Re Conceptual is Ing Human

8/2/2019 Re Conceptual is Ing Human

1/16

nternational Journal of Manpowermerald Article: Reconceptualising human resource planning in response to

nstitutional change

bdul Rahman bin Idris, Derek Eldridge

rticle information:

o cite this document: Abdul Rahman bin Idris, Derek Eldridge, (1998),"Reconceptualising human resource planning in response to

stitutional change", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 19 Iss: 5 pp. 343 - 357

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729810222011

ownloaded on: 30-04-2012

eferences: This document contains references to 51 other documents

tations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents

o copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 12480 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

r Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in


2/16

HRP in responseto institutional

change

343

Reconceptualising humanresource planning in response

to institutional changeAbdul Rahman bin Idris

Public Service Department, Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, and

Derek EldridgeInstitute for Development Policy and Management, University of

Manchester, UK

IntroductionSince the 1980s an unprecedented rate of change facing both public and privateorganisations has produced a major reorientation of structures, systems andmanagement methods. Human resource planning has not been exempt fromthis and the methods established in the 1970s and 1980s have increasingly beencriticised as being prescriptive, over centralised and lacking a flexibility inplanning for people under turbulent conditions. What then is the revised rolefor human resource planning when the skills of people are even more

paramount in institutional success, lead times for internal skills developmentremain lengthy and the labour market is still not as responsive as it should be interms of available competencies? This new role must also fit the situation inwhich formalised planning groups and structures as currently operated may beincompatible with the devolvement of planning and the empowerment of linemanagers in people matters.

This paper intends to overview the development of the human resourceplanning discipline and to suggest a reorientation of its conceptual basis tomeet current institutional demands, particularly in the public sector. In doingthis it provides new emphasis and scope to the notion that planning is aboutinstitutional learning and that the prime beneficiaries of this learning should bethe managers themselves (Geus, 1988). To release this potential a systemsapproach is adopted that t akes human resource planning well beyond the

organising scope that the original founders of the discipline had envisaged, butit is to them that we must turn in order to provide the building blocks for thenew concept.

The origins and conceptual progress of human resource planningModern personnel planning dates from the 1940s when it was used to allocatestaff and to develop career structures in conditions of acute shortage of skills.However, as a discipline with a strong conceptual base it did not fully arriveuntil the work of Bartholomew (1967) at the University of Kent, Morgan at

International Journal of Manpower,

Vol. 19 No. 5, 1998, pp. 343-357, MCBUniversity Pres s, 0143-7720


3/16

InternationalJournal ofManpower19,5

344

Cambridge and Smith (1970, 1971) at the UKs Civil Service Department. Muchof Bar tholomews th inking was adopted by the Institute of EmploymentStudies, UK, in the development of conceptual approaches to assist public andprivate sector organisat ions in the 1970s (Bartholomew and Morris, 1971). Also,substantive progress was made during the same period to develop analyticaltechniques within the UKs Civil Service for the more effective utilisation anddevelopment of skills (Smith, 1976). Much of the work in both institutions wasconcerned with the analysis of complex personnel structures using newlyavailable software (Bartholomew and Forbes, 1979).

This stage of conceptual development was consolidated by the emergence ofthe corpor ate view of human r esource planning in th e mid 1970s whichcontinued through the 1980s, particularly as advocated by Bell (1974), Bowey(1974), McBeath (1978) and Lynch (1982). The thrust of this view is that humanresource planning follows from and is complementary to organisationalstrategy. The initial interpretation of this approach was that human resourceplanning was subservient to corporate planning, but this was criticised byEdwards et al. (1983) who advocated that a human resource analysis shouldinfluence corporate strategy development.

The various authors of the last 30 years have defined human resourceplanning according to their own disciplines, philosophies, orientations andcontextual frameworks. To facilitate the discussion, these contributions aregrouped as strategy oriented definitions and process oriented definitions.

Strategy oriented definitionsThe most frequently-quoted strategy oriented definition is that of theDepart ment of Employment, UK, which in 1970 defined human resourceplanning as A strategy for the acquisition, utilisation, improvement, andretention of an enterprises human resources. This definition was criticised byStainer (1971) as being too detached from the objectives of the wholeorganisation. He states that Human resource planning aims to maintain andimprove the ability of the organisation to achieve corporate objectives, throughthe development of strategies to enhance the contribution of personnel at alltimes in the foreseeable future.

Lynch (1982) identifies two aims of corporate human resource planning,namely to ensure the optimum use of the personnel currently employed, and toprovide for the future staffing needs of the enterprise in terms of skills, numbers

and ages. He focuses on the development of personnel strategies to get the rightnumber of employees, with the right level of talent and skills, to achieve theright objectives, to fulfil the corporate purpose.

McBeath (1978) on the other hand stresses human resource planning as thebas is of establishment control; the planner as a policeman who checkswhether staffing levels are optimum.

A more recent view of human resource planning seeks to link policy andpractice together in day-to-day decision making, stressing the interrelationshipof various aspects such as training, development and recruitment. Bramham


4/16


change

345

(1988) summarises this view and suggests that human resource planning isessentially concerned with the effective use of human resources, which alsoembraces the future impact of employment decisions made today.

Process oriented definitionsThe process oriented definitions view human resource planning as a continuousprocess. Walker (1980) defines it as a management process of analysing anorganisat ions human resource needs und er changing conditions anddeveloping the activities necessary to satisfy these needs. Similarly, Vetter(1967), Burack and Mathys (1980), and Burack (1985) define it as a processaimed at assisting management to determine how the organisation should movefrom its current staffing position to its desired position.

Bennison and Casson (1984) also emphasise the importance of the process ofplanning, as distinct from the product. The former, which they refer to as themanpower map, takes account of the various scenarios apparent to plannersand their fellow managers and is subject to continuous revision ascircumstances change.

On what human resource planning should be, Smith (1970; 1976) suggeststhat rather than producing a detailed blueprint, it should be regarded as aprocess in which the likely consequences of the continuation of current policiesor the introduction of new policies can be assessed; action can be expected toforestall undesirable consequences. The key to his definition is the provision ofa frequently updated framework of information for decision making. Such

informat ion is crucial towards a reduction of the risk of either surplus orshortage of par ticular kinds of skill. He suggests t hat t he human resourceplanning pr ocess involves three major steps to do this, namely demandforecasting, supply analysis, and designing the interaction between demandand supply so that skills are ut ilised to the best advantage.

The process oriented definitions on the whole emphasise the creation of thebest possible framework of information within which decisions about theutilisation of resources to achieve organisat ional objectives can be made,particularly the human resource. Such information acts as an indispensableinstrument for management to assess the feasibility of future alternative routesin meeting institutional demands.

Organisational e ffectivenes s: the key to reconceptualising the

disciplineDespite the d ifference in emphasis, both st rat egy and process orienteddefinitions share a common destination, that is the attainment of organisationalor corporate objectives through the effective utilisation of human resources. Asa result of the experiences of the last 20 years most of the writers agree thathuman resource planning has the potential to contribute in this way. Theyobserve that planning practices have undergone transition towards greaterattention to and tighter linkages with organisational strategies (Dyer, 1984;Schuler, 1987; Tichy et al., 1982). Research and practice have indicated that


5/16


346

matching manager characteristics (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984), rewardsystems (Kerr, 1985; Lawler, 1984), and development programmes (Tichy et al.,1982) with such strategies increases the probability that they will be effective.

This transition has heightened the awareness of strategic human resourceplanning as a distinct research and application discipline within organisations.Ulrich (1987), in support of this view, analyses a three-phase evolution of humanresource planning from its initial orientation to the present state of the art,namely strategic orientation. Phase one of the evolution witnessed thetraditional framework within which human resource planning emphasisedregulatory roles. In phase two, the emphasis was on human resourcemanagement utilising planning as a control mechanism to direct individuals tobehave in ways consistent with organisational strategies. In phase three,human resource planning strived to create a competitive advantage through astrategic orientation. Taking this theme further at the strategic level, Nkomo(1986) emphasises a medium to long term human resource planning horizon ofthree to five years within which planning is defined as the process designedto prepare the organisation for the future and to ensure that decisions regardingthe use of people contribute to the achievement of organisational objectives.

The distinguishing feature of strategic human resource planning inachieving organisational effectiveness is thus the direct linking of humanresource planning to the overall planning of the organisation and variousmodels to integrate the two types of activity have been proposed (Buller, 1988;Burack, 1985; Gatewood and Rochmore, 1986; Jackson and Schuler, 1990;

Nkomo, 1986, 1988; Ulrich, 1987; Walker, 1980, 1990). Alpander and Botter(1981) further suggest two aspects of such linkage, namely vertical andhorizontal integr ation. Vertical integrat ion indicates r eciprocal relationsbetween t he str ategic planning and human resource planning processes.Horizontal integration means the coordination of the strategic human resourceplanning and the acquisition, utilisation, development and retention elements inthe management of human resources.

From the definitions of human resource planning proposed by the variousresearchers and practitioners, it is possible to attempt to define what humanresource planning is in todays circumstances. It is in our terms a managementprocess designed to translate strategic objectives into targeted quantitative andqualitative skill requirements, to identify the human resource strategies andobjectives necessary to fulfil those requirements over both the shorter and

longer ter ms, and to provide necessary feedback mechanisms to ass essprogress. Overall the purpose of the planning is to invoke an institutionallearning process and to generate information which can be utilised to supportmanagement decision making in all staffing areas.

Human resource planning in todays conditions: the strategicsystems approachA conceptual framework can be developed to meet todays circumstancesthrough a deductive method of theory building, drawing its strengths from the


6/16


change

347

experience of practitioners and researchers, and is shown on Figure 1. Thetheoretical basis for the managerial perspective of the framework is derivedfrom the relevant organisational theories, particularly the systems approachand contingency theories of the organisation. The relevant strategic aspect ofthe contingency approach incorporated by the framework is the relationshipbetween an organisation and its environment. The framework is thus termedthe str ategic systems approach to human resource planning. Its pr incipalrationale centres on its strength in integrating the various facets involved inundertaking human resource planning. It allows a better consideration of themajor forces and operational variables, both in the external environment and in

the organisation, that have a crucial effect on how and why planning acts as itdoes. Thereby, human resource planning is conceived as an open system whichoperates and interacts with its environment.

The framework is g rounded in an energic input-transformat ion-outputmodel of the open systems theory as introduced by von Bertalanffy (1968). Anopen system[1] imports some form of energy from the external environment,which is then transformed into outputs. The input of energies and theconversion of output into further energic input is based on transactions betweenthe organisation and its environment. As such, the strategic systems approachto human resource planning represents an improvement over existing modelswhich only provide a partial understanding of organisational decisions in anon-dynamic fashion, thus rendering a constraint on their application. A model

Figure 1.A systems approach for

strategic humanresource planning

INPUTS

ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES OR THREATS

SOURCES INTERMEDIATE MICRO

TRANSFORMATIONSOURCES

External SourcesInternal Sources

1. Corporate Objectives2. Budget3. Personnel data4. Human resource

planners expertise

5. Technical Support

Tasks

1. Analyses ofenvironmentalfactors, corporateobjectives, and internalhuman resources

2. Forecasting Supply3. Forecasting Demand4. Matching Supply with

Demand5. Generation of Human

Resource Objectivesand Strategies

Structure/Responsibility

1. Location of the Function2. Roles and Responsibilitiesof Human Resource

Planner

Integrating Mechanism

1. Planning Cycle2. Integration of HRP with

Strategic Planning

USERS

External OrganisationsInternal Decision-makers

OUTPUTS

1. Human ResourceFunctional Programmes

2. Operational HumanResource Plans

3. ImplementationProgrammes

FEEDBACK/EVALUATION


7/16


348

developed by Nkomo (1986) provides a useful reference in conceptualising thissystems approach. The strategic focus of the framework signifies the uniqueplace of human resource planning, recognising that the nature of human beingsand their innate flexibility means that they cannot be planned and managed ina fashion similar to that for other resources. Furthermore, planning for thehuman resource involves creating a relationship between the organisation as awhole and the environment, which gives some continuing and sat isfactorybalance of benefits and risks for the organisation. It is pert inent also that alonger term perspective (at least three years and extending perhaps to fiveyears for some types of occupat ion) is adopted within the model since thislength of period is required to produce new skills, to upgrade existing ones andto engage in organisational transformation (Skinner, 1981). The adoption ofsuch a perspective is necessary to manage uncertainties and risks created bymajor changes in environmental factors in the medium to long term. Theframework, however, does not preclude outputs for decision making reflectingshorter time horizons which thereby are based on a strategic rather than apurely tactical perspective.

The relationships that human resource planners and human resourceplanning processes create among groups within the organisation serve as thethrust of the strategic view of the framework. Such relationships give rise to theform of planning adopted and implementation responsibilities for thoseinvolved. Equally important is the determination of planning inputs, sources ofinputs, users of the outputs, and the types of outputs required. In essence, the

strategic view argues for a joint responsibility for planning between managersand planners and emphasises that the transformation stage of the systemunderpins their relationship. Finally, the framework incorporates keyorganisational and management var iables considered important for theorganisation to comprehend and articulate in its pursuit of change.

The crucial role of transformation in the s trategic s yste ms modelThe strategic systems approach to human resource planning, as presented inFigure 1, provides a conceptual basis for undertaking planning within amanagerial environment and for emphas ising the role of planning a s astimulator of institutional learning. The key component in these respects istransformation which goes beyond the integra ted four phas e process ofBramham (1988), namely investigation, forecasting, planning and utilising, and

the purely forecasting and control mechanisms of Timperley (1974) and Walker(1980).

Transformation is the process of converting the systems inputs into outputsthrough a series of patterned and interrelated activities. The utility of the inputsis enhanced through interdependent activities performed in sequence.Sequences may be complex, as divergent activities through one input ar econverted into a variety of outputs, or convergent activities throughmultifarious inputs are converted into one type of output. Activities may thusoperate in parallel or successively, their performance changing the form, shape,


8/16


change

349

or condition; or the arrangement and assortment; or the place, of inputs. Theprocess of tran sformat ion involves four major components, namely theanalytical contribution, locating planning responsibility, the integratingmechanism and feedback for learning.

T he analytical contributionEnvironmental scanning. Environmental analysis is the s tar ting point forhuman resource planning (Nkomo, 1988). It entails the systematicidentification and analysis of key trends and forces in the externalenvironment having a potential impact on the management of the humanresource, and requires the development of consistent patterns in streams oforganisational decisions (Mintzberg, 1983). Changes taking place in thetechnological, economic, sociocultural, legal/regulatory, education and labourmarket environments are monitored for their impact on human resourcestrategies and programmes. Significant environmental changes with humanresource implications underpin the selection of str ategic alternatives to achievecompatibility between t he human r esource management syst em and t heexternal forces.

Interpretation of strategic objectives. Changes in the future direction of theorganisation may involve substantial shifts in the types of employees requiredand the work to be performed, although the choices available to an organisationin this respect are constrained by the quality and quantity of its current humanresource or that available in the external labour market. The current extent,

natu re and potential of an organisat ions human resource are therebydeterminants of the organisat ions adaptive ability. The role of the analysis is todefine the capabilities required to implement the organisa tions s tra tegy,primarily focused on the capacity to act and change in pursuit of sustainablesuccess.

Audit of the internal human resource. The analysis of the internal humanresource is an inventory exercise. At the micro level the analysis is made of thecurrent number of employees, their job-related skills, demographic make-up,performan ce levels (productivity), potential performance, managementcompetences and work attitudes. Such an analysis helps to identify currenthuman resource strengths and weaknesses. The data forms a baseline of humanresource capabilities, which could be available for future organisationalrequirements. The macro level analysis involves diagnosis of organisational

philosophy, culture, climate, performance orientation, organisation str ucture,quality of worklife, trends in wastage and absenteeism, and current status andeffectiveness of the personnel systems.

T he demand forecast. Forecasting human resource demand enables theorganisation to gain knowledge about future requirements in response to itsobjectives. There is invariably some difference between the data assembledfrom top managements ass umptions an d forecasts bu ilt up from thejudgements of unit heads and managers. T he immediate view of this gap orconflict about figures results in top management squeezing standards,


9/16


350

commonly resulting in an underestimation of the demand, while line managersin trying to pr ovide themselves with extra cover, or in ignorance of thepotential to improve productivity, overestimate the demand. To resolve theconflict, information exchange and negotiation are necessary, human resourceplanners having a mediating role between the parties. The criticalconsideration in the negotiation is the affordability criterion establishingwhat size workforce the organisation can afford. Effective planning processesnecessarily expose a relevant combination of these conflicting aspects andreflect a healthy dynamic for pr oblem resolution arising from differentperspectives and needs.

Conventional forecasting has traditionally relied on quantitative methodswhich can generate staffing requirements in some detail. Although thesefigures are indispensable, the qualitative aspects of forecasting are equallycrucial. The latter is based on managerial perspectives involving the ability ofthe managers and planners to comprehend the future. It is an output of mentalmodelling and its sharing (Geus, 1988). Through such a process managers andplanners make certain assumptions about the future and share their meaningswith each other in order to minimise surprise and uncertainty. Such type ofthinking is cur rently an essential part of every managers day to day decisionmaking and it is a natural step to include it in the development of planningscenarios.

Formulation of human resource objectives and strategies. Following on fromforecasting is the balancing process for supply and demand which results in

specific human resource strategies being identified. The aim is to define theorganisations desired human resource position and the programmes necessaryto move in that direction. The resultant strategy involves modifying the internalconfigurat ion of an organisa tions hu man r esource to ensure su ccessfulalignment with both the organisations strategy and the external environment.Examples of short-term st rategies are attr acting, assessing and assigningemployees to jobs. The intermediate-term strategies include readjustingemployees skills, attitudes, and behaviours to fit major changes in the needs ofthe organisation.

Locating planning responsibilityHow analyses and forecasts are performed is moulded to a significant extent bythe str ucture and philosophy of the organisation, particularly the location of the

planning responsibility, and the roles defined for human resource planners andother stakeholders. In a str ategic approach planners assume new roles asprocess managers by playing a more proactive role in ensuring that planningactivities include key decision makers throughout the organisation. In thisapproach planners encourage discussion and the resolution of priority issues;manage an iterative process of revising the human resource strategies to meetemergent organisational needs; and generally build among the stakeholders anincreased understanding of how the human resource can create a successfulorganisation.


10/16


change

351

T he integrating mechanismFor all organisations two aspects for integrating human resource planning withstrategic planning need consideration. Vertical integration emphasises thecreation of a reciprocity or two-way communication between strategic plannersand human resource planners in organisations (Milkovich et al., 1983). Suchreciprocity results in meaningful human resource informat ion being fed into thestrategic planning process, particularly as input into resource allocationmechanisms, and s trategic planning being used to develop human resourceplanning inputs right from the start. Horizontal integration involves thecoordination of human resource planning and the personal functions such asrecruitment, training, and career management.

Planning activities are usually undertaken within a planning cycle[2], whichdefines the planning horizons and stages and specifies various decision pointsfor managers and planners. For public sector organisations such a cycle mayincorporate planning for macro, sectoral and organisational human resources.The decision needs at the three levels have to be considered in an iterative andcomplementary manner even though their time frames may be different. Byencouraging planning parallelism[3] in this way as par t of their thinkingorganisat ional human resource planners become aware of their roles andcontributions in sectoral and macro planning in the economy, particularly fordesigning public service delivery systems. Such a planning cycle builds criticallinkages and st rengthens the interrelationship of plans, and exemplifies thenature of human resource planning set within an open systems approach. This

is in sharp contrast with a hierarchical view of planning for the public sector,which isolates planning according to levels and may result in a commandstructure with decisions only communicated from the upper levels to the lowerones.

Feedback for learningThe outputs of the model are the bas is for feedback in the system so tha tchanges may be made in inputs and the subsequent transformation process toproduce amended outputs. At the str ategic level, top management requiresregular feedback to evaluate the impact of the human resource planning systemon the overall organisational performance. At the operational level, feedbackgives the basis of evaluation of strategies and plans and on-going responses tovariations. This latt er review includes for instance actual versus p lanned

staffing requirements, productivity levels versus established goals, actualpersonnel flows versus desired rates, functional personnel programmes such asrecruitment, promotion, and career management versus planned programmes,labour and programme costs versus budgeted amounts, and ratios ofprogramme results (benefits) to programme costs.

The evaluation of the extent to which human resource planning informationsupports decision-making processes entails some form of qualitativeassessment. Examples of such an assessment are the extent of the integration ofthe various human resource functions, the quality of the teamwork between


11/16


352

human r esource planners and line managers, the utilisation of the plansrecommendations by line managers, and the ext ent of managementsexpectations met by the plan.

The sy stems framework as a prerequisite for effective planningThe strategic systems approach to human resource planning is intended to beapplicable in a wide range of circumstances and is underpinned by majorassumptions concerning the potential effectiveness of human resource planningas reflected in current literature. It raises the status of human resource planningwithin the wider scope of change initiatives in organisations so that in effect itbecomes an arm of institutional development[4]. However, a question is howwell will it in practice address the weaknesses of more traditional approaches toplanning?

One of the disadvantages of human resource planning as traditionallyenacted has been its r emoteness from decision makers because of rigidformality and inflexible detail. Practice has been for formal plans, embodied inagreed documents, to be communicated widely to key decision makers. Suchplans have historically enshrined comprehensive career structures and jobsecurity aspects (Russ, 1982), approaches coming under criticism in the 1980sas contributing to inflexible market responses in major Western Companies(Dyer and Hayer, 1984; Mills, 1985; Peters and Waterman, 1982). In contrast,informal planning has greater flexibility of response and is relatively easier toenact, and may be preferable in a small organisation. The drawback of informal

planning is that it may exist only in the mind of the chief executive, and henceits outputs may not be meaningful to all key decision makers. There is nosimple answer to this issue of the degree of formality in terms of detaileddocumentation and degree of flexibility for adjustments. Much depends on theconditions facing the organisation including the rate at which technology andmarkets ar e changing, and cert ainly large integrated organisat ions faceconditions somewhat different from those confronting medium-sizeddecentralised or diversified organisa tions (Rothwell and Kazanas, 1989).However, the key issue is that the systems approach and particularly itstransformation component, build the capability of managers to respond tochanging conditions as a result of the organisational learning generated in theplanning.

An effective strategic human resource planning process raises critical issues

in preference to seeking immediate an swers an d cert ainly will explorealternative scenarios in respect of human resource issues. Such planning forcescontinuous discussion on the ass umptions sur rounding uncertainty andthereby may lead to more informed human resource decisions. Emphasis onthrowing light on questions stimulates a flexibility in the minds of managersnecessary for building a competitive advantage in market orientatedorganisations.

The type of human resource information required to support decisionmaking varies with the users of the plans. The line managers and operational


12/16


change

353

heads require information on the human resource implications of strategicprogrammes/projects to be implemented. Such information is crucial indetermining whether to proceed, postpone or modify the programmes, in viewof the human resource implications. The personnel manager on the other handrequires specific schedules for implementing the various personnel functions.High quality information is certainly a prerequisite for reshaping the workforcewithin the new ethos of managerialism in public sector organisations. On thewhole it is argued that the content of strategic human resource plans shouldvary significantly from those that have traditionally been prepared. Strategichuman resource plans include more than staffing or replacement plans, theyprioritise key issues, link them directly to strategic plans, communicate inbusiness language where necessary, and raise further rounds of questions to beaddressed by managers.

Learning as the key aspect of planning in the 1990sThe critical success factor for transformation is team learning (Geus, 1988).Within an organisation human resource planners and line managers workjointly to develop the plans (Jackson and Schuler, 1990). Human resou rceplanners assume new roles as process managers and strategic partners whendesigning strategic human resource plans (Ulrich, 1986). Users of humanresource plans are also members of the team. They take on new roles indeveloping strategic human resource plans by becoming active participants inconceiving, formulating, drafting, and implementing th ese plans. Ea rly

involvement in the planning process ensures that users understand why andhow human resource pract ices directly influence an organisations success.Thus the plan is the result of shared responsibility and learning, as portrayed inFigure 2 based on Kolb (1984). On the other hand the failure to gain the supportand involvement of managers in the planning process, insufficient managerialautonomy for their contribution, and lack of integration in decision making areexamples of conditions which reduce the efficiency of the transformationprocess of the systems model[5].

The support and participation of the users ensure their acceptance of theplan and the commitment to implement it. To achieve this, according toBennison and Casson (1984), requires three conditions, namely getting the rightorientation to human resource planning; ensuring the right tools are available;and creating the right climate for planning. In addition, an organisation can

stimulate a strategic view in its use of people by incorporating categories[6] andconceptual systems that are readily understood by stakeholders, but should beprepared to amend these with changing circumstances (Pearson, 1991).

A balanced emphasis on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of planningis an essential feature of the transformation process. The quantitative results ofthe analyses and forecasts have to be described and explained qualitatively. Bymaking data talk the findings of these analyses become influential, as they areclearly understood, first by the planner who is required to provide anexplanation, and then by those who need to take strategic decisions. Through


13/16


354

discussion of assumptions underlying forecasts and the subsequent generation

of ideas for change, human resource planning is conceived as a facilitator for

learning beyond the prescriptive approaches as encapsulated in traditional

planning. The process of explanation, facilitation and involvement of the

managers is at the heart of the transformation and the organisational climate

needs to be conducive to this. Usefully this suggests a process of planning that

builds from humble beginnings towards the level of sophistication that

managers desire as their experience accrues.

Conclusion

Transformation at the centre of Figure 1 represents a multi-faceted approach tolearning in which stakeholders in the human resource area are actively engaged

in establishing shared meanings and in designing actions to enable the

organisat ion to influence its environment in the way it desires. It implies the

types of learning shown in Figure 2 which involve teams and the organisation

as a whole and which enable in successive cycles:

a common language of planning to be developed among stakeholders;

a methodology and process in planning to be refined;

Figure 2.Planning activities insupport of institutionallearning

RECOGNITION OF DAY TO

DAY EXPERIENCES

RELEVANT TO PLANNING

Learning amongststakeholders through

direct experience of workprogrammes/

projects and environmentalcomponents

Joint activityamongst

stakeholders toselect appropriatestrategies/plans in

the human resourcearea

Focused reflectionon work and

performanceissues amongststakeholders

Conceptualunderstanding/

explanationachieved by

stakeholders on howpeople can improvetheir contribution in

the workplace

SELECTION OF

APPROPRIATE H.R.

THEORIES AND PLANNING

METHODOLOGY

PLAN FORMULATION

INCLUDING

INTEGRATION

WITH

STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES

DESIGN OF

EFFECTIVE INFORMATION

SYSTEMS


14/16


change

355

human resource themes to be increasingly integrated with strategicneeds; and

managers to experience an enlarged source of relevant information fordecision making.

Fundamentally, through transformation an internal capability is developed toface the opportunities and threats posed by the external environment.Successive cycles of planning work build internal robust ness in decisionmaking by increasingly directing attention to areas of human resourceweakness and opportunity. The ability to respond more effectively over t ime inthis way represents a learning to learn capability jointly acquired by

stakeholders which builds as cycles of Figure 2 are completed in successiverounds of planning activity. The system model then incorporates humanresource planning as a spiralling learning process (Argyris, 1977; Reid andBarrington, 1994) geared naturally towards facing environmental changes. Toinitiate and manage the desired approach involves the ability to create a newsynthesis of people, resources, ideas, opportunities and demands. Shared visionis essential and team creativity paramount (Senge, 1992). Learning towardschange is produced by exploring dilemmas or contradictions, based on personalexperience and experimentation, within a climate that encourages risk-taking.It may require the expression of deeply held beliefs, which potentially involveconflict, but which can be helped by creating an organisational climate thatrecognises the value of people at all level and their ideas in looking to the future.The dynamic nature and proactive orientation of the systems model extendsopportunities for learning through human resource planning activities and isthus a tool for institutional development.

Notes

1. The word system has been used by Newton (1970) and Bennison and Casson (1984) tomean human resource system. The term denotes any group of individuals employed forsome common purpose, within a particular place of employment. It is different from thesystems a pproach as a pplied in organisation theory, as represented in this line ofargument.

2. A planning cycle may be formal or informal and include an interface with other decisionmaking needs, e.g. the annual budget.

3. There is no conflict between planning parallelism and vertical integration. Planningparallelism represents the way the planning is conceived, while vertical integrationfocuses on the method of linking human resource planning with strategic planning.

4. According to Israel (1987), the term institutional development refers to the process ofimproving an ins titut ions ability t o make effective use of the human and financialresources available. This process can be inter nally generated by t he managers orexternally induced. It is typically concerned with management systems, which includehuman resource planning.

5. Efficiency of the transformation process measures the relationship between resource useand the results; input/output ratio; generally the value of the results from planning shouldbe greater than the value of the resources expended in conducting it.

6. Categorisation is merely the arrangement of people or objects in groups; similarity in oneparticular respect is all that is required.


15/16


356

References

Alpander, G.G. and Botter, C.H. (1981), An integrated model of strategic human resourceplanning and utilization,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 189-207.

Argyris, C. (1977), Double loop learning in organisations, Har vard Busin ess Review,September/October, pp. 115-25.

Bartholomew, D.J. (1967), Stochastic Models for Social Processes, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Bartholomew, D.J. and Forbes, A.F. (1979), Statistical Techniques for Manpower Planning, JohnWiley & Sons, Chichester.

Bartholomew, D.J. and Morris, B. (1971),Aspects of Manpower Planning, English UniversityPress, London.

Bell, D.J. (1974), Planning Corporate Manpower, Longman, London.

Bennison, M. and Casson, J. (1984), T he Manpower Planning Handbook, McGraw-Hill BookCompany Limited, London.

Bertalanffy, L. von (1968), General systems theory a critical review, in Hodge, B.J. andAnthony, W.P. (1991), Organization Theory A Strategic Approach, Allyn and Bacon, London.

Bowey, A. (1974),A Guide to Manpower Planning, Macmillan, London.

Bramham, J. (1988), Practical Manpower Planning, 4th ed., Institute of Personnel Management,London.

Buller, P.F. (1988), Successful par tnerships: HR and st ra tegic planning at eight top firms,Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 27-43.

Burack, E.H. (1985), Linking corporate business and human resource planning: strategic issuesand concerns,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 133-45.

Burack, E.H. and Mathys, N.J. (1980),Hum an Resource Planning: A Pragmatic Approach toManpower Staffing and Development, Brace-Park Press, USA.

Dyer, L. (1984), Linking human resource and business strategies,Human Resource Planning,

Vol. 7, pp. 79-84.Dyer, L. and Hayer, N. (1984), Human resource planning at IMB,Human Resource Planning,

Vol. 7, pp. 111-26.

Edwards, J., Leek, C., Loveridge, R., Lumley, R., Mangan, J. and Silver, M. (Eds) (1983),ManpowerPlanning: Strategy and Techniques in an Organisational Context, John Wiley & Sons,Chichester.

Gatewood, R.D. and Rochmore, W.B. (1986), Combining organisational manpower and careerdevelopment needs: an operational human resource planning model, Hum an ResourcePlanning, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 81-96.

Geus, A.P.D. (1988), Planning as learning,Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 70-4.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1984), Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, andbusiness unit effectiveness at strategy implementation, quoted in Ulrich, D. (1987), Strategichuman resource planning: why and how?,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-56.

Israel, A. (1987),Ins titut ional Development: Incentives to Perform ance, The John Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore, MD.Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1990), Human resource planning: challenges for industrial/

organisational psychologists,American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, February, pp. 223-37.

Kerr, J.L. (1985), Diversification strategies and managerial rewards: an empirical study, inUlrich, D. (1987), Strategic human resource planning: why and how?,Hum an ResourcePlanning, Vol. 10 No. 1.

Kolb, D.A. (1984),Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lawler, E.E. (1984), The strategic design of reward systems, quoted in Ulrich, D. (1987),Stra tegic human resource planning: why and how?,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10No. 1, pp. 37-56.


16/16


change

357

Lynch , J. (1982),Making M anpower More Effective: A System atic Approach to Personnel

Planning, Pan, London.

McBeath, G. (1978),Manpower Planning and Control, Business Book, London.

Milkovitch, G.T., Dyer, L. and Mahoney, T.A. (1983), HRM planning, in Carroll, S.T. and Schuler,

R.S. (Eds), Human resource management in the 1980s, Bureau of National Affairs Inc.,

pp. 2.1-2.28, Washington DC. Quoted in Nkomo, Personal A dministrator, August 1986,

pp. 71-84.

Mills, D.Q. (1985), T he New Competitors, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structure In Fives: Designing Effective Organisations, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Newton, D. (1970), What manpower planning means,Management Today, quoted in Timperley,

S.R. (1974), Personnel Planning and Occupational Choice, George Allen & Unwin, London.Nkomo, S.M. (1986), The theory and practice of HR planning: the gap still remains, Personnel

Administrator, August, pp. 71-84.

Nkomo, S.M. (1988), Strategic planning for human resources lets get started,Long Range

Planning, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 66-72.

Pearson, R. (1991), T he Human Resource, McGraw-Hill Book Company Ltd, London.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982),In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, NJ.

Reid, M.A. and Barrington, H. (1994), Training Interventions: Managing Employee Development,

Institute of Personnel and Development, Wimbledon.

Rothwell, W.J. and Kazanas, H.C. (1989), Strategic Human Resource Development, Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Russ, C.F. Jr (1982), Manpower planning systems: part 1, Personnel Journal, January, pp. 40-5.

Schuler, R.S. (1987), Personal and human resource management choices and organizational

strategy,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-17.Senge, P.M. (1992), T he Fifth Discipline: T he Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,

Century Press, London.

Skinner, W. (1981), Big hat, no cattle: managing human resources, Harvard Business Review,

September/October, pp. 106-14.

Smith, A.R. (Ed.) (1970), Some statistical techniques in manpower planning, CAS Occasional

Papers No. 15, HMSO, London.

Smith, A.R. (1971),Models of Manpower Systems, Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, NY.

Smith, A.R. (Ed.) (1976),Manpower Planning in the Civil Service, HMSO, London.

Stainer, G. (1971),Manpower Planning, Heinemann, London.

Tichy, N.M., Fombrun, C.J. and Devanna, M.A. (1982), Strategic human resource management,

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 47-61.

Timperley, S. (1974), Personnel Planning and Occupational Choice, George Allen and Unwin Ltd,

London.

Ulrich, D. (1986), Human resource planning as a competitive edge,Human Resource Planning,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 41-9.

Ulrich, D. (1987), Strategic human resource planning: why and how?,Hum an Resource

Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-56.

Vetter, E. (1967),Manpower Planning for High Talent Personnel, Bureau of Indust rial Relations,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Walker, J.W. (1980),Human Resource Planning, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Walker, J.W. (1990), Human resource planning 1990s style,Human Resource Planning, Vol. 13

No. 4, pp. 229-40.

Re Conceptual is Ing Human

Documents

Transcript of Re Conceptual is Ing Human