TOPIC 5HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT学生用书

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT1.讨论What Do You Know about Human Resource Management?2．演讲The 7-S-Model/Models/7S%20Model.htmThe 7-S-Model is better known as McKinsey 7-S. This is because the two persons who developed this model, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, have been consultants at McKinsey & Co at that time. Thy published their 7-S-Model in their article “Structure Is Not Organization” (1980) and in their books “The Art of Japanese Management” (1981) and “In Search of Excellence” (1982).The model starts on the premise that an organization is not just Structure, but consists of seven elements:Those seven elements are distinguished in so called hard S’s and soft S’s. The hard elements (green circles) are feasible and easy to identify. They can be found in strategy statements, corporate plans, organizational charts and other documentations. The four soft S’s however, are hardly feasible. They are difficult to describe since capabilities, values and elements of corporate culture are continuously developing and changing. They are highly determined by the people at work in the organization. Therefore it is much more difficult to plan or to influence the characteristics of the soft elements. Although the soft factors are below the surface, they can have a great impact of the hard Structures, Strategies and Systems of the organization.Description:The Hard S’sStrategy Actions a company plans in response to or anticipation ofchanges in its external environment.Structure Basis for specialization and co-ordination influencedprimarily by strategy and by organization size and diversity. Systems Formal and informal procedures that support the strategy andstructure. (Systems are more powerful than they are givencredit)The Soft S’sStyle / Culture The culture of the organization, consisting of twocomponents:Organizational Culture: the dominant values andbeliefs, and norms, which develop over time and becomerelatively enduring features of organizational life.Management Style: more a matter of what managersdo than what they say; How do a com pany’s managersspend their time? What are they focusing attention on?Symbolism – the creation and maintenance (or sometimesdeconstruction) of meaning is a fundamentalresponsibility of managers.Staff The people/human resource management – processesused to develop managers, socialization processes, waysof shaping basic values of management cadre, ways ofintroducing young recruits to the company, ways ofhelping to manage the careers of employeesSkills The distinctive competences – what the company does best,ways of expanding or shifting competencesShared Values / Superordinate Goals Guiding concepts, fundamental ideas around which a business is built – must be simple, usually stated at abstract level, have great meaning inside the organization even though outsiders may not see or understand them.Effective organizations achieve a fit between these seven elements. This criterion is the origin of the other name of the model: Diagnostic Model for Organizational Effectiveness.If one element changes then this will affect all the others. For example, a change in HR-systems like internal career plans and management training will have an impact on organizational culture (management style) and thus will affect structures, processes, and finally characteristic competences of the organization.In change processes, many organizations focus their efforts on the hard S’s, Strategy, Structure and Systems. They care less for the soft S’s, Skills, Staff, Style and Shared Values. Peters and Waterman in “In Search of Excellence” commented however, that most successful companies work hard at these soft S’s. The soft factors can make or break a successful change process, since new structures and strategies are difficult to build upon inappropriate cultures and values. These problems often come up in the dissatisfying results of spectacular mega-mergers. The lack of success and synergiesin such mergers is often based in a clash of completely different cultures, values, and styles, which make it difficult to establish effective common systems and structures. The 7-S Model is a valuable tool to initiate change processes and to give them direction. A helpful application is to determine the current state of each element and to compare this with the ideal state. Based in this it is possible to develop action plans toachieve the intended state.3．阅读The Job No Leader Should Delegate - Having the Right People i n t he Right Placeb y Larry Bossidy and Ram CharanGiven the many things that businesses can't control, from the uncertain state of the economy to the unpredictable actions of competitors, you'd think companies would pay careful attention to the one thing they can control - the quality of their people, especially those in the leadership pool. An organization's human beings are its most reliable resource for generating excellent results year after year. Their judgments, experiences, and capabilities make the difference between success and failure.Yet the same leaders who exclaim that "people are our most important asset" usually do not think very hard about choosing the right people for the right jobs. They and their organizations don't have the precise ideas about what the jobs require - not only today, but tomorrow - and what kind of people they need to fill those jobs. As a result, their companies don't hire, promote, and develop the best candidates for their leadership needs.Quite often, we notice, these leaders don't pay enough attention to people because they're too busy thinking about how to make their companies bigger or more global than those of their competitors. What they're overlooking is that the quality of their people is the best competitive differentiator. The results probably won't show up as quickly as, say, a big acquisition. But over time, choosing the right people is what creates that elusive sustainable competitive advantage.Dell ultimately out-competed Compaq, a far bigger company, because Michael Dell took great pains to have the right people in the right jobs - people who understood how to execute his business model superbly. Nokia, a minor player in the cell phone industry early in the 1990s, became the global leader because of its people. Under the leadership of CEO Jorma Ollila, who had come from a bank to lead the struggling diversified company, they adopted digital technology sooner than Motorola, then the dominant company. They also saw that the cell phone was not a communications device but also a fashion item, and built excitement in the marketplace for their products with monthly introductions of new products.If you look at any business that's consistently successful, you'll find that its leaders focus intensely and relentlessly on people selection. Whether you're the head of a multibillion-dollar corporation or in charge of your first profit center, you cannot delegate the process for selecting and developing leaders. It's a job you have to love doing.4. 回译Human Capital5．阅读GE Chief Learning Officer's Speech at Peking University Thank you very much for inviting me to this school and to be able to talk about a little about GE and I’ll allocate a lot of time at the end to take questions. I am impressed that at 7:30 at night on Friday night I see so many students here at a lecture. I can assure you when I was in college at 7:30 on a Friday night I was not sitting for an optional lecture. So I think that makes you better students than I was and I’ll tell you a little bit about GE, my company, my career and hopefully you could eclipse my record with your diligence.To give you a little background of what I thought I’ll do for this discussion. It is really to talk about what I think GE is best at. What we are best at is actually developing leaders. We have a history as a company of 110 years incorporated as General Electric. The history actually goes back over 125 years to our founder Thomas Edison, who created the Thomas Edison Electric Light Company. It merged with a second company to become General Electric officially in 1892. It’s been on the New York Stock Exchange for 110 years. It was one of the original Dow stock exchange companies and it is the only one to survive from the original 30 stocks that they tracked as the Dow Industrials.To talk a little bit about leadership development. The ingredient to developing great leaders, as we see it, is first of all we want to hire or acquire outstanding talents. Much like Peking University of taking some of the brightest students from the high schools throughout China, what we want to do is to take some of the best people around to work for our company. We created a performance culture that’s intense. It is based upon results. We have shared organizational values that we want to teach and make sure people understand. And we just provide opportunities for people to do great work, to excel. We provide challenging job assignments, stretch opportunities for people to do more and bigger jobs than they ever thought. We provide accountability, which means if you take the responsibility, we hold you accountable for doing something with it. And we provide visibility to young people, give them a chance to interface with senior GE leaders and to get them visibility and potential for career with some training, candid feedback. And then we’ve got systems that assess performance and promotability. We have disciplined processes. And we also talk about rewarding the best performers and removing the worst performers. It i s very simple and I’ll talk about most of these going forward.Hiring Outstanding TalentIf you look at the ingredients again, the first one is hiring outstanding talents. GE has well over 300 thousand employees around the world. We operate in 156 countries. We have over 20 major businesses. But it first starts with hiring great people. The primary pipeline we use is off college campuses. We hire over 4,000 people a year into management training jobs, that are leadership programs in finance, in human resources, in engineering, in manufacturing and in information technology. We bring folks into a 2-year program where they rotate through 4 different jobs. They do academics at night, projects to work across businesses and they get exposure to someGE leaders.We also hire other people in from experienced tiers, from consulting firms, accounting firms. But we have the most success actually hiring into our leadership programs off college campuses. One of the things we talked about at the dinner with the vice-president for the university is that in our culture if we would identify the preferred specifications for hiring somebody, it is we want exceptionally bright over-achievers. Exceptionally bright because when we are stupid, bright people are really good. And over-achievers because they want to accomplish something. Over-achievers from being children on up had always thrived on accomplishments. Whatever the challenge is, they rise to it; whatever needs to be done, they do it and they do it better than people asked, and better than expected, because that’s their internal drive. So that’s our preferred spec.If we can’t find enough exceptionally bright over-achievers, we drop our standard and we go to not so bright over-achievers. It’s important to have over-achievers in our company because of a couple of things. People who excel, people who do their best as they can and are never satisfied with good enough, never satisfied with a “B”, never satisfied with a 95% on their grade. We hire the people who, when they were in university like yourselves, when they get a 98 on a test, they flip through the test to find out what they got wrong, and they say, “I knew it, I knew the answer”. What we don’t like is people who get a 98 on their test, throw it into drawer and say “Let’s go get a drink”. We like to drink, that is not a problem. But we like people to achieve. Performance CultureThe second part of the culture is creating a very intense culture focused on performance. When we talk about growth and performance in our co mpany, it’s something very simple. It is a learning curve. It basically relates to 2 things. It relates to growth or learning on the vertical axis, and it relates to time on the horizontal axis. Learning is a function of time. It simply says that in the early stages of learning something, you put in a lot of time for a little bit of learning. You know this in the courses you take, in the jobs you take. In the early stages, learning is hard, because you’re acquiring information and data, but it has no meanin g to you. It is a mass of stuff that you take in. So it is hard, you put in a long time; a lot of hours, and you just still don’t get it. One day, after you have enough information and enough time, it clicks and you say, “I understand, I got it”. It is bec ause the data and information you’re acquiring has suddenly transformed into knowledge. In our world, that knowledge also becomes skill, the ability to do something. So during the second phase of learning curve, you put in similar amount of time, but for a huge amount of learning and a huge amount of growth, and actually it’s very exciting. It is fun to learn, fun to grow. Every day you get up, you learn it, you apply it and it is exciting. If you stay in a job long enough, and there is not much left to learn, and nothing else changes, the curve starts to flatten out, because there is not much left and people become bored, because the job is no longer challenging. It is a simple concept. We teach our people this. We teach them about learning and time. But learning is good, performance is better, and performance curve is the same, because if you do not know what you are doing, it is not possible to do it well. What we teach our people and convey is thatperformance in our culture is most important. It doesn’t matter once you are in the company whether you came from Peking University or a very small school that nobody heard of, because once you are inside the company, what you do matters more than what you used to do. We also talk to people and we put what we call a bar of expectations. When you are new in a job, and you don’t perform it well, but that’s ok, we know you’re learning, we know you’re going to come up. We hope people to rise above those expectations. They are stars, and they do great jobs. But expectations do not stay the same. Expectations grow. They change over time. If you stop learning, and over time just continue flat, as expectations rise, year over year, because of competition, because of customer demands, because of technology, if you stop learning, you die. In the business world, expectations every year rise. If you do 20 million dollars of sales this year, next year you need to do 22 million dollars, and the following year, you need to do more. If you don’t learn, it is like standing here, th is is what a person sees. If you stop learning, it is like water rising. You can’t swim, and you are drowned. It is a bad thing personally and for your career. What the company sees, it is something different. We see that people’s performance suddenly drop s, well below the expectations. So what we talk to folks is that when you look at growth, many people think growth is a dynamic concept, a moving thing, and that, to be promoted, I should grow. But if I am happy with my job, I don’t need to grow anymore. It is not true. When you come out of the university, when you come out with your degree, you’re not done learning. Trust me. You will learn for the rest of your life, if you are going to be good, want to be the best that you can be. If you want to go ahead, if you want to grow faster than expectations, if you want to become the CEO of a major Chinese business or a major multinational, you need to grow faster than others, you should learn to perform faster. That’s the simple rule in our company about learning and performance.Share ValuesThe third element that’s pretty common and what we see as one of the key ingredients for us is an explicit and shared set of values. When I was speaking at the Party School yesterday, I was speaking with the vice president of the Party School, we had lunch together, and I was amazed at the similarity between how we teach leadership and executive education. Some of the principles that we use and some of the principles they use there very similar. No.1 on both of our lists is common values. Integrity, a common set of values. We teach globalization, they teach globalization. We teach about the impact of technology, and product and services in the world, they teach technology. We teach strategic thinking and planning, they teach strategic planning. We teach leadership, they teach leadership. Whether you are in China trying to run the country, and in the United States trying to run a business, the principles of leadership are very common and the elements of a strong culture are very common. Shared values for us are very important, around integrity, around performance and a thirst for change. All we want is to make things better.Opportunities to ExcelThe fourth area is that we provide lots of opportunities for people to excel, to be theirbest. We have over 20 major global businesses. I’ve worked in 6 of those, in Aircraft Engines, Aerospace, in Lighting, in Power Systems, Medical Systems and Information Technology. I had a great career with GE. It’s been a wonderful company. It’s as though I’ve worked for 6 major industries in may career, but have 24 years of pension from one company. It has been a wonderful opportunity to work in different industries, and learn about different industries and grow, and yet still has the same values that bind us together. We provide lots of opportunities for people with stretch jobs, challenging jobs and bigger jobs than they ever dreamed of.Developmental TrainingThe other thing we do, I put this into the developmental training, is that we have a view on how we shall train leaders. In 110 years of time that GE has been existent, we had only 9 chairmen. For an industrial company, that is a pretty amazing record. Our second chairman back in the 1920’s and 30’s refused to be drafted, to run for the president of the country. He was Owen Young and he was very successful. One of the major parties wanted him to run for the president of the country and he chose not to. So we have had some pretty good leaders before Jack and we have some pretty good leaders after Jack. How we do it is that we develop them. Jack Welch and Jeff Immelt, our current leader, both started their careers in GE. So we didn’t hire them from HP, from Dell, from IBM. We hire them from off college campus, and we give them lots of opportunities, trainings, challenges, etc. When we look at the stages of developing leaders, pretty clearly, there are 3 stages based on a research done by a non-profit organization on the development of leadership. They interviewed over 2,000 of the leaders who were at the top of their organizations. Not just business leaders, who are CEOs of businesses, but they interviewed heads of state, they interviewed presidents, premiers of countries, prime ministers, they interviewed heads of religions where they talked to the cardinals; they also talked to heads of non-profit organizations, looking for what was common among people who were at the very top of an organization. They found that they all went through 3 stages.The first stage was in the first 5 years of practicing their profession. They all had something in common, something we try to provide in developing our leaders. All of them had a unique technical success, which means that they were immersed in detail of their professions, very deep, very involved and intricate, and they had a success in doing something with that.The second thing is that they had a stretch-job assignment. When they look back at their peers, they recognize that, at that age, “I had a much bigger job than anybody else. It scared me; I’m not sure I was able to do it. I’m not sure why they asked me to do it. But I did it.” When you do a stretched job, a job that’s bigger than you think you can, it develops two things. One is, obviously, it develops new competence-an ability to do something different that you never did before. Second, it develops a confidence in yourself to face situations you don’t know how to deal with, face things that scare you and to do it. What leaders need to do everyday is to face challenging problems they don’t know how to solve. Many days they are scared because they think “I can’t solve this”. But they get out and they do it. They address it and they find a way. That’swhat the leadership does and they help other people to do it.The third thing that we get from this is that people have early leadership opportunities. What we do from the training standpoint of GE is we provide entry-level programs to help the transition from the university in the first 5 years. These two-year programs provide leadership training. They provide opportunities to rotate through jobs and get different experiences they could not have gotten in the first couple of years to stretch them. And we provide very disciplined training in a quality-discipline called six sigma. It’s rigorous, ana lytical methods, and statistical methods of analysis on design and quality. The second phase of developing leaders the research found was that in the five to fifteen years into a professional career, what those top leaders had was they had formal management responsibility of a team. They had broad involvement across the organization and they had exposure to significant role models. In other words, they had the opportunity to have face-to-face interaction with high-level role models, people they admired. And what we do in our programs is to get programs to help with managers become managers. We teach the techniques, tactics and skills of management at that level. We give people broad assignments that look across the whole business, so they begin to get up and see across functions. And lastly, we use a lot of our executives to teach major elements of the course. So we don’t rely upon professional instructors all the time. I teach many of our courses, many modules. I teach two to three hours a piece. The chairman of our company teaches modules in training leadership. The third phase of developing the most senior leaders in the world involves people who had a high impact in their organizations. They had a total responsibility of assignments, which meant they could n’t point to people as to why something did not get them. But it was their responsibility. And they also had a wide network of personal contacts. In other words, they learned leadership and broadened network of people to call on. The three courses (MDC, BMC, EDC) we have here are the executive development courses in GE. Each of those is three and half weeks long, resident in Crotonville in NY, the facility that I run. I live and work in it. And in 20 years of Jack Welch being CEO of GE, we ran 280 classes of these executive programs, three weeks to a month long each. He taught at every one of those 280 except one, when he was in hospital, recovering from a heart attack and by-pass surgery. It was the only one in 20 years that he missed. He devoted between 2 and 6 hours of his time to each of those classes, teaching leadership. He used flip charts and whiteboards and breakout assignments and all sorts of things to help convey it. We believe the best way to teach leadership is for leaders to teach. In that aspect, we augment that with others. In the training program, we do a wonderful job, I think, in helping people with the opportunity to learn and develop. In our programs of the top, especially, they focus on general management, they focus on leadership of organizations, we focus on cultural change, and on driving change through organization. Measure Performance We also measure performance and we measure in a number of ways. This is not the standard tool, not something we put numbers to, but it’s a simple appro ach. We provide an opportunity for people with different roles, exposure to a clear set of values, of things we believe important, a way to act and behave, and a set of experiences and training and types of assignments that people cantake. What we expect of our employees is they turn those opportunities into competencies and into skills. It’s a world of opportunities. When people do that, their job is to learn and to take skills from things and apply themselves to create value. Simply put, we measure value in a business by four words: more, better, faster, cheaper, because for-profit businesses are evolved or existent in our world to create value for shareholders. We do that by finding customers who need products. We make the products. We sell them to them. We find great employees to make that. But the creation of value is how we measure it. When we promote people into new jobs, we promote people who create the most value in what they did before. We don’t promote the prettiest person. We don’t promote the on e who has the nicest clothes or the one who gets the highest GPA at Tsinghua or at Beida. We promote the person who performs the best. It’s very simple. And in a career inside GE, we measure that on what you create. We promote people or we give people new experiences. We send them to training, for executive training or we send them to a new start-up to create a new venture or a new business, or a new product, or to turn around a failing business, something that will challenge them. Assess Promotability We also assess promotability. So we not only assess performance, we talk about promotability. Simply put, to use it in an analogy to business, performance in a person is the same as the operating result in a business. The profitability of a company is its sales that year, its net income…there are all hard measures at the end of the year about what we have accomplished. That’s what performance is. The promotablity of a person is similar to the stock price of a company. It’s the current assessment of future work,of future capability, of future value. We think that it’s really important in looking at leadership, because, again, somebody in this room possibly could become a CEO of GE in 25 years. Because somebody in a room like this at the University of Massachusetts, when we were recruiting there for engineering, hired a guy named Jack Welch, who became a CEO. Somebody sitting at Harvard, when they were recruiting, found Jeff Immelt, who started at the company and twenty years later became the CEO. So what we do is look at the future potential of the people. We talk about their strengths and their development needs. We ask them to tell us what they think that is and our managers comment on it. We talk about their future potential and we give people feedback, all on web-based electronic system that tracks over 100,000 professionals and managers in GE, every year on a process to develop our talents. Reward Best, Remove Worst If you read Jack Welch’s book “Straight from the Gut”, you may know that we also look at rewarding the best and removing the worst. Peking University did not become the quality university that it is by taking any professor to teach or any student to learn. It constantly seeks to take the best students out of high schools and the best undergraduates. It’s very competitive to get in. It takes the best professors from around the world to come and teach. And if you don’t teach well or you don’t learn well, you leave the university. Business is the same, at least at GE. We take our leaders. We take our professionals and we assess their performance but then we assign them on the best to the worst. We do an equivalent of force ranking. The top 20 percent of the people, we promote. The valued 70 in the middle, we also reward and promote. We just don’t give th em as big a reward, or as frequent a promotion perhaps.。