HR Structure vs Employees

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sylvia hammond on March 4, 2010 at 4:28pm

I have to agree with Malcolm. The ratios being discussed cover the basic transactional activities that I would also refer to as Personnel activities: Getting people in, paying them, dealing with the issues that arise including industrial relations matters, and all the administrative functions that go with these activities - both paper and computerised.

However, developing HR strategy aligned with the business strategy, identifying future growth/new developments/acquisitions of the company, and the associated skills and competency needs; implementation of skills development strategies (at all levels of the organisation) to deal with skills needs proactively (avoiding our current scarce skills crisis), identifying performance improvement areas, not only productivity improvements but also improvements in management skills (most of our current management are technical experts with no knowledge of how to manage people) these are just some of the activities of Strategic Human Resource Management.

Everyone complains about Setas and blames them for our scarce skills crisis - but ask any of the Seta staff who have tried to develop sector skills plans and they will tell you that companies don't do manpower planning - they have no idea what their future skills needs are. This is not necessarily only the responsibility of the HR people - there are many factors responsible for our situation - not only are HR not involved in decision-making in most companies, but in many the skills development responsibility has been given to an SDF who doesn't communicate with the HR department - and a lawyer who fills in EE forms and submits them - with no integration of these activities. This may seem off the point, but it illustrates that we need to very clearly identify what are the personnel activities, and then consider the breadth of what human resource management involves, then we might start getting close to strategic human resource management.

Having said all that, I'm of the opinion that many business owners simply aren't interested - they're after short-term financial gains, and it's unlikely the "HR" person alone will change their mind.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jean Pierre Rossouw on March 4, 2010 at 4:58pm

Firstly, thanks so much to everyone for all the friendly advice and inputs. Every single one will assist me greatly.

Secondly, the inputs from Malcolm and Sylvia illustrates my point. Our "Personnel" Departement, in my opinion, are so understaffed that we barely have time to attend to the so-called daily basic transactional matters as mentioned above. Therefore I see a need to motivate to my MD the appointment of an extra body or 2 in the Personnel department to attend to these activities, which will enable me to partially manage this while at the same time focus on the more Strategic HR issues. The benefits to the Company is obvious. However, to be convincing in any way I must at least provide him with facts which include, amongst others, an indication of some of the current trends ito the size of other Personnel/HR departments. I do acknowledge that this is by far not the only factor to consider, but it forms part of my approach to this specific issue.

Regards,

JP.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Adams on March 6, 2010 at 12:42am

Jean Pierre Rossouw said:

Firstly, thanks so much to everyone for all the friendly advice and inputs. Every single one will assist me greatly.

Secondly, the inputs from Malcolm and Sylvia illustrates my point. Our "Personnel" Departement, in my opinion, are so understaffed that we barely have time to attend to the so-called daily basic transactional matters as mentioned above. Therefore I see a need to motivate to my MD the appointment of an extra body or 2 in the Personnel department to attend to these activities, which will enable me to partially manage this while at the same time focus on the more Strategic HR issues. The benefits to the Company is obvious. However, to be convincing in any way I must at least provide him with facts which include, amongst others, an indication of some of the current trends ito the size of other Personnel/HR departments. I do acknowledge that this is by far not the only factor to consider, but it forms part of my approach to this specific issue.

Regards,

JP.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Adams on March 6, 2010 at 2:11am

Hi JP

Ratios I find are good for statistics. I have never been one for increasing HR department staff numbers but rather to look for innovative ways of delivering an output (excellent service) with minimum input. Remember that HR depts are not seen as revenue generators (which I tend to disagree with)and in the event of restructuring HR depts are first in line. I would suggest that you look at more innovative ways to do the job. Example No 1. Do a work study to minimise the paper work thus freeing up time for more productive activities and HR planning.No 2. Develop electronic Hr system for example implement intra-net and train employees to self-manage some HR aspects especially the documentation, medical aid, retirement funds, workmans compensation etc. No.3 Convert the weekly paid employees to a monthly or fortnightly payroll, not only will this save HR time it will save money for the company.

In addition to the day to day HR management activities it is more important to establish what outcomes/deliverables are expected from your HR dept in line with your company's strategic objectives & vision in order to make impact and add value. In order to present a strong case for more staff (if this is your thinking)you need to convince Snr management that you do not have the sufficient resources to impact/add value and accomplish the HR aspects of the organisations strategic objectives.
As far ratios go if this helps at all. I was an HR Manager based in JHB(of a manfacturing company with 3 factories (2 in JHB & 1 CT)and 12 depots throught the country with a total staff complement of 750 (120 monthly & 630 weekly paid) the only staff I had in HR dept was 1 Training Officer & 1 payroll administrator. Initially we had 2 payroll administrators (1 CT & 1JHB) We then convert all the weekly paid employees to monthly paid thus freeing 1 payroll administrator.At another manufacturing company with 2 plants 100km apart with 600 staff (80 monthly & 520 weekly paid staff) I had 2 payroll adminstrators (1 at each plant).

I hope this helps,
All the best
Regards
Keith Adams

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jean Pierre Rossouw on March 8, 2010 at 9:11am

Thanks for your insights Keith. Exteremely valuable!

Keith Adams said:

Hi JP

Ratios I find are good for statistics. I have never been one for increasing HR department staff numbers but rather to look for innovative ways of delivering an output (excellent service) with minimum input. Remember that HR depts are not seen as revenue generators (which I tend to disagree with)and in the event of restructuring HR depts are first in line. I would suggest that you look at more innovative ways to do the job. Example No 1. Do a work study to minimise the paper work thus freeing up time for more productive activities and HR planning.No 2. Develop electronic Hr system for example implement intra-net and train employees to self-manage some HR aspects especially the documentation, medical aid, retirement funds, workmans compensation etc. No.3 Convert the weekly paid employees to a monthly or fortnightly payroll, not only will this save HR time it will save money for the company.

In addition to the day to day HR management activities it is more important to establish what outcomes/deliverables are expected from your HR dept in line with your company's strategic objectives & vision in order to make impact and add value. In order to present a strong case for more staff (if this is your thinking)you need to convince Snr management that you do not have the sufficient resources to impact/add value and accomplish the HR aspects of the organisations strategic objectives.
As far ratios go if this helps at all. I was an HR Manager based in JHB(of a manfacturing company with 3 factories (2 in JHB & 1 CT)and 12 depots throught the country with a total staff complement of 750 (120 monthly & 630 weekly paid) the only staff I had in HR dept was 1 Training Officer & 1 payroll administrator. Initially we had 2 payroll administrators (1 CT & 1JHB) We then convert all the weekly paid employees to monthly paid thus freeing 1 payroll administrator.At another manufacturing company with 2 plants 100km apart with 600 staff (80 monthly & 520 weekly paid staff) I had 2 payroll adminstrators (1 at each plant).

I hope this helps,
All the best
Regards
Keith Adams

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Des Squire on March 8, 2010 at 11:10am

Hi Jean-Pierre
I am attaching two articles I have written that might asist you in developing some arguements to put forward in support of your thinking. Good luck

Attachments:

• 29 Changing face of HR.doc, 28 KB
• 39 Productivity is also a HR problem.doc, 41 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian Webster on March 8, 2010 at 11:59am

Thanks Des, very helpful.
Ian


Des Squire said:

Hi Jean-Pierre
I am attaching two articles I have written that might asist you in developing some arguements to put forward in support of your thinking. Good luck

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page