Two to Read for HR Specialists in Airlines and Healthcare

I enjoyed my first visit to the British Academy on Management (BAM) since 2001 (see previous post). Two papers in the HR stream particularly caught my attention. The first was a presentation by Greg Bamber, who is now at Monash, on a new book written with American and European colleagues (including colleagues from Glasgow - Judy Pate and Phil Beaumont) entitled 'Up in the Air: how airlines can improve performance by engaging their employees', Cornell University Press (januray 2009). The second was a paper presented by Paula Hyde and Claire Harris on 'Expectations and Performance in Healthcare', which is based on the study they, and others from Manchester Business School, undertook for the Department of Health and the CIPD on HR in the NHS in England.

The material on the airlines was very well researched and well argued, with some useful frameworks for understanding the relationships between commitment strategies and unionisation. The authors have done an interesting job in mapping out the changes in HR strategies over time of the low cost and legacy airlines, showing that being low cost and good at HR isn't incompatible. For example, South West Airlines has a positive relationship with unions, employees high commitment strategies and was the most profitable airline in the industry last year. Greg quoted a senior airline official from one of the pilots associations, which went along the lines of 'Why is it that other airlines don't get it'? It is clear that some don't and have developed other consistent strategies of low cost and low commitment HR/anti-union stance, which also have been successful. The problem children seem to be those airlines that, to borrow from Michael Porter's phrase, are 'stuck in the middle', neither making one decision or another. While this is an appealing analogy, it only takes us so far. Reminiscent of criticisms of Porter's boxology, life isn't quite so simple and if everyone followed the same strategy, where's the competitive advantage in that?

The HR in the NHS study is the culmination of three years 'hard labour' for a multi-author research project for the CIPD and Department of Health. For any HR manager in healthcare, this research is an essential read. Claire and Paula's paper provided some excellent data on HR strategies, psychological contracting and HR outcomes. They have also developed a very useful model bringing these issues together, which is both rigorous and relevant (the theme of the conference) to academics and practioners in healthcare. However, they may want to think about how the issue of public value might be incorporated into their model (see earlier post from work we are doing on human capital and public value) and on the notion of valued expectations in psychological contracting, which I discussed in our book on corporate reputations, branding and HR.

This is definitely one to read for my colleagues and students working in the NHS in Scotland.

See Hyde, P., Boaden, R., Marchington, M.P., Claire Harris, Paul Sparrow, Sarah Pass, Carroll, M. & Penny Cortvriend (2008) 'The process of engagement and alignment: Improving health through human resource management', Department of Health, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Blogging's Contribution to HR

James Hayton’s recent post on his Threee blog referring to the apparent stalling of social networking and James Richards work on blogging has got me thinking more and more about the contribution of this type of social media to people management and HR. So when the second of these two excellent HR bloggers brought our attention to a new book on the topic by Jill Walker Rettberg, an American academic teaching at the University of Bergen, I had to dash off to Amazon and buy it. En route to the British Academy of Management (BAM) annual conference in Harrogate, where I met some new friends from Australia (hello Naomi, Sandra and Elisabeth) and some old friends (hello Stuart and Anne Claire) who were interested in this topic, I read this short but excellent publication. In a field where it is difficult to find good writing that is both rigorous for scholars and relevant to practitioners - the theme of the BAM conference - this book is certainly one that will repay readers seeking to understand some of the serious conversations on Web 2 and get practical advice on how to blog. Not many attempt and clear the double hurdle of rigour and relevance but she does so admirably.

James Hayton rightly questioned the perhaps modish nature of social networking with his reference to a survey published in Mashable (see earlier blog) showing the dissatisfaction and lack of penetration among 18-65 year olds worldwide, while James Richards has focused on the extent and potential of blogging for employee voice in his work on organizational misbehaviour. Both of these academics raise important questions which has caused us to revise our thinking for the CIPD research Web 2. Jill Walker Rettenberg’s book addresses these issues head on. On social networking, she quotes a statistic that shows its potential among the ‘V-gen’. Facebook was originally developed for US college students and has now achieved over 90% penetration, a fact that was supported by the recent work on social networking at the AOM conference, which I reported on in an earlier blog. So while social networking may show signs of running out of steam among older generations, it seems to have become the norm among young, educated people, a fact not lost on some organizations and universities looking to recruit them.

Like James Richards, however, blogging is Rettberg’s preferred social medium and it is on the application and potential of this phenomenon that she scores heavily because her book works at different levels; it is also beautifully written. For anyone wanting to either begin to blog or improve their blogging potential, this book is a godsend (I’ll certainly use many of her ideas on how to make a blog more interesting and widely read); for any serious scholar interested in new digital media or any HR manager wishing to understand the potential of blogging in their own organization, it is a genuine ‘ eye-opener’. Unlike me, she has not come to this topic late, having researched and blogged in the field for most of this decade, so she shows a real mastery of her topic.

In a book of only 160 pages she explores fully the potential and problems of blogging. On the plus side, she outlines bloggers potential to democratise society (and the workplace) by creating a ‘modern public sphere’. To quote one famous press critic, ‘the power of the press is huge if you own one’; blogging now allows everyone to own a press. On the downside, she invokes the worries of both Plato and Jurgen Habermas, a modern social philosopher, to explain the dangers involved in having too many writers and readers because such a groundswell can result in a ‘ lacks authority and, ultimately, a lack of control’ (p48). Both of these perspectives on blogging are evident in our case research and in other research on Web 2 and HR. Some organisations, such as Microsoft, Google, IBM and UK government departments, see the potential for unearthing authentic employee voice through blogging and actively do all they can to encourage employees to blog; they also learn to with the consequences of the occasional and usually in the process rant. We recently made this point to the CIPD’s policy and research committee, which seemed to take this on board for their ‘Shaping the Future’ programme. However, most organisations want to control employee blogging or even ban it altogether (such as the UK armed forces but, interestingly, not their US equivalents). These organisations see significant threats to their authority to be sole authors of the official corporate story and brand identity, so that they attempt to control blogging through a range of mechanisms, ranging from banning employee blogs outright to bringing them behind the firewalls, having policies on what and what can’t be said if you want to keep your jobs, by having the communications departments monitor and respond to employee blogs or by creating corporate blogs or their own.

Walker Rettberg makes the point in her conclusions that the future of blogging lies not only in a form of direct participation by facilitating often unheard voices, providing a basis for participation in issues that truly matter to people, and in the power of a read-write web to collaborate and learn together, but also in an important form of indirect or implicit participation that is grounded in social networking theory. This kind of theorising, probably best known for the work of Mark Granovetter, points to the importance of ‘weak ties’. When we set up strong ties with colleagues, according to Granovetter, we are less likely to learn from them because we share with them common perspectives and common knowledge (we are likely to know and understand what they know and understand). By establishing lots of weak ties, however, we tap into perspectives and knowledge we are much less likely to know about. Thus social networking, outside of our Facebook friends or immediate contacts, is the best way of increasing our absorptive capacity for new knowledge, the sine qua non for innovation. Blogging, more than social networking sites, helps us do this by establishing more weak ties. At a deeper level, it allows organizations such as Google, Flickr and You Tube to harness our collective intelligence by mapping our IP addresses and use them to make recommendations on what might be of interest to us in the same way that Amazon does with books. It is not to difficult to imagine a situation in which the new attitude survey is replaced by software that maps our IP addresses and offers us tailored employee value propositions or knowledge. Indeed some of that future is with us already, with companies such as IBM mapping the social networks of their internal bloggers/networkers to create organizational structures around naturally occurring communities of practice rather than top down imposed structures that do not reflect hoe people interact.


See Jill Walker Rettberg (2008) Blogging, Polity Press, Cambridge:UK

The Future of Social Networking and Blogging

We're putting together an article for People Management on Web 2.0 and HR as part of our project for the CIPD. Just in case anyone missed them, there were two very interesting posts in links to other blogs on this site last week. One of these focused on the mixed picture on social networking by James Hayton's Threee blog. He referred to an article in Mashable on September 3rd, referring to a report from Synovate, which showed that 58% of 18-65 year olds world-wide had no clue about social networking. To quote from the article:

'The survey of more than 13,000 people in 17 developed nations also asked if users were losing interest in social networks. According to the report, 36% said “yes,” with interest fading fastest in Japan, Slovakia, and Canada, with 45% of US users supposedly losing their appetite for social networking'

However, the article also points out that this survey leaves out teenagers who are the biggest users, and that provides optimism for providers in this space. Moreover, even in countries where internet penetration is high, such as the US and UK, less than 30% of internet users use social networking, which is evidence either of potential markets or lack of interest.

James raises an important question in his post: Does this suggest a lack of future for social networking? A discussion among academics at the recent Academy of Management event thought not, and we agree. However, social networking is only one aspect of Web 2, and for HR, we believe other social media have greater potential impact, including blogs, which is where the next post by James Richards in useful. Aside from his site and his own research, he has pointed to a new book on blogging which has just come out. It's called simply 'Blogging'. Written by Jill Walker Rettberg from the University of Bergen, it looks like an interesting piece of research into this field. She also has a good blog. I'm off to read it and report back.

Human Capital Measurement and Performance

I've mentioned that we are doing some work, sponsored by the Scottish Government and the ESRC, on measuring the impact of human capital investment in the public services. One of the most useful pieces of research that we'll draw on is the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) report 'Human Capital Measurement: Approaches, issues and case studies', Report 454. This report, written by Dilys Robinson, Hulya Hooker and Mary Mercer, has only just been published in July 2008.

The report stemmed from a series of workshops with IES network members, some of whom were relatively advanced in linking their human capital measures to performance, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Standard Chartered Bank, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Centrica, the Royal Navy, the MoD, two local authorities (East Sussex and Haringey Councils) and Medway NHS Foundation Trust.

It comprises a well-written review of some of the academic literature on human capital and a summary of the good consulting work in this field. However, the report's real strengths lie in the short case illustrations of how the above organizations have developed and used human capital measures and in the approach they used to producing their findings, which was very much in the action research mode.

Some of the key findings were as follows:

Few of the participating organizations used the term 'human capital', which was poorly understood, sometimes meaningless and sometimes offensive to managers.

Although there was some consensus over basic measures, there was no 'one-size-fits-all' approach or framework. Context mattered: while each organization felt they could learn from others, their was little possibility of developing a standard set of measures. This was most obvious in the differences between the private and public sectors, with the latter having to concern themselves with more intangible measures and more diverse stakeholders.

A 'workable' approach emerged during the course of the research workshops, fitting the needs of a majority of participants. This was the CAA's approach of asking a series a searching questions on what they wanted to know (e.g. are we retaining key employees?) and attaching a series of measures to each question, forming a four stage hierarchy - basic underpinning employee data, operational measures (e.g recruitment costs, training days), outcome measures (employee turnover) and 'strategic' measures, where the links were made between, say, absence and engagement. On this last series of measures, much more work was needed. We would suggest that this was particulalry true of the public sector, where intangible issues such as public value come into play.

In the cases, there is quite of bit of evidence of correlational work, though much less in the field of predictive measurement, which is our goal for the Scottish Government research. The most notable exception is RBS's well publicised and researched integrated human capital system.

In summary, this report is well worth the £18 investment for any practitioner or researcher. It is another example of good research/knowledge into practice from the IES, an organizations with which we are beginning to do a little bit of work . This starts with a 1-day conference on employer branding in Glasgow on November 4th, but more of this in a future post!

Leadership: What is it and Does it Matter in Healthcare?

I'm doing a presentation on leadership next week for the senior management team of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the largest health authority in the Scotland employing upwards of 40,000 people. This has caused me to think seriously about what I can usefully say - without being academically bland - to experienced people operating at a senior level on matters that can have extremely serious outcomes.

Like most management academics in these situations, I've chosen to do something which challenges the shibboleths of the 'leadership industry' from an evidence-based perspective and points to some useful things that leaders and leadership can achieve, again drawing on evidence rather than managerial cant. Some of this evidence is drawn from the provocatively titled and beautifully written books by Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton on 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense', Phil Rosenzweig on 'Eight Delusions that Deceive Managers', and Rakesh Khurana on 'The Irrational Question for the Charismatic CEO', with a of little Henry Mintzerg's 'Managers not MBAs' thrown in for good measure.

Other evidence, however, is taken from recent articles in journals or reports that most managers wouldn't pick up on. These include new material by Helen Dickinson and Chris Ham (2008) Engaging Doctors in Leadership', which can be found on the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement website at the bottom of this page; research into the importance of social capital; research into public value creation, including Mark Moore and Jean Hartley's (2008) paper 'Innovation in Governance' Public Management Review, 10, 1, 3-20; and two articles in the current issue of the British Journal of Management on something call 'top echelon theory', which deals with the impact of top management teams on performance (Patzelt, H., Zu Knyphausen-Aufseff, D. and Nikol, P., 2008, Top management teams, business models and performance of bio-technology ventures: an upper echelon perspective, British Journal of Management, 19, 3, 205-221; Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F. and Mass, V. S. (2008) Top management hetrogenity, strategic change and operational performance, British Journal of Management, 19,3, 222-234).

It's a real shame that these latter two articles weren't written with managers in mind because they have important practical things to say about what effective senior management teams in the healthcare sector need to take into account and need to become. However, I'm drawing readers, especially my postgraduate healthcare students, attention to these articles and to the other references because they are certainly worth reading, though some are more easily understood than others.

My storyline is as follows:

1. that leaders matter a little less than the leadership industry would have you believe, especially in organizations that remain professional bureaucracies, dominated by doctors,
2. that investment in followership and microsystems of distributed leadership in healthcare is key to effective performance, but they need to be connected to:
3. diversely-constituted top management teams that both fit and shape innovative 'business models' or organizational architectures. These TMTs can be a positive force for strategic change in healthcare in ways that charismatic individuals can't. However, the composition of these teams matter a great deal because it determines their absoptive capacity to take in and exploit new knowledge. The diversity of these teams also matters because different people bring different things to the table and, equally importantly, diversity is also likely to reduce professional tribalism and motivate increasingly dissenchanted and/or sceptical clinicians to become more involved in the running of their organizations.

There may be little that's novel in this message, but I hope the evidence-base just about makes it credible.

Web 2.0, HR and the Long Tail

I've just come back from the Academy of Management (AOM) annual conference in Disney's 'smile factory' at Anaheim convinced of a couple of contradictory thoughts about that conference and Web 2.0. Now being something of a regular (this was my seventh stint in the last nine years) at what is the world's premier academic management event, I'm more convinced than ever that practitioners, consultants and non-attending academics in HR would benefit greatly from coming along. There is no doubt that the standard of papers and presentation of evidence-based HR (and any other topic on management) is higher than at any other academic or practitioner event I've attended; yet, there is a certain anti-intellectual bias, not in the sense of there being a lack of strong academic rigour but because there is too much focus on academic/scientific specialisation at the expense of big or innovative ideas and engagement of practitioners.

Nevertheless, if you can past the formulaic hypotheses testing, numerous discussions of regression and structural equation modelling, etc., by young academics looking to hit the top tier journals, most of whom have had few connections with practitioners, you can pick up many real chunks of insights that other conferences just won't give you.

One such paper dealt with the role of social network sites in hiring. Written by two not so young American academics, Donald Kluemper from Louisanna State University and Peter Rosen from Evansville University, this work was both rigorous and relevant. They argued that the use of social networking websites, like Facebook, has become extremely popular, particularly with
high school and college students in the US (interestingly more than half of the academics in the room had facebook sites). As a consequence, employers have begun to use the personal information available on social networking websites not only for recruitment, which we all know about, but also to make hiring decisions. Using ratings from 274 Facebook websites of students, this study assessed the validity of using Facebook to predict self-rated and other-rated
personality. Their data showed that Facebook ratings of Big-5 personality traits were correlated with each of the self-ratings of the Big-5 personality factors often used to predict performance at work: correlations ranged from .23 for neuroticism to .45 for extroversion, which in selection studies would be seen high. In a follow-up study of 54 employees, Facebook ratings were also shown to predict supervisor rated job performance and to show additional validity beyond self-rated personality in predicting supervisor ratings of job performance. In summary, Facebook entries can do a reasonable job of predicting the important personality characterisitics employers seek from potential employees without having to bring them in for assessment.

This study led to an interesting discussion of why this should be so, what employers can use Facebook and other sites for beyong recruitment and what happens when people wise up to the potential uses by employers of social networking, e.g. faking, impression management through competing over friends, etc. It also raised the issue of whether or not people will be left behind if they don't have a social networking site as recruiters week passive rather than active candidates.

So, here we have a paper that provided evidence on an important social phenomenon in a useful way, but will probably be read by only a few interested academics because practitioners don't tend to read academic journals (for good reason). So it was left to a guru to give me further food for thought and to provide some genuinely intellectual argument that will be read. On the journey back I picked up the new addition of Chris Anderson's recent reworking of 'The Longer, Long Tail' with a new chapter on marketing. Although we have used his ideas from the earlier book in our discussion paper for the CIPD, re-reading this book and the new material, showed the power of genuine insight and engagement with practitioners to present innovative issues in a rigorous fashion. His discussion of how the the the long tail of employees in Microsoft changed the way in which that company does business, despite the worries of lawyers and the brand police, showed the power of letting employee blogging rip. As he argues, ...Microsoft is a less monolithic company run by two titans, and more a collection of thousands of people pretty much like us. Whatever, Microsoft product you use..., there is an engineer or product manager carrying on a conversation in public about it.' (p 241). He also makes the point that Microsoft's customer and employer brand is now controlled by employee bloggers, and, what is more, they are relatively happy about this.

There is no doubt in my mind that social media will be more and more used by employees to give voice to their thoughts about their employers in ways that shed much more light on what matters to them than than through conventional attitude surveys. Some firms are beginning to recognise this, for example, IBM, which is one of our CIPD case study companies; perhaps others should begin to think about how the surface employee voice more innovatively.

If you want to participate in our CIPD study on Web 2.0, please go to CIPD website and look up the discussion under 'Helping People Learn'; if you are not a member, you can repond to this entry by going into the discussion listed on the side-bar.

Because there was so much at this conference of interest to readers of this blog, I'll take up a few more of the HR themes, such as the impact of HR and innovation and performance in forthcoming entries. I'll also examine the growing practitioner and academic interest on employer branding and corporate reputations, which was the subject of my paper.

Employer Branding and Reputation Management in China and Glasgow's Supporting Role

In this week's Economist there are a number of stories highlighting the importance of branding and reputation management in China, some of it centred on the Olympics and some on the increasing need for Chinese companies to develop strategies based on branded goods and services that can be sold to the West. The available evidence also points to the need for many of the top Chinese companies to be able to compete more effectively in labour markets to attract and retain talented people to support branding strategies. So it comes as no surprise to see the establishment of a similar centre to our own being established in China, and we are pleased to announce that we have signed a memorandum of understanding to set up a co-branded Peking-Glasgow International Research Centre for Employer Brand and Reputation Management. This is to be based at Peking University, with Dr Hong Zhang (from Glasgow) and Professor Wang Hansheng from Peking University as co-directors. The relationship is to be strengthened by forming a partnership with the Zhaopin company, a leading Chinese recruitment consulting firm, and CCTV's China Best Employer Programme.

The aim of this new centre is to undertake research into employer branding and reputation management, and to examine the relationship between HR and branding. I will be helping launch the Centre with a presentation at Peking University in November of this year, and will be helping to put together an international conference on employer branding at Peking University in 2009.

We would be pleased to hear from anyone who may have something to contribute to this conference, so please take the time to email us with your ideas.