netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Miro Technologies, Inc. is a privately held company headquartered in La Jolla, California that is a developer and supplier of ground-based Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) and supply management software to the Aerospace / Defense (A&D) and commercial MRO sectors.
Miro initially provided an aftermarket logistics application called GOLD to the A&D market in the USA starting in 1981, and subsequently expanded their product line and customer base to serve both A&D and commercial MRO customers in Europe, India, Asia and South America. Miro’s technology has been deployed in combat by the UK Ministry of Defence in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade.
Key partners include Oracle, JBoss, AAR and Compuware.
‘All HR practices have an ethical foundation. HR deals with the practical
cseonq-uences of human
behaviour’. (Johnson,
2003)
‘The entire concept of HRM is devoid of
morality.’ (Hart, 1993:
29)
Despite these moral appreciations of human resource management (HRM),
tah esrtero isng tradition in business that insists that business should not be
cwoitnhc eetrhniecds. As Milton Friedman, a vociferous proponent of this position, has
ipt:u‘tThe social responsibility of business is to its shareholders. . . . The business of
nebsussi- is
business’
(1970)
The core concer.n of business – proponents of the market economy argue –
attiesm inpting to secure the best possible return on any investment. Any dilution of
fthoicsus will lead to the corruption of what is a finely balanced system. Businesses
tsheaetk to be ‘ethical’ as well as profitable will probably fail economically,
fwohlloicwhi nthge whole community may suffer. Rather, let
the
invisible
hand
guide the
ket and all will prosper. Like some evolutionary force, the best will alwamysa rsWuervailvthe
.will trickle down from successful enterprises, and humanity will be
sbeersvted. Any constraint on the freedoms of the market – be they motivated by
aetnhgicsat lor vote-seeking government policy – will just mess everything
up.Notwithstanding the appeal of this position, a critique of business practice
cohnatinsued to accumulate and assert itself, and to challenge the notion that
abnusdi nmesosrality have no meeting point. Concern has surfaced from a variety of
fsrooumrc esc
nsumer groups, political groups, religious and charitable
oErngtarenpisraetnioenusrs. (for example, Anita Roddick of The Body Shop (2000), academics
raensdearchers (Winstanley and Woodall, 2000; Greenwood, 2002) and
pmraonfeasgseiomneanlst (Brown, 2003) have all expressed the view that standards of
bweithhainvi obuur siness need to be evaluated, and
impAr ocvaesde. can be made that negative consequences ow from poor ethical
standards:
While short-term goals may be achieved through the cut-throat tactics of
free
u
market principles, in the long run business will survive better if good
sotfand ardcsonduct are
maintained;
Ethical business creates a positive environment in which to buy and sell, as
coru
ruption, poverty and lack of respect for the environment generate problems
fthore business community in the long
The problem is that delegation to managers has not taken hold very quickly, but HR offices have
already been downsized. Therefore, HR is still expected to do the transactional work it did
before, while also focusing on broader organizational issues, and doing all of this with an average
of 20 percent less staff.5 It is not hard to understand why agency HR offices are struggling to
redefine their role to strategic partner. Just how far have they gotten?
HR as Consultant: Most agency managers we interviewed acknowledge that their HR
office has become more consultative. Rather than telling a manager he/she can or cannot
do something, HR professionals are more helpful in finding solutions to HR issues.
HR as Contributor to Mission Accomplishment: These same managers also recognize
the importance of the HR office to mission accomplishment. There is so much that HR
does for managers in terms of recruitment and staffing, employee development, and
employee relations that managers would have difficulty doing it on their own. However,
HR does have its limitations, particularly the size of the staff in relation to the amount of
work it has to do, its knowledge of the mission, and skill gaps resulting from downsizing.
HR as Strategic Partner: Few, if any, agency managers feel that their HR office is a true
strategic partner. Few HR offices are included in business planning from the beginning,
generally being brought in to implement a decision that has already been made. For HR to
become more involved in line-level decision-making, managers would like the office to:
C have greater knowledge of the organizational mission, and
C get more involved and innovative in broad, organizational HR issues that impact
most on the organization, such as recruitment and workforce and succession
planning.
HR has made some headway, as demonstrated in the following NASA example, but clearly has
some distance to go in being involved in line management decision-making. Now let’s look at the
other side of the coin -- how managers are involved in making decisions about HR programs.
Most line HR offices involve managers at least at an informal level, generally through satisfaction
surveys or informal discussions. A few have HR/management councils that get together
Accountability
With the developing relationship between HR and management, both at the top and line levels,
along with NPR and GPRA mandates, accountability should become a shared responsibility.
Managers are making more and more HRM decisions while the HR staff is becoming more
involved in broader organizational issues. This means that both the HR staff and managers are
ultimately accountable for effective, legally compliant HRM.
Is this shared accountability occurring in Federal agencies? Approximately half of the respond-ing
agencies agree that HRM accountability is shared between the HR staff and managers. Managers
are accountable for the business results achieved through good human resources management, the
HR staff is accountable for HR compliance, and both are accountable for the overall effectiveness
of the agency HRM program. However, the other half still feels that the ultimate accountability
falls on the HR staff. They are the ones responsible if actions are found non-compliant, and little
attention is given to whether managers’ HRM decisions are an effective use of resources. OPM’s
HRM Accountability System Development Guide goes into quite a bit of detail on shared
accountability and can assist agencies in understanding the concept, determining who is
accountable for what, and devising strategies for how to hold them accountable.
Miro initially provided an aftermarket logistics application called GOLD to the A&D market in the USA starting in 1981, and subsequently expanded their product line and customer base to serve both A&D and commercial MRO customers in Europe, India, Asia and South America. Miro’s technology has been deployed in combat by the UK Ministry of Defence in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade.
Key partners include Oracle, JBoss, AAR and Compuware.
‘All HR practices have an ethical foundation. HR deals with the practical
cseonq-uences of human
behaviour’. (Johnson,
2003)
‘The entire concept of HRM is devoid of
morality.’ (Hart, 1993:
29)
Despite these moral appreciations of human resource management (HRM),
tah esrtero isng tradition in business that insists that business should not be
cwoitnhc eetrhniecds. As Milton Friedman, a vociferous proponent of this position, has
ipt:u‘tThe social responsibility of business is to its shareholders. . . . The business of
nebsussi- is
business’
(1970)
The core concer.n of business – proponents of the market economy argue –
attiesm inpting to secure the best possible return on any investment. Any dilution of
fthoicsus will lead to the corruption of what is a finely balanced system. Businesses
tsheaetk to be ‘ethical’ as well as profitable will probably fail economically,
fwohlloicwhi nthge whole community may suffer. Rather, let
the
invisible
hand
guide the
ket and all will prosper. Like some evolutionary force, the best will alwamysa rsWuervailvthe
.will trickle down from successful enterprises, and humanity will be
sbeersvted. Any constraint on the freedoms of the market – be they motivated by
aetnhgicsat lor vote-seeking government policy – will just mess everything
up.Notwithstanding the appeal of this position, a critique of business practice
cohnatinsued to accumulate and assert itself, and to challenge the notion that
abnusdi nmesosrality have no meeting point. Concern has surfaced from a variety of
fsrooumrc esc
nsumer groups, political groups, religious and charitableoErngtarenpisraetnioenusrs. (for example, Anita Roddick of The Body Shop (2000), academics
raensdearchers (Winstanley and Woodall, 2000; Greenwood, 2002) and
pmraonfeasgseiomneanlst (Brown, 2003) have all expressed the view that standards of
bweithhainvi obuur siness need to be evaluated, and
impAr ocvaesde. can be made that negative consequences ow from poor ethical
standards:
While short-term goals may be achieved through the cut-throat tactics of
free
u
market principles, in the long run business will survive better if good
sotfand ardcsonduct are
maintained;
Ethical business creates a positive environment in which to buy and sell, as
coru
ruption, poverty and lack of respect for the environment generate problems
fthore business community in the long
The problem is that delegation to managers has not taken hold very quickly, but HR offices have
already been downsized. Therefore, HR is still expected to do the transactional work it did
before, while also focusing on broader organizational issues, and doing all of this with an average
of 20 percent less staff.5 It is not hard to understand why agency HR offices are struggling to
redefine their role to strategic partner. Just how far have they gotten?
HR as Consultant: Most agency managers we interviewed acknowledge that their HR
office has become more consultative. Rather than telling a manager he/she can or cannot
do something, HR professionals are more helpful in finding solutions to HR issues.
HR as Contributor to Mission Accomplishment: These same managers also recognize
the importance of the HR office to mission accomplishment. There is so much that HR
does for managers in terms of recruitment and staffing, employee development, and
employee relations that managers would have difficulty doing it on their own. However,
HR does have its limitations, particularly the size of the staff in relation to the amount of
work it has to do, its knowledge of the mission, and skill gaps resulting from downsizing.
HR as Strategic Partner: Few, if any, agency managers feel that their HR office is a true
strategic partner. Few HR offices are included in business planning from the beginning,
generally being brought in to implement a decision that has already been made. For HR to
become more involved in line-level decision-making, managers would like the office to:
C have greater knowledge of the organizational mission, and
C get more involved and innovative in broad, organizational HR issues that impact
most on the organization, such as recruitment and workforce and succession
planning.
HR has made some headway, as demonstrated in the following NASA example, but clearly has
some distance to go in being involved in line management decision-making. Now let’s look at the
other side of the coin -- how managers are involved in making decisions about HR programs.
Most line HR offices involve managers at least at an informal level, generally through satisfaction
surveys or informal discussions. A few have HR/management councils that get together
Accountability
With the developing relationship between HR and management, both at the top and line levels,
along with NPR and GPRA mandates, accountability should become a shared responsibility.
Managers are making more and more HRM decisions while the HR staff is becoming more
involved in broader organizational issues. This means that both the HR staff and managers are
ultimately accountable for effective, legally compliant HRM.
Is this shared accountability occurring in Federal agencies? Approximately half of the respond-ing
agencies agree that HRM accountability is shared between the HR staff and managers. Managers
are accountable for the business results achieved through good human resources management, the
HR staff is accountable for HR compliance, and both are accountable for the overall effectiveness
of the agency HRM program. However, the other half still feels that the ultimate accountability
falls on the HR staff. They are the ones responsible if actions are found non-compliant, and little
attention is given to whether managers’ HRM decisions are an effective use of resources. OPM’s
HRM Accountability System Development Guide goes into quite a bit of detail on shared
accountability and can assist agencies in understanding the concept, determining who is
accountable for what, and devising strategies for how to hold them accountable.