Stakeholder’s Perspective on Human Resource Management
Stakeholder theory
In a corporate, the management of human resources will mainly be concerned with defining and implementation of good management practices, while it overlooks the conflicts that may arise from employment and implementation of the same management practices. In most cases, the management will draft these policies without involving all the parties affected by the same policies and the employees are the ones left out. For smooth running of the companies, the managements should consider and accept that the evolution of these informal and formal rules governing the professional relationship in an organization is inevitable. In order for the organization to come up with regulations that favor all the concerned parties then all the stakeholders must be involved in the negotiation.
“Stakeholder’s theory is not specifically aimed at understanding HRM. Practices,” but it is an important tool that provides a framework for the analysis of human resource management in an organization. Generally, the theory will provide a good basis for restructuring and reorganization of human resources in a company in order to eliminate redundancy. For its effectiveness, the company has to adopt and incorporate the theory in its management policies (Ferrary 2009).
Investigating Stakeholder Theory and Social Capital: CSR in Large Firms and SMEs
For a company to run efficiently and achieve its goals then it must play an active role in the development of the society. From its definition, CRS is concerned with the roles of businesspersons in making of policies and decisions that promotes the development of the society. As noted by Perrini and Russo (2010) the scope of CRS has evolved with time making it not just a matter of responsibility but also a strategic vision for every company. This actually provides a good basis for the development of the stakeholder’s theory. In modern business, CSR employs stakeholder’s models where the concept is dynamic and it keeps on changing in relation to the changes in the stakeholders because of the company’s development. On the other hand, the development of SMEs supports the company’s responsibility towards the society.
Although SMEs help to build a good relationship between the company and the society there has not been fully utilization of concepts. By employing a focused stakeholders approach managers of companies can be able to manage this relational capital in an effective manner.
Stakeholder Mismanagement in Retailing: A British Perspective
This paper focuses on problems that may result from mismanagement of a company’s stakeholders by the use of case studies. The observation of the first case was at free flights offered by Hoover Company to one of its customers. From the offer the company suffered from severe consequences, the promotion affected the volume of the company’s flight and customer’s dissatisfaction. The other case addressed is the cutting of workers pay by the British Gas company as well as the mismanagement problems that led to the collapse of Ratner’s retail jeweler chain.
The first lessons learned from the three case studies are that the companies should deal with their stakeholders according to the acceptable ethical norms. Secondly, although the stakeholders of a company exist as groups they do interact and their interaction is in the company’s management (Whysall, 2000). The third lesson from the case studies is that stakeholder mismanagement results in widespread and long-term consequences.
Bp Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, But U.S. Missed Chances to Act. (New York Times)
It has been widely argued that the tragedy that followed the explosion of BP’s drilling rig at the Gulf of Mexico were because of the company’s neglect. As explained in the stakeholders theory for a company to realize its full operational potential and smooth running then it must be concerned with the welfare of all its stakeholders. Stakeholder theory incorporates the corporate social responsibility, which includes the environment and human resource. There will be investigation of the question of whether BP neglected its environmental and human resource responsibility in pursuit of high output and profit in this section.
As noted by Robertson and Lipton (2010), there were fears that the spill could lead to an environmental catastrophe. The oil continued to leak out of control from the well the National Oceanic and Atmospheric officials warned that the flow could reach up to levels as high as 5,000 barrels per day and this magnitude will have diverse effects on the environment. Federal officials also criticize BP sharply for not succeeding in stopping the leak and cleaning the spill before it spreads to the land.
Geoffrey S. Morrell, an official in the defense department in a statement said that BP is responsible to the government for the cost the department incurred in deploying its officer on the spill sites to assist in the clean up exercise. In the same article, Adm. Robert C. a retired Coast Guard’s commander of the Eighth District was saying that the decisions making in this situation should be collective but the company should take the greatest responsibility. He continues to say that though the government should be involved in tackling the problem, BP should be responsible for the financial cost incurred. In the same case, he argued that the company has greater technological capacity to contain the problem than the government.
Doug Suttles, the BP’s chief exploration operation officer giving his views concerning the issue on a press interview said that the company has mobilized all available resources in trying to cope with the problem. He continued to say that the efforts of the company had not changed even with the announcement of an increase in the spill on Wednesday night. In the same article, Mr. Suttles said that, although BP had acted on the problem its efforts had no effect on the situation and that with the spill rising to 5,000 barrels a day the company will be spending about $6 million per day and the daily expenditure was to increase once the spill reached the land. In his statement, he accepts the fact that the company underestimated the spill by assuming that it would be contained before it reached the mainland.
Adm. Thad W. Allen the coats guard commander was quoted saying that the situation of the spill was catastrophic and its effect on the environment could be felt up to a period of three months after the spill is contained. He continues to say that his team was doing all that it could do in order to contain the situation. In the same article, within a few hours after the explosion Coast Guards dispatched four helicopters, three cutters and a plane to the site of the spill to assist in the evacuation of 90 workers trapped in the operation site, where three workers critically injured.
From this article, it is clear that there is always a high cost that for mismanagement. BP had failed in the management of its resources, the company had not set aside resources for use in such situation and in the end, it had to hire resources such as work force and equipment, and therefore it paid high cost. The company also had to meet the cost of rehabilitating the environment. From the above quotes and statements it can be said that BP had neglected its employees and environmental concern in pursuit of higher profit and at the end the company had to pay an extra cost for the mismanagement.
References
Ferrary, M., 2009. Stakeholder’s perspective on human resource management. Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:31–43.
Perrini, F., and Russo, A. 2010. Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and smes. Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 91:207–221
Robertson, C. and Lipton, E., 2010. Bp is criticized over oil spill, but U.S. missed chances to act. New York Times, 30th April.
Whysall, P., 2000. Stakeholder mismanagement in retailing. A British perspective Journal of Business Ethics; Jan 2000; 23, pg. 19