european journal of social sciences issn: 1450-2267 - EuroJournals
european journal of social sciences issn: 1450-2267 - EuroJournals european journal of social sciences issn: 1450-2267 - EuroJournals
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 5, Number 3 (2007) From a textbook perspective, competitive markets are relatively uncomplicated and easily understood; no uncertainty with complete information, complete resource mobility, products or services which are homogenous among rival firms, and a large number of buyers or sellers in the market so each firm is a price-taker. This view assumes, of course, zero transaction costs, i.e., the costs of discovering, contracting, monitoring and enforcing market exchanges. With this assumption, the determination of demand collapses into a relatively easy calculation. However, as Leibenstein pointed out: “Microeconomics is not concerned with the internal workings of the organization. The problem of internal efficiency is assumed away by postulating the existence of a production function, combined with the maximization postulate. Once we imagine that the firm knows the relationship between inputs and outputs, we can magically get the best results, then nothing more need be said. Although such a simplification of reality is useful for some types of theory construction, at present, it seems desirable to try to develop theories on a more realistic basis.” (1987, p.3) When we enter the actual world of economic transactions and competitive markets, environmental forces such as degrees of uncertainty, instability, complexity, information asymmetries, and positive transaction costs prevail, therefore nothing must be taken for granted or simply assumed away. Strategic positioning, product differentiation, and organizational culture do play a critical role in the attainment of a competitive advantage in the market. The unique, difficult to imitate, internal resource configuration of a firm provides it with an edge in the competitive market (Barney, Wright & Ketchen, 2001). This implies that the strategic development and employment of a firm’s human resources are key to acquiring a competitive advantage. These ideas have helped shape new visions for the function of a firm’s human resource department. The Basic Linkage of Derived Demand and Human Resource Planning Process Although commonly cited throughout most labor economics texts, “the demand for labor is derived from the demand in the product/service market” is the mantra which often masks the complexities of this relationship and is one that must be fully understood for effective competition. At its most elementary level, the derived demand principle states that a firm’s demand for human resources is derived from the firm’s product or service market. This proposition provides a pathway that links a firm’s resource market with it product/service market. The basic implication of this principle is that the firm’s human resource planning process is simply an algebraic count: given a forecast of product demand, the quantity of labor services is simply calculated from the umber of units sold or forecast to be sold. Since most organizations can generalize the headcount required per unit volume production, the personnel requirements seem as straightforward as the raw materials requirements. However there are many conditions and factors in the product/service market that influences and shape the quantity and mix of labor services demanded by the firm. Planning for Derived Demand In the strategic human resource management planning process, the mix and quantity of labor services required can potentially span a large and variable range of skills and talents. Furthermore, simple changes or shifts in the amount forecast can have dire consequences with respect to the profitability, cost, effectiveness and efficiency of the firm. For example, in the service related markets, firms tend to be labor intensive and it is not unusual for the firm to spend anywhere from forty to eighty cents of each revenue dollar for employees. In manufacturing these costs can range from thirty-five to sixty percent of revenue (Henderson, 2005). Swings in profitability and efficiency are relatively sensitive to shifts in such labor costs. With an overestimate of demand for human resources, the firm may take on substantially more 90
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 5, Number 3 (2007) labor cost than required and this may then result in lost profits and inefficient utilization of employees. Underestimates may result in underutilization and shortages of essential employees. Potentially missed market opportunities may result and rival co-optation of market shares may ensue. In either case, the realization of the firm’s expected competitive advantage may simply turn on the variability of its forecast for human resources. It becomes fairly evident that strategic human resource management should be a part of the formulation stage of the firm’s strategic management process. Decision-makers must be provided with human resource contingency plans and cost impacts as they relate to overall firm profitability and efficiency. This also requires that the human resource manager must go beyond simply understanding the firm’s human resource market (input side) and develop a working conceptual knowledge of the forces affecting the firm’s competitive position in the product/service market and how this will relate to the human resource market. Table 1: Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Structures Mechanistic Structures Result When an Organic Structures Result When an Organization makes Organization makes these Choices these Choices • Individual Specialization • Joint specialization Employees work separately and specialize in one Employees work together and coordinate their actions to clearly defined task find the best way of performing a task. • Simple Integrating Mechanisms • Complex Integrating Mechanisms Hierarch of authority is clearly defined and is the Task forces and teams are the major integrating major integrating mechanism mechanisms • Centralization • Decentralization Authority to control tasks is kept at the top of the Authority to control tasks is delegated to people at all organization. Most communication is vertical. levels in the organization. Most communication is lateral. • Standardization • Mutual Adjustment Extensive use is made of rules and SOPs to Extensive use is made of face-to-face contact to coordinate coordinate tasks, and work process is predictable. tasks, and work process is relatively unpredictable. • Status-Conscious Informal Organization • Expertise-Conscious informal organization Employees protect their area of authority and Employees share their skills with others, and authority and responsibility from others. responsibility change over time. Adapted from Jones (2004), p. 78 Uncertainty and Dynamism One of the major forces shaping and complicating a firm’s demand for human resources arises from the degree of market certainty and dynamism facing the business firm. These forces impact the derived demand pathway by causing the firm to alter its organizational design and structure. Table I illustrates the characteristics of mechanistic and organic organizational design and structures. Typically mechanistic organizations tend to be hierarchical with many levels of management. Whereas organic structures, associated with uncertainty and instability, tend to be more flattened and require a different mix of skills, roles, and number of employees. Figure 2 illustrates changes in environmental forces with regard to changes in organizational design and structure. At the end of the ranges the characteristics of mechanistic and organic structures emerge much more distinctly. The choices made in the design of work and interaction determines the resulting organizational form – ranging from organic to mechanistic. 91
- Page 39 and 40: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 41 and 42: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 43 and 44: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 45 and 46: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 47 and 48: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 49 and 50: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 51 and 52: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 53 and 54: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 55 and 56: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 57 and 58: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 59 and 60: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 61 and 62: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 63 and 64: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 65 and 66: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 67 and 68: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 69 and 70: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 71 and 72: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 73 and 74: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 75 and 76: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 77 and 78: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 79 and 80: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 81 and 82: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 83 and 84: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 85 and 86: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 87 and 88: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 89: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 93 and 94: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 95 and 96: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 97 and 98: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 99 and 100: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 101 and 102: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 103 and 104: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 105 and 106: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 107 and 108: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 109 and 110: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 111 and 112: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 113 and 114: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 115 and 116: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 117 and 118: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 119 and 120: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 121 and 122: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 123 and 124: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 125 and 126: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 127 and 128: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 129 and 130: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 131 and 132: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 133 and 134: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 135 and 136: 3. Result and Discussion 1. Profile
- Page 137 and 138: European Journal of Social Sciences
- Page 139 and 140: Table 2: The Channels of the respon
European Journal <strong>of</strong> Social Sciences – Volume 5, Number 3 (2007)<br />
labor cost than required and this may then result in lost pr<strong>of</strong>its and inefficient utilization <strong>of</strong> employees.<br />
Underestimates may result in underutilization and shortages <strong>of</strong> essential employees. Potentially missed<br />
market opportunities may result and rival co-optation <strong>of</strong> market shares may ensue. In either case, the<br />
realization <strong>of</strong> the firm’s expected competitive advantage may simply turn on the variability <strong>of</strong> its<br />
forecast for human resources.<br />
It becomes fairly evident that strategic human resource management should be a part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
formulation stage <strong>of</strong> the firm’s strategic management process. Decision-makers must be provided with<br />
human resource contingency plans and cost impacts as they relate to overall firm pr<strong>of</strong>itability and<br />
efficiency. This also requires that the human resource manager must go beyond simply understanding<br />
the firm’s human resource market (input side) and develop a working conceptual knowledge <strong>of</strong> the<br />
forces affecting the firm’s competitive position in the product/service market and how this will relate<br />
to the human resource market.<br />
Table 1: Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Structures<br />
Mechanistic Structures Result When an Organic Structures Result When an Organization makes<br />
Organization makes these Choices<br />
these Choices<br />
• Individual Specialization • Joint specialization<br />
Employees work separately and specialize in one Employees work together and coordinate their actions to<br />
clearly defined task<br />
find the best way <strong>of</strong> performing a task.<br />
• Simple Integrating Mechanisms • Complex Integrating Mechanisms<br />
Hierarch <strong>of</strong> authority is clearly defined and is the Task forces and teams are the major integrating<br />
major integrating mechanism<br />
mechanisms<br />
• Centralization • Decentralization<br />
Authority to control tasks is kept at the top <strong>of</strong> the Authority to control tasks is delegated to people at all<br />
organization. Most communication is vertical.<br />
levels in the organization. Most communication is lateral.<br />
• Standardization • Mutual Adjustment<br />
Extensive use is made <strong>of</strong> rules and SOPs to Extensive use is made <strong>of</strong> face-to-face contact to coordinate<br />
coordinate tasks, and work process is predictable. tasks, and work process is relatively unpredictable.<br />
• Status-Conscious Informal Organization • Expertise-Conscious informal organization<br />
Employees protect their area <strong>of</strong> authority and Employees share their skills with others, and authority and<br />
responsibility from others.<br />
responsibility change over time.<br />
Adapted from Jones (2004), p. 78<br />
Uncertainty and Dynamism<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the major forces shaping and complicating a firm’s demand for human resources arises from the<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> market certainty and dynamism facing the business firm. These forces impact the derived<br />
demand pathway by causing the firm to alter its organizational design and structure. Table I illustrates<br />
the characteristics <strong>of</strong> mechanistic and organic organizational design and structures. Typically<br />
mechanistic organizations tend to be hierarchical with many levels <strong>of</strong> management. Whereas organic<br />
structures, associated with uncertainty and instability, tend to be more flattened and require a different<br />
mix <strong>of</strong> skills, roles, and number <strong>of</strong> employees. Figure 2 illustrates changes in environmental forces<br />
with regard to changes in organizational design and structure. At the end <strong>of</strong> the ranges the<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> mechanistic and organic structures emerge much more distinctly. The choices made<br />
in the design <strong>of</strong> work and interaction determines the resulting organizational form – ranging from<br />
organic to mechanistic.<br />
91