Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

CASE STUDY 1

ZIPRO COMPANYS LOW PAY-HIKES ISSUE

Zipro company is one of the most leading MNC in the world having more number
of branches across the globe.
Despite all the other branches across the world clubbed together showed 8%
growth only, the employees of Zipro companys Indian operations put enormous
hard work and showed 40% growth and they are expecting more pay hikes than
their counter parts.

ZIPROS SITUATION
Despite Indian branch operations of Zipros performance, the company is not in a
position to give hikes as expected by Indian branch employees due to poor
performance of the company globally. The Indian center Head and HR Head
utterly failed in their attempt to convince the top management and to get proper
reward for their employees. The Top management view is that there should not be
disparity in the hike among the employees globally.
If this situation prevails it will lead to the Brain Drain, Resignation of talented
employees from the branch.

QUESTION:
In this Situation, what went wrong and as a New Head of HR, what is your remedy
and recommendations to the management and the employees?

REMEDY/RECOMMENDATION:
The Management should have clear cut HR policies and wage structure and this
must be shared with the employees and this will create sense of partnership and
bonding.
The head of HR should be to create a channel of communication that defines goals,
mission, vision of the company and explains where it stands on people issue.
Treat employees as your business partners and make them as a stakeholders. This
will create a sense of ownership among the employees
Take employees into confidence , tell them what the organization is going through,
and explain the rationale being unpopular decisions like slashing increments and
withholding bonuses.
The salary structure should contain fixed and variable pay ( Variable pay should be
linked with performance of the employee and the Branch). This will lead to retain
the best performing employees in any particular branch.
Frequent interactions with employees by the CEO by the way of Town hall
meetings, by emails, company Bulletins explaining the growth of the company ,at
least quarter wise annually. This will create both upward and downward
communication between management and workers to understand each others
issues.

CASE STUDY 2
JOB EVALUATION REDESIGN AT BAYER GROUP

Job evaluation, compensation & benefits, Managing Change, M&A, ODD,


strategic management, teams and groups

Industry: Chemicals
Bayer Corporation is a subsidiary of Bayer Group AG, a Germany-based global
chemical company. Several years ago, Bayer Corporation was created by
combining three different operating companies, each with its own markets,
products, and culturesMobay Chemicals, Miles, Inc., and Agfa. Bayer executives
recognized that compensation systems were a critical component of creating a
corporate culture that embodies the values and visions developed during the
strategic planning for the new firm. Once the merger of the three entities had
occurred, a new organizational structure was implemented. This structure had
fewer layers and levels, and was developed to give Bayer employees the flexibility
to move across organizational units and internationally. Bayer, like many
organizations today, compensated people for doing specific jobs. But they wanted
to reward people for their flexibility in playing different roles in the organization
and moving between jobs. At the same time, Bayer executives wanted a simple
compensation system that was tied to the core values and culture that Bayer hoped
would evolve.
Bayer began its transition to a different compensation system by establishing a task
force of 14 executives chaired by Bayers Vice-President of Benefits. This Job
Advisory Committee, as it was labeled, was to recommend the processes needed to

move to a job evaluation system more aligned with the new organization. Job
evaluation, the systematic process of determining the internal value of jobs in
relation to other jobs, had previously been done in two of the companies using a
traditional point factor system; however the third entity had not used a formal job
evaluation system.The committee began by identifying the advantages and
disadvantages of the existing point system. The committee identified many features
of the old system that were working well, particularly the involvement of managers
and employees in the job evaluation "pointing" process. But the committee felt that
the existing point factors and dimensions were too task based, and they did not
reflect the flexibility desired as part of the organizational culture. Also, greater
recognition of employees capabilities, not just their jobs and budgetary
responsibilities, needed to be considered. Assisted by a major consulting firm over
a period of time and a number of meetings, the committee decided to redesign the
job evaluation system and focus on work-value competencies.
The new work-value clusters defined were:

Improvement opportunity

Contribution

Capability

Expertise and complexity

Leadership and integration

Relationship-building skills

For these six clusters, the committee identified scales and point values.The process
of developing the new factors and points took about a year. Once the new system
had been tested by pointing jobs on both the old and new systems, fine-tuning was

needed. Ultimately, a cross section of benchmark jobs was pointed using the new
system and the results calibrated statistically to the old system, rather than having
all jobs in the organization repointed again.
The ultimate test of the new job evaluation system has been its acceptance and use
throughout Bayer. Based on feedback from managers and employees alike, the new
system is working well. Bayers job evaluation system has become the means of
aligning its compensation system with the business values of the new corporate
culture being created. The compensation plan also supports business strategies and
rewards employees as Bayer grows and meets its strategic objectives. Greater
recognition of employees capabilities, not just their jobs and budgetary
responsibilities, needed to be considered.

CASE STUDY QUESTION:


Outline the key accomplishments of the task force in redesigning the job
evaluation system.

ANSWER:
Setting criteria for the new system.
Change couldn't come at the expense of those important aspects of the work-value
methodology that needed to be preserved. Above all, the system would have to
remain fair and unbiased-based on objective, measurable criteria. Like its
predecessor, the new tool had to be easy to explain and legally defensible. Finally,
it had to continue to add value, empowering line managers to define the expected
contribution of each role to the enterprise.

The task force determined the new system would have to meet the following
criteria:

Be compatible with Bayer Corp.'s vision, values and beliefs.


Decrease the emphasis on hierarchy, head counts and budgets.
Value individual capability requirements.
Reflect team contribution.
Be flexible in recognizing differences in culture across businesses.
Be clearly perceived as responsive to today's reality of how work is

accomplished.
Increase emphasis on customer service, teamwork, performance
improvement, mpowered work processes and the changing work
environment.
Enhance the positive aspects of the current method.
Retain enough compatibility with the current method so a complete
reevaluation of jobs companywide wouldn't be necessary.
Add value and links between work contribution and company success
without additional cost to Bayer (no wholesale upgrading of jobs).
Without a common vision, reaching consensus on a new work-valuing method may
have proved impossible because of the differences in jobs among the companies.
Manufacturing people might think job-evaluation plans overemphasize academic
credentials and depth vs. breadth of knowledge such as cross-functional
experience. On the other hand, researchers who typically have lower budgets and
smaller staffs, might criticize a method for being too "bucks and bodies" oriented.
By turning the focus away from these functional values and toward dimensions
more reflective of Bayer's vision and values, the task force realized two benefits:
quicker consensus among people with differing perspectives and a reduced
emphasis on traditional job-related factors, especially those aligned with

hierarchical values. The new method would place more emphasis on expected
behaviors and outcomes instead of inputs and credentials.

Key lessons learned.


Bayer's senior managers learned early on that organizational change must be
accomplished through people. Leaders have to consistently and frequently send the
right messages and reinforce the right behaviors if they're going to achieve the
desired results. Attaining this outcome requires that people understand the current
values and culture and that leaders clearly define what the new expectations will
be. As a business tool, work-value measurement brings these expectations into
sharper focus.

Perhaps the best indication that Bayer has moved in the right direction is the
unanimous support from stakeholders -- namely, the people who use the system.
"We actually have one pay system throughout Bayer now, and the job-evaluation
system is fundamentally level across the organization," says Schulz. "We're all
using the same yardstick, if you will, to measure the size of jobs that meet the
[needs of the] modern-day organization."

But the success of the revised system wouldn't have been possible without the
early buy-in and participation of Bayer's senior staff. "What's important about the
process is involvement [from everyone]," says Schulz. "The HR people don't own
job evaluation. Our line managers own it-and they own it in teams in their own
sites and in their own divisions -- so we don't have great arguments internally

about job levels and relationships because our own line managers resolve these
issues."

From the redesign process, Bayer managers learned they couldn't just take a
canned approach -- a job-appraisal process from a consultant -- without tweaking it
in a way that made sense for their organization. These days, companies need to
have a balance between using internal and external information to design their
human resources tools-they can't be designed without some outside input, but
neither can new systems be installed in a vacuum. It must be a process of
evaluating company needs against the benchmark of the business community at
large. "The question these days is, 'What do you lead with?'" says Bowers. Do you
lead with more of an internal view of what a job's worth to the company and then
validate that with external references, or do you lead with external references and
then make a holistic judgment to modify the job level based on internal factors? "I
think every company should have a balanced approach, which considers work
value from both an internal and external perspective," says Bowers.

In the end, achieving a balance between people and jobs and between a company
and its goals is always a challenging feat. The trick is to try to nail it down with the
right tools that make sense for the organization in a global business environment.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT


CASE STUDY

Submitted by:
Kevin Pineda

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi