netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., a.k.a. Interstate Batteries, is a privately-owned company that markets automotive batteries manufactured by Johnson Controls through independent distributors to more than 200,000 automotive shops worldwide.[citation needed] The company is based in Dallas, Texas. BSA also markets marine/RV, motorcycle, lawn and garden, and other lines of batteries in the starting, lighting and ignition (SLI) markets.
Its retail stores, the Interstate All Battery Centers, are the second-largest[citation needed] chain of franchised retail battery stores.
HRM and the impacts of the ambiguity around this change. Finally turning to the
strategy versus operational debate he talks of a crisis of direction whereby the
traditional operational role of personnel specialists is being replaced by the strategic
role of their HR counterparts. Thus the role of the HR function appears to lack
theoretical bounding and is considered to constantly be in a state of flux.
Despite this crisis of confidence, or perhaps because of it, the very utility of an
established HR function has been questioned. Thus, while the great majority of
medium and larger organisations tend to employ a specialist HR function, recent years
have seen some questioning of its value and some consideration of the option of
managing without a specialist HR function (Paauwe, 1996). As organisations move to
“leaner” and “flatter” organisation structures, it is clear that the establishment of a
traditional personnel/HR function is no longer a seemingly inevitable consequence of
increases in organisation scale. In evaluating the option of managing without a formal
personnel/HR function, there appears to be two principal ways of carrying out the HR
role, namely:
(1) Devolvement of personnel/HR responsibilities to line management (internal
devolution).
(2) Outsourcing HR activities to external contractors (external devolution).
The first route represents an extension of an ongoing debate about the optimal balance
of HR responsibilities between line management and the specialist HR function. Line
management have always played a key role in the execution of day-to-day HR
activities. However, what is different about the internal devolution argument is the
suggestion that line managers should play a greater role in policy development and
interpretation, in addition to their traditional role in carrying out HR activities. This
theme has developed concurrently with moves towards flatter organisation structures
and team working. Undoubtedly this development is important and will lead to a
changing division of labour between personnel and line management. However, it is
unlikely to lead to a widespread abolition of the HR function.
Possibly a more significant threat to the existence of a formal personnel/HR
function is that of outsourcing. The transaction cost model places considerable
emphasis on the so-called “make or buy” decision (Gunnigle, 1998). In this model, it is
argued that if a particular unit does not make a demonstrable added value contribution
to the organisation when compared to outsourcing, then such services should be
bought in. Two other factors make HR outsourcing even more attractive. Firstly, from
a demand perspective, the trend towards smaller organisation scale combined with a
growth of contracted-in labour means that organisations have less “employees” to
manage. Second, on the supply side, the proliferation of “management consultants”
provides a buoyant source of contracted-in personnel/HR services.
The contributions to this special issue
The five selected empirical papers presented in this Special Issue which represent a
mix of the quantitative and the qualitative and the strategic and operational focus on,
inter alia, how organisations distribute HR activities among internal and external
agents, role dissonance among middle line managers who have significant devolved
HR responsibilities, the changing nature of the HR function in a post-merger scenario,
outsourcing and in-sourcing in managing HR supply chains and the diffusion of
information technology in HR service delivery. Combined, the papers offer insights on
the changing anatomy of the HRM function against the backdrop of a dynamic
contemporary organisational landscape.
Fundamental to generating understanding of this anatomy is an exposition of who
the relevant HR agents are and whether and how they combine and exchange in
different ways in the execution of their HR responsibilities. Our first paper by Mireia
Valverde and Gerard Ryan of Universitat Rovira i Virgili and Ceferi Soler of ESADE
tackles this issue. The authors argue that increasingly HRM is not the sole
responsibility of the HR department, but rather a mix of internal and external agents
who combine to share HR activities and responsibilities in relatively diverse ways.
Despite this emerging development of a partnership of multiple agents acting in
consort, the authors note the lack of any sophisticated models of HR agents in the
literature suggesting that it is in this regard prescriptive with an emphasis on what
different stakeholders should do as opposed to what they actually do. Consequently,
they seek to test the proposition on the existence of a unique organisation HR agency
model derived from the mix of agents carrying our HR activities in each organisations,
and the limits to it, using a survey among Spanish organisations. Using principal
component analysis and clustering techniques, the results point to a total of seven
agency mix models as follows: HR as a shared function among internal agents; HR as a
shared function led by top management; An agent for each job and a job for each agent;
Partial outsourcing of a wide range of HR activities; Outsourcing specialised activities
and sharing generalist responsibilities; HR function as the exclusive domain of the HR
department; and the HR function as the domain of the HR department supported by the
line. Having identified these unique clusters of the distribution of HR activities among
internal and external agents, the authors then seek to identify whether there are
significant contextual factors influencing the mix of responsibilities. Here, sector, size,
structure, technological system, organisational history, employee characteristics,
environment, culture and the characteristics of the HR function all failed to reach
statistical significance and the proposition that similar types of HR functions would be
found in organisations with similar contextual characteristics was not supported. In
light of the results the authors discuss whether the judicious mix of distributed HR
activities may be understood to be less a product of contextual influences and more a
matter of corporate choice.
It was once suggested (Guest, 1987) that if “HRM is to be taken seriously, personnel
managers must give it away”. Devolution of HR responsibilities to line managers is
now seen as something of a defining issue in human resource management and, arising
from this, a key concern is how to strike the balance of responsibilities for the
management of people between the human resource department and the line managers
(Brewster and Holt Larsen, 2000; Heraty and Morley, 1995). Our second paper by Teri
McConville of Cranfield University focuses on role dissonance among middle
managers as a result of devolved HRM responsibilities. McConville argues that the
principle of devolving HRM to line managers has changed the very nature of the
personnel function but despite the all pervasive nature of this trend, relatively little
attention has been paid to the impact of this devolution on such managers. This paper
focuses on the tensions that arise for middle line managers in the public sector context.
The public sector context being designedly chosen because recent politically imposed
changes in the governance and funding of public services were viewed as giving
emphasis to the difficulties and paradoxes of the managerial roles and functions. The
author notes that as the nature of the line managers experience has altered in recent
years, the devolved HRM responsibilities are just one of several developments that
have commanded the attention of line managers. Using a qualitative case study
approach of middle line managers in National Health Service hospital trusts, military
officers and officers in the fire and rescue service, the findings suggest that middle line
managers wanted to be involved in the management of their staff but were frustrated
by a lack of autonomy and resources and, in the isolation of their middleness, HRM
was seen to exacerbate the tensions in their roles. Many viewed HRM as a natural part
of their role, but the administrative aspects of the maintenance of personnel records
was viewed as time-consuming. Work and time pressures were evident and many
reported the classic “caught in the middle” syndrome, lacking clear role definition,
adequate training and resources and support from seniors. The author concludes that
role dissonance is a very real issue for the managers studied here.
Our third paper by Ingmar Bjorkman of INSEAD and Anne-Marie Soderberg of the
Copenhagen Business School explores the roles played by the HR function in
post-merger change processes. Based on interviews with HR Managers and Executives
in Nordea, a leading Nordic financial services organisation, the roles played by the HR
function are described and the issues influencing the changing roles played by the HR
function in Nordea during the merger process are set down and analysed. The Nordea
context is deemed interesting not just for reasons of the scale of the operation, but also
because of the cross-border complexity attaching to this merger. The authors note that
when the merger was negotiated, the HR function and how it would be re-constituted in
the new entity was not discussed. Post the merger the HR function oscillated between a
country-based HR function and a cross-border HR function. The authors go on to
describe and analyse how the new functional arrangement unfolded and became
institutionalised using Ulrich (1996) conceptual model. Thus, the role of HR as an
administrative expert, as employee champion, as strategic partner and as change agent
are all illustrated and evaluated. Combined the theoretical and empirical effort in this
paper portray the complexities and challenges involved in changing existing HRM
procedures and practices in a post-merger scenario, something which is doubly
nuanced in the case of a cross-border merger.
Our fourth paper from Tom Kosnik, Diana Wong-Ming Ji and Kristine Hoover seeks
to make a contribution to our understanding of the management of human resource
supply chains. The authors note that organizations struggle with the question of
whether HR activities should be provided in-house or whether many of these activities
should be outsourced. The paper outlines five, empirically derived, generic models of
HR outsourcing (Local Contracting; HR Centralising; Purchasing HR; Non-Staffing
Vendors; and Staffing Firm) related to staffing of non-core employees and in so doing
provides an insight into the complexities of outsourcing and establishes a means
through which different models for making informed strategic decisions may be
compared and evaluated. Combined, the insights provided in the paper advance HR
research related to strategic decisions concerning the development of organisational
knowledge and skills to sustain competitive advantage.
Our final paper From Gary Florkowski and Miguel Olivas-Luja´n explores the
diffusion of information technology in human resource service delivery. Borrowing
from the innovations literature and using data from the US, Canada, the UK and
Ireland, the authors explore and unearth external, internal and hybrid influences on the
diffusion patterns. The cross cultural investigation leads the authors to pose important
diffusional questions such as: how much variability may be evident in the take-up on
HRIS across countries; are some countries more likely than others to embrace this
technology; and what factors influence the diffusion. Based on their models, the
authors conclude that human resource IT diffusion and take-up is primarily fuelled by
interpersonal communication and network interactions among potential adopters.
SELECTION
Selecting the right employee for any organization is very important. It helps organization in meeting its goals and objectives because only a suitable employee will be able to perform his duties efficiently, also a right person selected for the job can take some affective decisions that will help an organization in growing quickly. Human Resource Managers should make sure that they select only that person that has best qualifications, skills and experience available which matches to job specification of a job. If Human Resource Managers select an imperfect employee for the job based on some favoritism or biasness, the org will have to pay the price because that employee will not be able to perform his duties efficiently and also the reputation of the organization will be bad in the minds of public. So it is necessary for a Human resource Manager to hire the best candidate available to them
SELECTION POLICY
• EEO
• main focus is on the qualification, skills, experience
• preference to internal source
• the head of the department who needs the a new employee makes the final decision
EEO
hi tech is a well known organization nationwide does the right thing, they select a person for a job according to law of EEO. They completely follow Equal Employment Opportunity Law. What so ever, they select the person on merit, they don’t discriminate and that shows why name is spoken among some of the country’s best organization of automobile industry.
MAIN FOCUS ON THE QUALIFICATION, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES:
They select the people on their quality, qualification, experience and skills. They select candidates for the jobs in the organization only on external trade and not on the internal trade. Many organizations in the country select people because of they are well groomed or they are good looking, favoritism is practiced in many of organization throughout the world. People are selected because of gender, religion or race preferred by the employer or just because of they are attractive. But that is not the case in , in fact only
select the candidate on the basis of their external trade i.e. education, skills. They think that it does not matter what a person is by birth, the only thing that matters to them is what he has achieved so far in his life and how his education, skills or experience can help their organization.
First Preference To Internal Employees:
prefers internal source than the external, it likes to select their own employees, like promoting them to vacant position rather than directly going to external sources, but if it thinks that internal employees are not suitable to fill a vacant position then it goes to external sources and hire and select the candidate from outside of their organization
THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO NEEDS THE A NEW EMPLOYEE MAKES THE FINAL DECISION:
Interview is conducted in for selecting a person. Both HR manager and concerning manager are present in the interview. Concerning manager and Human Resource Manager both participate in selecting a candidate and then the final decision is made because they want to select the best candidate available to them, but the final decision is made by the concerning manager himself, because he has asked for the new employee.
Its retail stores, the Interstate All Battery Centers, are the second-largest[citation needed] chain of franchised retail battery stores.
HRM and the impacts of the ambiguity around this change. Finally turning to the
strategy versus operational debate he talks of a crisis of direction whereby the
traditional operational role of personnel specialists is being replaced by the strategic
role of their HR counterparts. Thus the role of the HR function appears to lack
theoretical bounding and is considered to constantly be in a state of flux.
Despite this crisis of confidence, or perhaps because of it, the very utility of an
established HR function has been questioned. Thus, while the great majority of
medium and larger organisations tend to employ a specialist HR function, recent years
have seen some questioning of its value and some consideration of the option of
managing without a specialist HR function (Paauwe, 1996). As organisations move to
“leaner” and “flatter” organisation structures, it is clear that the establishment of a
traditional personnel/HR function is no longer a seemingly inevitable consequence of
increases in organisation scale. In evaluating the option of managing without a formal
personnel/HR function, there appears to be two principal ways of carrying out the HR
role, namely:
(1) Devolvement of personnel/HR responsibilities to line management (internal
devolution).
(2) Outsourcing HR activities to external contractors (external devolution).
The first route represents an extension of an ongoing debate about the optimal balance
of HR responsibilities between line management and the specialist HR function. Line
management have always played a key role in the execution of day-to-day HR
activities. However, what is different about the internal devolution argument is the
suggestion that line managers should play a greater role in policy development and
interpretation, in addition to their traditional role in carrying out HR activities. This
theme has developed concurrently with moves towards flatter organisation structures
and team working. Undoubtedly this development is important and will lead to a
changing division of labour between personnel and line management. However, it is
unlikely to lead to a widespread abolition of the HR function.
Possibly a more significant threat to the existence of a formal personnel/HR
function is that of outsourcing. The transaction cost model places considerable
emphasis on the so-called “make or buy” decision (Gunnigle, 1998). In this model, it is
argued that if a particular unit does not make a demonstrable added value contribution
to the organisation when compared to outsourcing, then such services should be
bought in. Two other factors make HR outsourcing even more attractive. Firstly, from
a demand perspective, the trend towards smaller organisation scale combined with a
growth of contracted-in labour means that organisations have less “employees” to
manage. Second, on the supply side, the proliferation of “management consultants”
provides a buoyant source of contracted-in personnel/HR services.
The contributions to this special issue
The five selected empirical papers presented in this Special Issue which represent a
mix of the quantitative and the qualitative and the strategic and operational focus on,
inter alia, how organisations distribute HR activities among internal and external
agents, role dissonance among middle line managers who have significant devolved
HR responsibilities, the changing nature of the HR function in a post-merger scenario,
outsourcing and in-sourcing in managing HR supply chains and the diffusion of
information technology in HR service delivery. Combined, the papers offer insights on
the changing anatomy of the HRM function against the backdrop of a dynamic
contemporary organisational landscape.
Fundamental to generating understanding of this anatomy is an exposition of who
the relevant HR agents are and whether and how they combine and exchange in
different ways in the execution of their HR responsibilities. Our first paper by Mireia
Valverde and Gerard Ryan of Universitat Rovira i Virgili and Ceferi Soler of ESADE
tackles this issue. The authors argue that increasingly HRM is not the sole
responsibility of the HR department, but rather a mix of internal and external agents
who combine to share HR activities and responsibilities in relatively diverse ways.
Despite this emerging development of a partnership of multiple agents acting in
consort, the authors note the lack of any sophisticated models of HR agents in the
literature suggesting that it is in this regard prescriptive with an emphasis on what
different stakeholders should do as opposed to what they actually do. Consequently,
they seek to test the proposition on the existence of a unique organisation HR agency
model derived from the mix of agents carrying our HR activities in each organisations,
and the limits to it, using a survey among Spanish organisations. Using principal
component analysis and clustering techniques, the results point to a total of seven
agency mix models as follows: HR as a shared function among internal agents; HR as a
shared function led by top management; An agent for each job and a job for each agent;
Partial outsourcing of a wide range of HR activities; Outsourcing specialised activities
and sharing generalist responsibilities; HR function as the exclusive domain of the HR
department; and the HR function as the domain of the HR department supported by the
line. Having identified these unique clusters of the distribution of HR activities among
internal and external agents, the authors then seek to identify whether there are
significant contextual factors influencing the mix of responsibilities. Here, sector, size,
structure, technological system, organisational history, employee characteristics,
environment, culture and the characteristics of the HR function all failed to reach
statistical significance and the proposition that similar types of HR functions would be
found in organisations with similar contextual characteristics was not supported. In
light of the results the authors discuss whether the judicious mix of distributed HR
activities may be understood to be less a product of contextual influences and more a
matter of corporate choice.
It was once suggested (Guest, 1987) that if “HRM is to be taken seriously, personnel
managers must give it away”. Devolution of HR responsibilities to line managers is
now seen as something of a defining issue in human resource management and, arising
from this, a key concern is how to strike the balance of responsibilities for the
management of people between the human resource department and the line managers
(Brewster and Holt Larsen, 2000; Heraty and Morley, 1995). Our second paper by Teri
McConville of Cranfield University focuses on role dissonance among middle
managers as a result of devolved HRM responsibilities. McConville argues that the
principle of devolving HRM to line managers has changed the very nature of the
personnel function but despite the all pervasive nature of this trend, relatively little
attention has been paid to the impact of this devolution on such managers. This paper
focuses on the tensions that arise for middle line managers in the public sector context.
The public sector context being designedly chosen because recent politically imposed
changes in the governance and funding of public services were viewed as giving
emphasis to the difficulties and paradoxes of the managerial roles and functions. The
author notes that as the nature of the line managers experience has altered in recent
years, the devolved HRM responsibilities are just one of several developments that
have commanded the attention of line managers. Using a qualitative case study
approach of middle line managers in National Health Service hospital trusts, military
officers and officers in the fire and rescue service, the findings suggest that middle line
managers wanted to be involved in the management of their staff but were frustrated
by a lack of autonomy and resources and, in the isolation of their middleness, HRM
was seen to exacerbate the tensions in their roles. Many viewed HRM as a natural part
of their role, but the administrative aspects of the maintenance of personnel records
was viewed as time-consuming. Work and time pressures were evident and many
reported the classic “caught in the middle” syndrome, lacking clear role definition,
adequate training and resources and support from seniors. The author concludes that
role dissonance is a very real issue for the managers studied here.
Our third paper by Ingmar Bjorkman of INSEAD and Anne-Marie Soderberg of the
Copenhagen Business School explores the roles played by the HR function in
post-merger change processes. Based on interviews with HR Managers and Executives
in Nordea, a leading Nordic financial services organisation, the roles played by the HR
function are described and the issues influencing the changing roles played by the HR
function in Nordea during the merger process are set down and analysed. The Nordea
context is deemed interesting not just for reasons of the scale of the operation, but also
because of the cross-border complexity attaching to this merger. The authors note that
when the merger was negotiated, the HR function and how it would be re-constituted in
the new entity was not discussed. Post the merger the HR function oscillated between a
country-based HR function and a cross-border HR function. The authors go on to
describe and analyse how the new functional arrangement unfolded and became
institutionalised using Ulrich (1996) conceptual model. Thus, the role of HR as an
administrative expert, as employee champion, as strategic partner and as change agent
are all illustrated and evaluated. Combined the theoretical and empirical effort in this
paper portray the complexities and challenges involved in changing existing HRM
procedures and practices in a post-merger scenario, something which is doubly
nuanced in the case of a cross-border merger.
Our fourth paper from Tom Kosnik, Diana Wong-Ming Ji and Kristine Hoover seeks
to make a contribution to our understanding of the management of human resource
supply chains. The authors note that organizations struggle with the question of
whether HR activities should be provided in-house or whether many of these activities
should be outsourced. The paper outlines five, empirically derived, generic models of
HR outsourcing (Local Contracting; HR Centralising; Purchasing HR; Non-Staffing
Vendors; and Staffing Firm) related to staffing of non-core employees and in so doing
provides an insight into the complexities of outsourcing and establishes a means
through which different models for making informed strategic decisions may be
compared and evaluated. Combined, the insights provided in the paper advance HR
research related to strategic decisions concerning the development of organisational
knowledge and skills to sustain competitive advantage.
Our final paper From Gary Florkowski and Miguel Olivas-Luja´n explores the
diffusion of information technology in human resource service delivery. Borrowing
from the innovations literature and using data from the US, Canada, the UK and
Ireland, the authors explore and unearth external, internal and hybrid influences on the
diffusion patterns. The cross cultural investigation leads the authors to pose important
diffusional questions such as: how much variability may be evident in the take-up on
HRIS across countries; are some countries more likely than others to embrace this
technology; and what factors influence the diffusion. Based on their models, the
authors conclude that human resource IT diffusion and take-up is primarily fuelled by
interpersonal communication and network interactions among potential adopters.
SELECTION
Selecting the right employee for any organization is very important. It helps organization in meeting its goals and objectives because only a suitable employee will be able to perform his duties efficiently, also a right person selected for the job can take some affective decisions that will help an organization in growing quickly. Human Resource Managers should make sure that they select only that person that has best qualifications, skills and experience available which matches to job specification of a job. If Human Resource Managers select an imperfect employee for the job based on some favoritism or biasness, the org will have to pay the price because that employee will not be able to perform his duties efficiently and also the reputation of the organization will be bad in the minds of public. So it is necessary for a Human resource Manager to hire the best candidate available to them
SELECTION POLICY
• EEO
• main focus is on the qualification, skills, experience
• preference to internal source
• the head of the department who needs the a new employee makes the final decision
EEO
hi tech is a well known organization nationwide does the right thing, they select a person for a job according to law of EEO. They completely follow Equal Employment Opportunity Law. What so ever, they select the person on merit, they don’t discriminate and that shows why name is spoken among some of the country’s best organization of automobile industry.
MAIN FOCUS ON THE QUALIFICATION, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES:
They select the people on their quality, qualification, experience and skills. They select candidates for the jobs in the organization only on external trade and not on the internal trade. Many organizations in the country select people because of they are well groomed or they are good looking, favoritism is practiced in many of organization throughout the world. People are selected because of gender, religion or race preferred by the employer or just because of they are attractive. But that is not the case in , in fact only
select the candidate on the basis of their external trade i.e. education, skills. They think that it does not matter what a person is by birth, the only thing that matters to them is what he has achieved so far in his life and how his education, skills or experience can help their organization.
First Preference To Internal Employees:
prefers internal source than the external, it likes to select their own employees, like promoting them to vacant position rather than directly going to external sources, but if it thinks that internal employees are not suitable to fill a vacant position then it goes to external sources and hire and select the candidate from outside of their organization
THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO NEEDS THE A NEW EMPLOYEE MAKES THE FINAL DECISION:
Interview is conducted in for selecting a person. Both HR manager and concerning manager are present in the interview. Concerning manager and Human Resource Manager both participate in selecting a candidate and then the final decision is made because they want to select the best candidate available to them, but the final decision is made by the concerning manager himself, because he has asked for the new employee.