netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Human Resource Management of Kellogg Company : Kellogg Company (often referred to as Kellogg or Kellogg's in its corporate logo, or even more formally as Kellogg's of Battle Creek), with 2008 sales of nearly $13 billion, is the world's leading producer of cereal and a leading producer of convenience foods, including cookies, crackers, Toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit-flavored snacks, frozen waffles, and vegetarian foods. The company's brands include Kellogg's, Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Nutri-Grain, Rice Krispies, BearNaked, Morningstar Farms, Famous Amos, Special K, All-Bran, Frosted Mini-Wheats, Club and Kashi. Kellogg products are manufactured in 18 countries and marketed in more than 180 countries around the world.[2] Its global headquarters are in Battle Creek, Michigan, USA. Kellogg trades under the ticker symbol NYSE: K.
The Kellogg Company holds a Royal Warrant from HM Queen Elizabeth II and the Prince of Wales.
Over the recent years, one may have observed how organisations are realising that their likelihood of sustained success is most dependent on learning to get the maximum out of their employees ( 2002). The management of human resources within an organisation is an aspect of administration that is comparatively harder to imitate than such other aspects as technology, manufacturing processes, products, and strategy ( 2004), therefore representing a unique competitive advantage (1998) on the part of the firm exercising it effectively. With the increasing amount of academic literature focusing on the subject of managing people within the organisation, there is the need to take an existing organisation, scrutinise how it carries out the management of their human resources and arrive at a conclusion whether such management practices are effective or not and how it contributes to the overall growth of the firm. The organisation in focus in this section is Marks & Spencer, the British high street store known internationally and is included in the Forbes list of top 40 largest United Kingdom companies ( 2005).
COMPANY BACKGROUND
In 1894, formed a partnership with to venture on the retailing business[1]. The first shop opened in 1904 at , West Yorkshire. In 2004, the organization celebrates their 120th anniversary, appoints as the Chief Executive of Marks & Spencer and the head office staff started to move into their new registered office at originally headquartered in , London for many years. At present, they have over 600 stores worldwide, 450 of which are located in UK and the remaining 150 outlets operating in 30 countries around the globe, with sales amounting to U.S.$ 14.6 billion and a market value of U.S.$ 11.6 billion and profits posted at U.S.$ 1.1 billion and assets totalling to U.S.$ 8.1 billion ( 2005). is the current Chairman while is the Director of Human Resources for the organization and is mainly responsible for personnel management. The executive directors compose of the Chief Executive (), Group Finance Director () and the Executive Director for marketing, e-commerce, store design and development (). The non-executive team includes the Chairman ( ), Senior Independent Director (), Non-executive Directors ( ) and Group Secretary and Head of Corporate Governance (). The various directors of the British retailer include Director of Womenswear & Girlswear (), Director of Menswear & Boyswear (), Director of Lingerie (), Director of General Merchandise Planning (), Director of Food (), Director of Home and Beauty (), Director of Retail (), Director of Human Resources (), Director of Property (), Director, International and UK Outlets (), Director, IT (), Director of GM Supply Chain and Logistics (), Director of Sourcing (), Director of Far East Procurement () and Director of Communications ().
Strategic Challenges
As with any other business organisation, Marks and Spencer faces several strategic challenges which they are continually attempting to overcome through excellent strategic management. In line with these strategies, the human resource department of the multinational enterprise is working hand-in-hand with the administrative section of the firm in order to face these strategic challenges head on. Being in retailing for over a hundred years, Marks & Spencer’s already has a distinct competitive advantage over their counterparts in the business in the reputation that they have established with their customers, employees and suppliers. Their customers have long associated the company with total dependability and value for money; the internal architecture of the company was cantered round permanent employment relationships, strong organizational routines, and a shared sense that there was a Marks & Spencer way of doing things, which the employees benefit from; and the suppliers relationship with the firm in that the external architecture of Marks & Spencer’s organisation was built around an almost Japanese relationship with suppliers – detailed influence on product specification and design as part of relationships sustained over many years ( 1999). They also have strong environmental and community responsibilities, (as cited in 1994) part of their corporate responsibility. As stated by , ‘Marks & Spencer have pioneered and excelled themselves in a whole range of 'modern' management methods, notably strategic marketing, consumer research, product innovation and development, personnel management, staff training and management development, quality assurance and technological-oriented purchasing
A number of limitations to current research on SHRM and HR strategy have been identified:
the focus on strategic decision-making, the absence of internal strategies and
the conceptualization of managerial control.
Existing conceptualizations of SHRM are predicated upon the traditional rational
perspective to managerial decision-making – definable acts of linear planning, choice
and action – but critical organizational theorists have challenged these assumptions,
arguing that strategic decisions are not necessarily based on the output of rational
calculation. The assumption that a firm’s business-level strategy and HR system have a
logical, linear relationship is questionable given the evidence that strategy formulation
is informal, politically charged and subject to complex contingency factors
(Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000; Monks & McMackin, 2001; Whittington, 1993). As
such, the notion of consciously aligning business strategy and HR strategy applies only
to the ‘classical’ approach to strategy (Legge, 1995). Those who question the classical
approach to strategic management argue that the image of the manager as a reflective
planner and strategist is a myth. Managerial behaviour is more likely to be uncoordinated,
frenetic, ad hoc and fragmented
The political perspectives on strategic decision-making make the case that managerial
rationality is limited by lack of information, time and ‘cognitive capacity’ as well
as that strategic management is a highly competitive process in which managers
fiercely compete for resources, status and power. Within such a management milieu,
strategies can signal changes in power relationships among managers (Mintzberg et
al., 1998). Rather than viewing strategic choices as the outcome of rational decisionmaking,
Johnson (1987, cited in Purcell, 1989, p. 72), among others, argues that
‘Strategic decisions are characterized by the political hurly-burly of organizational life
with a high incidence of bargaining … all within a notable lack of clarity in terms of
environmental influences and objectives.’
Alternatively, strategic decision-making may be conceptualized as a ‘discourse’ or
body of language-based communication that operates at different levels in the organization.
Thus, Hendry (2000) persuasively argues that a strategic decision takes its
meaning from the discourse and social practice within which it is located, so a decision
must be not only effectively communicated, but also ‘recommunicated’ until it
becomes embodied in action. This perspective reaffirms the importance of conceptualizing
management in terms of functions, contingencies and skills and the leadership
competence of managers (see Figure 1.3). Whatever insights the different
perspectives afford on the strategic management process, critical organizational theorists
have suggested that ‘strategic’ is no longer fashionable in management thought
and discourse, having gone from ‘buzzword to boo-word’ (Thompson & McHugh,
2002, p. 110).
A second limitation of SHRM and HR strategy theory is the focus on the connection
between external market strategies and HR function. It is argued that contingency
analysis relies exclusively on external marketing strategies (how the firm competes)
and disregards the internal operational strategies (how the firm is managed) that
influence HR practices and performance (Purcell, 1999). In an industry in which a flexible,
customized product range and high quality are the key to profitability, a firm can
adopt a manufacturing strategy that allows, via new technology and self-managed
work teams, for far fewer people but ones who are functionally flexible, within a
commitment HR strategy regime. This was the strategy at Flowpak Engineering
(Bratton, 1992). Microelectronics and the use of plastic changed the firm’s manufacturing
strategy from their being a manufacturer of packaging machinery to an assembler.
The technology and manufacturing strategy in this case became the key
intervening variable between overall business strategy and HRM.
Drawing upon the work of Kelly (1985), the major limitation of a simple SHRM
model is that it privileges only one step in the full circuit of industrial capital. To put
it another way, the SHRM approach looks only at the realization of surplus value
within product markets rather than at complex contingent variables that constitute
the full transformation process. As Purcell (1999, p. 37) argues, ‘we need to be much
more sensitive to processes of organizational change and avoid being trapped in the
logic of rational choice’.
Another limitation of most current studies examining SHRM is the conceptualization
of managerial control. The basic premise of the typologies of HR strategy
approach is that a dominant HR strategy is strongly related to a specific competitive
strategy. Thus, the commitment HR strategy is most likely to be adopted when
management seek to compete in the marketplace by using a generic differentiation
strategy. This might be true, but the notion that a commitment HR strategy follows
from a real or perceived ‘added-value’ competitive strategy is more problematic
The Kellogg Company holds a Royal Warrant from HM Queen Elizabeth II and the Prince of Wales.
Over the recent years, one may have observed how organisations are realising that their likelihood of sustained success is most dependent on learning to get the maximum out of their employees ( 2002). The management of human resources within an organisation is an aspect of administration that is comparatively harder to imitate than such other aspects as technology, manufacturing processes, products, and strategy ( 2004), therefore representing a unique competitive advantage (1998) on the part of the firm exercising it effectively. With the increasing amount of academic literature focusing on the subject of managing people within the organisation, there is the need to take an existing organisation, scrutinise how it carries out the management of their human resources and arrive at a conclusion whether such management practices are effective or not and how it contributes to the overall growth of the firm. The organisation in focus in this section is Marks & Spencer, the British high street store known internationally and is included in the Forbes list of top 40 largest United Kingdom companies ( 2005).
COMPANY BACKGROUND
In 1894, formed a partnership with to venture on the retailing business[1]. The first shop opened in 1904 at , West Yorkshire. In 2004, the organization celebrates their 120th anniversary, appoints as the Chief Executive of Marks & Spencer and the head office staff started to move into their new registered office at originally headquartered in , London for many years. At present, they have over 600 stores worldwide, 450 of which are located in UK and the remaining 150 outlets operating in 30 countries around the globe, with sales amounting to U.S.$ 14.6 billion and a market value of U.S.$ 11.6 billion and profits posted at U.S.$ 1.1 billion and assets totalling to U.S.$ 8.1 billion ( 2005). is the current Chairman while is the Director of Human Resources for the organization and is mainly responsible for personnel management. The executive directors compose of the Chief Executive (), Group Finance Director () and the Executive Director for marketing, e-commerce, store design and development (). The non-executive team includes the Chairman ( ), Senior Independent Director (), Non-executive Directors ( ) and Group Secretary and Head of Corporate Governance (). The various directors of the British retailer include Director of Womenswear & Girlswear (), Director of Menswear & Boyswear (), Director of Lingerie (), Director of General Merchandise Planning (), Director of Food (), Director of Home and Beauty (), Director of Retail (), Director of Human Resources (), Director of Property (), Director, International and UK Outlets (), Director, IT (), Director of GM Supply Chain and Logistics (), Director of Sourcing (), Director of Far East Procurement () and Director of Communications ().
Strategic Challenges
As with any other business organisation, Marks and Spencer faces several strategic challenges which they are continually attempting to overcome through excellent strategic management. In line with these strategies, the human resource department of the multinational enterprise is working hand-in-hand with the administrative section of the firm in order to face these strategic challenges head on. Being in retailing for over a hundred years, Marks & Spencer’s already has a distinct competitive advantage over their counterparts in the business in the reputation that they have established with their customers, employees and suppliers. Their customers have long associated the company with total dependability and value for money; the internal architecture of the company was cantered round permanent employment relationships, strong organizational routines, and a shared sense that there was a Marks & Spencer way of doing things, which the employees benefit from; and the suppliers relationship with the firm in that the external architecture of Marks & Spencer’s organisation was built around an almost Japanese relationship with suppliers – detailed influence on product specification and design as part of relationships sustained over many years ( 1999). They also have strong environmental and community responsibilities, (as cited in 1994) part of their corporate responsibility. As stated by , ‘Marks & Spencer have pioneered and excelled themselves in a whole range of 'modern' management methods, notably strategic marketing, consumer research, product innovation and development, personnel management, staff training and management development, quality assurance and technological-oriented purchasing
A number of limitations to current research on SHRM and HR strategy have been identified:
the focus on strategic decision-making, the absence of internal strategies and
the conceptualization of managerial control.
Existing conceptualizations of SHRM are predicated upon the traditional rational
perspective to managerial decision-making – definable acts of linear planning, choice
and action – but critical organizational theorists have challenged these assumptions,
arguing that strategic decisions are not necessarily based on the output of rational
calculation. The assumption that a firm’s business-level strategy and HR system have a
logical, linear relationship is questionable given the evidence that strategy formulation
is informal, politically charged and subject to complex contingency factors
(Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000; Monks & McMackin, 2001; Whittington, 1993). As
such, the notion of consciously aligning business strategy and HR strategy applies only
to the ‘classical’ approach to strategy (Legge, 1995). Those who question the classical
approach to strategic management argue that the image of the manager as a reflective
planner and strategist is a myth. Managerial behaviour is more likely to be uncoordinated,
frenetic, ad hoc and fragmented
The political perspectives on strategic decision-making make the case that managerial
rationality is limited by lack of information, time and ‘cognitive capacity’ as well
as that strategic management is a highly competitive process in which managers
fiercely compete for resources, status and power. Within such a management milieu,
strategies can signal changes in power relationships among managers (Mintzberg et
al., 1998). Rather than viewing strategic choices as the outcome of rational decisionmaking,
Johnson (1987, cited in Purcell, 1989, p. 72), among others, argues that
‘Strategic decisions are characterized by the political hurly-burly of organizational life
with a high incidence of bargaining … all within a notable lack of clarity in terms of
environmental influences and objectives.’
Alternatively, strategic decision-making may be conceptualized as a ‘discourse’ or
body of language-based communication that operates at different levels in the organization.
Thus, Hendry (2000) persuasively argues that a strategic decision takes its
meaning from the discourse and social practice within which it is located, so a decision
must be not only effectively communicated, but also ‘recommunicated’ until it
becomes embodied in action. This perspective reaffirms the importance of conceptualizing
management in terms of functions, contingencies and skills and the leadership
competence of managers (see Figure 1.3). Whatever insights the different
perspectives afford on the strategic management process, critical organizational theorists
have suggested that ‘strategic’ is no longer fashionable in management thought
and discourse, having gone from ‘buzzword to boo-word’ (Thompson & McHugh,
2002, p. 110).
A second limitation of SHRM and HR strategy theory is the focus on the connection
between external market strategies and HR function. It is argued that contingency
analysis relies exclusively on external marketing strategies (how the firm competes)
and disregards the internal operational strategies (how the firm is managed) that
influence HR practices and performance (Purcell, 1999). In an industry in which a flexible,
customized product range and high quality are the key to profitability, a firm can
adopt a manufacturing strategy that allows, via new technology and self-managed
work teams, for far fewer people but ones who are functionally flexible, within a
commitment HR strategy regime. This was the strategy at Flowpak Engineering
(Bratton, 1992). Microelectronics and the use of plastic changed the firm’s manufacturing
strategy from their being a manufacturer of packaging machinery to an assembler.
The technology and manufacturing strategy in this case became the key
intervening variable between overall business strategy and HRM.
Drawing upon the work of Kelly (1985), the major limitation of a simple SHRM
model is that it privileges only one step in the full circuit of industrial capital. To put
it another way, the SHRM approach looks only at the realization of surplus value
within product markets rather than at complex contingent variables that constitute
the full transformation process. As Purcell (1999, p. 37) argues, ‘we need to be much
more sensitive to processes of organizational change and avoid being trapped in the
logic of rational choice’.
Another limitation of most current studies examining SHRM is the conceptualization
of managerial control. The basic premise of the typologies of HR strategy
approach is that a dominant HR strategy is strongly related to a specific competitive
strategy. Thus, the commitment HR strategy is most likely to be adopted when
management seek to compete in the marketplace by using a generic differentiation
strategy. This might be true, but the notion that a commitment HR strategy follows
from a real or perceived ‘added-value’ competitive strategy is more problematic
Last edited by a moderator: