Human Resource Management Case Study of Top Trucking Company

Question: Describe about the Human Resource Management and Discuss the Case Study of Top Trucking Company. Answer: Introduction The aim of the report is to present the human resource management after some organisational changes. The case study company is Top Trucking Company, which is a transport company. A new company bought the company and new manager was appointed. The manger has brought some changes in organisational culture. Therefore, the employees have to adopt the new cultures. The report evaluates new practices in this company and how the employees, union representatives and manager, manage it. Organisational changes have some risks, which are discussed here. Involvement of the transport workers union in the organisation after the changes and their attitude are evaluated in this respect. Discussion Evaluation of new workplace practices The old manager of the yard of Top trucking company was autocratic in nature. He used to impose his idea upon the employees. The manger had individual control over the employees. The manager took decision about the working process according to own idea. This ignored the idea of the team members and the employees. Moreover, the employees were blame for their worse performance. Investment on new truck was low, which gave operational inefficiency in the firm. The old truck required renovation, which was not done in time. These practices created conflicts among the truck drivers. Use of old truck was cause of frequent accidents. Operational inefficiency, malpractices of human resource management reduced productivity of the company (Raelin, 2012). The company has been sold to a big national transport group. The new owner of the company has invested in company to improve the health of the work place and the drivers. They got a clean yard and new uniform. For better maintenance of business operation and human resource, a new computer system has been installed (Fullan, 2014). A new manager has come in place of autocratic manager. The new yard manager is comparatively democratic in nature. The new manager has brought some organisational changes in culture. He gives priority to the opinion of drivers and union representative. He uses different techniques to resolve any problem or conflicts among the employees. In case of any conflicts, he calls the union member and drivers to discuss on the issue other than blaming them. He takes decision rationally. The health and safety issue of the drivers are considered now. Therefore, new environment has given a fresh air to the drivers (Harris, 2013). They have started to realise their values in the organisation. Hence, these changes ensure more intensive involvement of the employees in the work process and service delivery. New method of resolving conflicts helps to mitigate issues more easily than earlier. This results in increasing collaboration among the co-workers. Collaborative work and good relation with manager helps to manage human resource in a better way (Burnes By, 2012). This improvement in the organisation has helped the company to get new contracts. New contracts have expanded the business in the market and increase Companys profitability. Previously, when the old manager exercised the autocratic leadership, the communication between the drivers and he manager was one way. The attitude of the manager created barriers in sharing ideas, which de-motivated the drivers and the union members (Hackman Johnson, 2013). The new manager brought new rules in terms of allowing the team members for taking part in decision making process. Empowering team member helps in proper resource allocation to perform work in better way. Investment in employees training improves the skills (Bhatti et al., 2012). Enhanced skill increases the marginal productivity of the drivers and total profit of the company. In this new situation, the manager plays a role of facilitator to provide required environment in workplace. This kind of leadership in work place helps to generate innovative ideas to improve performance of the employee and the management (Glassman, Erdem Bartholomew, 2013). The drivers are free to discuss about their needs and problems to the manager. This negotiation is helpful to resolve problem immediately. The drivers can attach their objectives with the organisational goal. The decision of improving occupational health and safety of the drivers are important decision to retain the employees in the comp any. Employee turnover reduces therefore. Positive environment in workplace induces the driver to take responsibilities and challenges in workplace (Daft, 2014). Risks of the changes In the new work environment, the team members are given priority in decision-making process. However, the manager takes fin decision. Participatory leadership is good for the company as far as the welfare of the employees are concerned. If the new yard manager sustains new rules, there may have some risks. As the drivers and the union members take part in decision making process, there is possibility that a desire may grow up among the member to be the leader in the same organisation. Leadership desire can grow from the bottom of power (Alvesson Sveningsson, 2015). Some of the drivers in the influence of union member may raise their voice against the management. They may rebel in future against the same manager. In order to succeed with this new system, there needs to be presence of competencies among the drivers and the union member to move on further without any conflicts. The exiting employees need to be aware about the companys financial position (Wilensky, 2015). Otherwise, as they get freedom of expression, they may demand more facilities in terms of salaries, incentives. Every member requires being honest about their job responsibilities. Any dishonesty may corrupt the system. The new human resource management system is managed in computerised system. Lack of proper knowledge may hamper this system. Another risk is involved in the process as many people is involved in the decision making process. Every person has different perspective. If they cannot reach in a single decision, long term debate may arise, which may create dissatisfaction (Beck Cowan, 2014). Therefore, no further improvement is possible in the organisation. If in this case, if the interest of the drivers is different from the goal of the company, it is difficult for the manager to get the drivers to concentrate on the welfare of Top Trucking Company. In order to give priority to the peoples decision, sometimes welfare of the company cannot be achieved. There may be certain situation, where decision for employees welfare may be different from companys welfare. In this situation, decision making becomes difficult. In may happen that, companys expenditure is too high that it negatively affect on revenue. Hence, the immediate decision of manager would be reduction in less important expenditure. Extra expenditure on drivers may then be only way of reducing expenditure. This decision may dissatisfy the employees. In this case, wage hike in the influence of union leader damage the situation further (Spillane, 2012). Sustainability of the new system depends upon the leadership quality and interpersonal skill of the new manager. The manager needs to have strong character to resolve the issues. If the nature of the manager is weak, the groups decision may be emphasized over management decision. This creates operational inefficiency. The team members are only allowed to give their opinion. However, the final decision is to be taken by the manager. If the manager becomes more dependent on the team members, the new system may not be sustained in future, which is not good for the company. There is a possibility of conflicts between the manager and the new owner of the company. The owners ultimate goal is companys profit. If employees welfare has conflict with organisations welfare, this may dissatisfy both the party. The owner may decide to dismiss some of the employees. Moreover, there is another risk that, if the existing employees are accustomed with the system, any further organisational change may not be accepted by the employees (Voegtlin, Patzer Scherer, 2012). Evaluation of involvement of Transport Workers Union After the organisational change, the union member denied to accept the new manager. They thought that the decision making process of the new manager would be the same as that of the previous manager. This thought induced them to take decision against the manager. Occurrence of few strikes is result of their negative thought. Strike in organisation hampers the work process and reduces the productivity. The Transport Workers union are work solely for the welfare of the employees (Western, 2013). Their objective is to facilitate the truck drivers a better work environment, good wages and job security. The new system provides all these things for the benefit of the employees. Strikes influenced some of the drivers to behave aggressively. Some of the employees had left the organisation. However, after realising the new changes, the drivers accepted the system willingly. In the union such as Transport workers union, union members are chosen from the existing employees. Therefore, their und erstanding between union and manager is important for companys progress. On the other hand, the public sector union solely works for the welfare of the employees. The union member enforces the rule of minimum wage strongly. They have no direct liability for the welfare of the public sector organisation as these organisations depends on government participation. However, the existence of the transport union workers depends on the existence of the transport companies. If the company does not get profit, this will have impact on wage of the drivers. Therefore, involvement of the union members in the work process is necessary. In the private company like Top Trucking Company, there is a scope of collaborative work between the union members and the manager. They can work together for the welfare of the company. However, there is no scope for the union members in the public sector organisation to take part in the companys decision making process (Day Sammons, 2013). Therefore, their interest is limited to the welfare of the employees. The union leader accepted the decision of the new manager and his work process as the company has experienced a progress in business operation. After the organisation change, this yard has got attention from head quarter and from different other companies across the country. This improvement in the organisation justifies intensive engagement and collaborative work of the union members in the work process. The union leader now desires about the retention of the new manager in the yard. They want the new manager to stay in this ward and to work with them as they have accepted the new system. Recommendation It is recommended to the company that participatory leadership is beneficial for the company. Incentive policy for the drivers for better performance can induce them to improve their skills. Good cultural practices in the organisation improve the work environment. The manager can prepare a performance indicator for the team member. If the manager can relate the work performance with the growth of the company, the employee can recognise their values in the company. Improvement of relation with the customers is important criterion for the success of the organisation. For further improvement of the productivity, more investment is required. Progress of the company, availability of the new contracts can clear the path of inviting new investment. Inventory management is another aspect for the improvement of financial position of the company. The investor mainly takes decision seeing financial liabilities and assets of the company. Conclusion This report answers three question of the case study on Top Trucking Company. The case study is about human resource management and the impact of organisational change. The previous management procedure of the yard was autocratic in nature. There was little importance of the employees in the decision making process. However, after the change of companys ownership, new manager has been employee, whose decision making process is more participatory rather than autocratic. He values the participation of the employees in the decision making and problem solving process. New owner of the company has invested for computerised system for human resource management. New management has been successful to resolve the conflicts among the employees and to improve their performance by arranging proper training. References Alvesson, M., Sveningsson, S. (2015).Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge. Beck, D. E., Cowan, C. (2014).Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership and change. John Wiley Sons. Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction.International Business Research,5(2), 192. Burnes, B., By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity.Journal of business ethics,108(2), 239-252. Daft, R. L. (2014).The leadership experience. Cengage Learning. Day, C., Sammons, P. (2013).Successful Leadership: A Review of the International Literature. CfBT Education Trust. 60 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4BS, England. Fullan, M., (2014).Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. John Wiley Sons. Glassman, M., Erdem, G., Bartholomew, M. (2013). Action research and its history as an adult education movement for social change.Adult Education Quarterly, 0741713612471418. Hackman, M. Z., Johnson, C. E. (2013).Leadership: A communication perspective. Waveland Press. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed Leadership Friend or Foe?.Educational Management Administration Leadership,41(5), 545-554. Raelin, J. A. (2012). Dialogue and deliberation as expressions of democratic leadership in participatory organizational change.Journal of Organizational Change Management,25(1), 7-23. Spillane, J. P. (2012).Distributed leadership(Vol. 4). John Wiley Sons. Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., Scherer, A. G. (2012). Responsible leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes.Journal of Business Ethics,105(1), 1-16. Western, S. (2013).Leadership: A critical text. Sage. Wilensky, H. L. (2015).Organizational intelligence: Knowledge and policy in government and industry(Vol. 19). Quid Pro Books