniques and methods to collect data. In this research different methods like questionnaires, interviews , observations and other documentary evidences were recorded to gain the first hand knowledge to be used for data analysis.
3.4 RESEARCH IN AN ORGANISATION
This research involves the collection of primary data from the organisation which includes the survey and interviews as well as the data from financial statements.
3.5 PRIMARY (RESEARCH) DATA COLLECTION
“Primary data is normally regarded as data which is collected by the original researcher who is using the data for further investigation”. (Oliver, 2002) Primary research can also be referred as field work. Primary data can be obtained through two major techniques, qualitative and quantitative. This research is based on the mixed method of using both techniques, aiming to obtain opinions from both employees and financial statements
3.6 QUESTIONNAIRE
De Vaus (2002) has defined questionnaire as a general term which relates to the collection of all types of data collection, where all respondents are required to respond to the same set of questions. Although Oppenheim (2000) is of the opinion that it is the discretion of any one to understand whatever he wants by the term questionnaire yet it is important to highlight that the questionnaire in this research will be used for data collection purposes. Questions here are designed to get the desired data from the respondents. Saunders et al (2003) has underlined the importance of the questionnaire and has described two ways to introduce to the respondents. One is self administered and the other is interview administered.
3.7 SELF ADMINSTERED QUESTIONNAIRES
Saunders et al (2006) has very artistically differentiated among different situations where a questionnaire is used. Although in all situations the respondents themselves complete the questionnaires yet these have three types. These are delivery and collection, postal, and online questionnaire. In this research delivery and collection method have been used. The questionnaires were delivered to the head office in person and were collected after a few days.
3.8 INTERVIEWS
According to Saunders et al (2003) there are three different types interviews; structured, semi structured and unstructured interviews. Where structured interviews are based on a questionnaire designed according to pre planned questions. Semi structured interviews are considered as in-depth while unstructured interviews are termed as nonstandardised. In this research structured interviews were conducted from those holding managerial positions. This was important because they were only a few in numbers and there was every facility in terms of time and availability to record their views and collect data from them.
3.9 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
In this research the researcher has used the delivery and collections of the questionnaire in order to collect the primary data. The researcher has used the structured questionnaire as general term to include the all techniques of data collection in which each person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order. (DeVaus 2002) The structured questionnaire was given to the employees working at Aerelink, Kingston upon Thames.
3.10 DATA ANALYSIS
Before analyzing the quantitative data it is essential to turn the raw information into useful information (Saunders et al. 2007). In this regard the careful monitoring is needed to make sure the respondents answer all questions and do not include such questions which are incorrectly completed and not suitable for fair results.
3.11 ETHICAL ISSUES, CONSENT AND ACCESS
Access to the data and ethics are critical aspects for the success of any research (Saunders et al. 2007) I have made every effort to make sure that the research is conducted ethically. I informed the reception at the Aerelink and the research supervisor was also well informed about the ongoing research activities.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
QUESTION 1:
Recognizing employees as the most valuable assets?
77 % answered “Yes”.
23 % answered “No”.
0 % answered “Uncertain”.
QUESTION 2:
Do managers play an important role in talent management programs?
62 % answered “Yes”.
20% answered “No”.
18% answered “Uncertain”.
QUESTION 3:
Does empowerment of the employees leads to change management?
47 % answered “Yes”.
36% answered “No”.
17% answered “Uncertain”.
QUESTION 4:
Why is it easy to generate activity but harder to turn it into effective action?
41% answered “The gap between plans and outcomes”.
28% answered “The gap between plans and actions”.
31% answered “The gap between actions and outcomes”.
QUESTION 5:
Is diversity a catalyst for innovation and creativity?
63 % answered “Yes”.
34% answered “No”.
3% answered “Uncertain”.
QUESTION 6:
Globalization has led to standardization of work activities?
56 % answered “Yes”.
40 % answered “No”.
4 % answered “Uncertain”.
CHAPTER FIVE
ANALYSIS
The questionnaire findings were supported by doing face-to-face interviews with the executives to clarify the uncertainties. In the following a complete summary of the result findings and the live interviews has been analyzed to propose a conclusion.
QUESTION 1:
Recognizing employees as the most valuable assets?
Aerelink believes that its people are the foundation of its success. Regardless of the role in the organization, the company’s workforce consists of technologically savvy, globally-oriented people, who enjoy solving problems through direct contact with customers. Clearly, the way that customers interact with technology and access and apply information within their work processes, is shifting profoundly. As a result, today innovation in the industry in which the organization operates can be found at the intersection of information, software, and service-in the workflows of professionals. This requires a nimble, intelligent, and insightful workforce. Hiring, developing, motivating, and retaining the best people is key to deliver that combination of content, technology, customer insight, and fast-paced decision-making that is required to drive the creation of innovative products and services. Aerelink leverages the value its people create to build intellectual and brand capital.
QUESTION 2:
Do managers play an important role in talent management programs?
The employees are almost certain about the position of a manager in the talent management programs that ensures the availability of people with the right shills to be able to grow the business. It establishes a global framework for leadership criteria, assessment, and development. The idea is to identify critical workforce segments based on positions and skills that managers believe are essential to the execution of the business strategy. The following table summarize the workforce segments of the company.
(Source: Internal company financial report – 2009)
QUESTION 3:
Does empowerment of the employees leads to change management?
The employees are of the point of view that they can play a vital role in the development of strategic plan for change management. They contribution is to made through active involvement in product and customer focused task forces and in teams dedicated to reviewing organizational changes. Aerelink’s commitment to embedding employees’ skills and knowledge in the foundational initiatives of its strategy is one of the company’s strengths, and is enabled by the support systems provided through succession planning and management.
QUESTION 4:
Why is it easy to generate activity but harder to turn it into effective action?
The above question is linked with the role idea of strategy implementation to create knowledge capital by empowering the employees. Executing strategy is about planning what to do in order to achieve certain outcomes and making sure the actions we planned are actually carried out until the desired outcomes are achieved. However, the fast-changing unpredictable environment creates a gap between plans, actions, and outcomes, bridged by effective employee engagement to generate the knowledge capital. The questionnaire summarizes the following information taken from the employees:
-
The gap between plans and outcomes concerns knowledge: it is the difference between what we would like to know and what we actually know. It means that you cannot create perfect plans.
-
The gap between plans and actions concern alignment: it is the difference between what we would like people to do and what they actually do. It means that even if you encourage them to switch off their brains, you cannot know enough about them to programme them perfectly.
-
The gap between actions and outcomes concerns effects: it is the difference between what we hope our actions will achieve and what they actually achieve. You can never fully predict how the environment will react to what you do to. It means that you cannot know in advance exactly what outcomes the actions of your organization are going to create.
Faced with a lack of knowledge, it seems logical to seek more detailed information. Faced with a problem of alignment it feels natural to issue more detailed instructions. And faced with disappointments in the effects being achieved, it is quite understandable to impose more detailed controls.
QUESTION 5:
Is diversity a catalyst for innovation and creativity?
Aerelink’s employee population is diverse and worldwide. The employees see diversity as a catalyst for innovation and creativity. It is always a balance between fitting the best global candidates into key roles and filling local roles with talent who understand the culture. The executives are of the opinion that through optimization of global shared services, business process improvement, resource deployment, and acquisition integration, Human Resources supported Aerelink to innovate better and faster, and to operate more efficiently. In the following a table representing the geographical spread of the employees has been analyzed:
(Source: Internal company financial report – 2009)
QUESTION 6:
Globalization has led to standardization of work activities?
Effective hiring involves a mixture of clear strategic thinking, personal judgement, time and money. The process of Globalization has encouraged the standardization of the workforce by separating the rotten apples from the top bananas when hiring and maintaining Professionals in organizations.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
A great workforce is made up of great people. In recent years, so many companies have devoted so much energy in identifying, developing, and retaining what have come to be known as “A players” in the latest issue of Business Week. Firms like GE, IBM, and Microsoft all have well-developed systems for managing and motivating their high-performance and high-potential employees, and at the same time getting rid of their mediocre ones. Larry Bossidy, in the best-selling book Execution, for example, calls this sort of differentiation among employees “the mother’s milk of building a performance culture.”
Focusing exclusively on “A players” puts right the horse before the cart. But only high performers are not going to add much value to an organization if they are smoothly and rapidly pulling carts that are not going to market. They are going to be effective only when they are harnessed to the right cart—that is, engaged in work that is essential to company overall strategy. Companies, practicing knowledge management technology, can systematically identify their strategically important “A positions”, and then focus on the “A players” who should fill them. The companies have to manage their “A positions” in such a way that the “A players” are able to deliver the A performance needed in these crucial roles. (Harvard Business Review)
While conventional wisdom might argue that the firms with the most talent win. But given the financial and managerial resources needed to attract, select, develop, and retain high performers, companies simply cannot afford to have “A players” in all positions. Rather the reality is that the firms with the right talent win. Businesses need to adopt strategic training & development to build a portfolio of workforce management, placing the very best employees in strategic positions, good performers in support positions, and eliminating nonperforming employees and jobs that don’t add value for building a knowledge capital in the long run. (The Economist)
THE PRUSSIAN ANSWER TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE CAPITAL
Despite the innovations in the management science, most of the systems in large organizations which determine how people carry out planning and budgeting, target setting and performance management are still based on engineering principles. Also, globalisation has led to standardisation while pressure for increased compliance and fear of litigation impose further constraints. So, despite our avowed rejection of the consequences of scientific management, we may infect be moving closer to turning not just workers into robots but managers too. There is an efficient model for bridging the problem in practice and theory. It involves applying a few general principles in constantly changing specific circumstances. It was developed by the last people you would expect to have followed this path: the Prussian Army. They put the solution into practice in the nineteenth century, before Taylor created the problem. In the 18th century, the Prussian King Frederick the Great had come closer than anyone has ever done to creating an army of robots. It was highly successful. Then, in 1806, twenty years after Frederick’s death, it met with disaster at the hands of Napoleon on the field of Jena. Times had changed; it had not. A group of reformers within the army embarked on a programme of fundamental change.
The changes were based on insights into the limits of human knowledge and a view of organizations as organisms rather than machines. The Prussians developed a new concept of discipline, “independent thinking principal. The crux of the concept highlights a brief conclusion to manage employees in a way to generate knowledge capital in the long run.
- Decide what really matters
You cannot create perfect plans, so do not attempt to do so. Do not plan beyond the circumstances you can foresee. Instead, use the knowledge which is accessible to work on the talent management to achieve outcomes the organization aims at. Formulate your strategy of knowledge capital as an intention rather than a plan.
- Get the message across
Empowerment by spreading the message to the employees and give them responsibilities for carrying out their part in the strategic plan of the organization. Keep it simple. Don’t tell people what to do and how to do it. Instead, be as clear as you can about your intentions. Say what you want people to achieve and above all tell them why. Then ask them to tell you what they are going to do as a result.
- Give employee space and support
Do not try to predict the effects your actions will have, because you can’t. Instead, encourage people to adopt their actions to realise the overall intention as they observe what is actually happening. Give them some boundaries broad enough to allow them to take decisions for themselves and act upon them.
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
-
Rupp, A. D. & Smith, W. T. (2003) ‘An examination of emerging strategy and sales performance: motivation, chaotic change and organizational structure’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(3), pp. 156-167
-
Whitley, P. (2002) ‘Motivation’, Capstone Publishing, Oxford, Great Britain
-
Vroom, V. H. (1990) ‘Manage people, not personnel: Motivation and performance appraisal’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Eduardo Salas (2006) ‘Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Joanne Johnson, John R Baldwin and Brent Diverty (1996) ‘The implications of innovations for human resource strategies’, Elsevier Science Ltd, 28(2), pp. 103-119.
-
Larry Bossidy, Ram Charan (2008) ‘Execution: The discipline of getting things done’, Crown Publishing Group.
-
Levinson, M. (2006).The Economist, Guide to Financial Markets. The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
-
Mick, B. and John, C. (2004) ‘Managing the Human Resources’, 4th edition. London: Prentice Hall.
-
Torrington, D. (2004) ‘International Human Resource Management: Think Globally, Act Locally’, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
-
Sparrow, P. And Schuler, R. And Jackson, S. (1994) ‘Convergence or divergence: human resource practices and policies for competitive advantage worldwide’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), pp. 267-299.
-
Ian, B. And Len, H. (1997) ‘Human Resource Management’, 2nd edn. Pitman Publishing.
-
Roger, L. M. And Mihnea, C. M. (2002) ‘Capital versus Talent: The Battle that’s Reshaping Business’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Bruce, E.P. (2007) ‘A Strategic Risk Approach to Knowledge Management’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Pentz, M. A. (2000) ‘Institutionalizing community-based prevention through policy change’, Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3).
-
Dave Ulrich. (2006) ‘Intellectual Capital is Competence and Commitment’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Bacal, R. (2004) ‘How to Manage Performance: 24 Lessons for Improving Performance’, Mc Graw Hill, New York, U.S.
-
Al Jacobson, and Laurence, P. (2005) ‘The Cost of Knowledge’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
W. Chan Kim, and Renee, M. (2009) ‘Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy’, Harvard Business Review, Boston, U.S.
-
Boldman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2003) ‘Reframing Organization: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership’, 3rd Edition, Jossey-Bass Press, San Francisco, U.S.
-
Margaret, F. And Caroline, H. (1999) ‘Introducing Human Resource Management’, 2nd Edition, Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
