Professionalization of HRM in Hong Kong and United … · · 2013-12-23HR? Professionalization of...

Professionalization of HRM in Hong Kong and United Kingdom

Dr. Paul HIGGINS Associate Professor

City University of Hong Kong

This work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the ESRC / RGC Joint Research Scheme sponsored by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong and the Economic & Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (Project

reference no. 9057004 RGC ref ES/J017299/1).

33rd HKIHRM Annual Conference & Exhibition November 26-27, 2013

Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Hong Kong

Acknowledgements My research collaborator – Ian Roper and his RA

- Sophie Gamwell

My SRA – Nancy Yang (especially helpful in preparing tables and doing the CIPD and

HKIHRM document analysis/matching


Interviews and on-line survey

assistance:

HKIHRM

Kin Mei, CEO

Francis Mok, President

KT Lai, ex-president

Dave Li, IT Committee Chairman

Lawrence Hung, Member of the Professional

Standard Committee

Interviews and on-line survey

assistance: CIPD

Vanessa Robinson, Head of HR Practice

Development

Marion Craig , Operations Manager Liz Dalton, Online Information Co-ordinator Rodney Chua CIPD, Asia Julia Tybura, Lead Chair for CIPD London

This presentation is about you


“The HR profession”

Which direction is it going? Which direction should it be going?

Profession is a word that gets bounded about a lot


But what about in the specific case of HR?


HRM is an emerging profession

HRM is management profession

Status Profession Institutional pressure

Established Law, medicine, engineering License to practice (coercive)

Regulating entry to occupation

(normative)

Best practice (mimetic)

New Accountancy

Emerging Information Technology

HRM

Managers versus professionals


Independence ethics from organization

Public interest

“Dancing with Business”

The World Federation of Personnel Management Association (WFPMA)

Summarizes the requirements of the HR profession as follows:

1. a distinct body of knowledge; 2. common standards of entry and performance; 3. a requirement for training/certification. 4. an ethical code of conduct; 5. a community with a sense of identity

Source: Tsui, Lai and Wong (2009)

This presentation will explore these requirements through a

comparative analysis of the professionalization of HRM in Hong

Kong and the United Kingdom.


It examines a) the normative (desired) standards of the two major people management institutes in HK and UK and b) the practices of practitioners in relation to them

Why CIPD and HKIHRM?

Major professional people management institute for UK and HK respectively

Provide East and West comparisons

Co-operated for the first time in 2010 to conduct surveys, entitled “Learning and Talent

Development Survey” and “Next Generation HR”.

Signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2010

Most recent professional standards launch 2009, 2010 respectively


Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management

Presentation structure

Compares standards from both professional institutes

Explores their use in practice at different levels of

membership, position and HR experience.

Adds some additional organizational issues using a

different set of demographic data

Acting as a “critical friend” to the two institutes


Although there are different stakeholder interests

Stakeholder relationships of HR Practitioner


HR practitioner

Employers

Corporate strategy

Academia

Colleagues

Professional institutes

Employees


Domain Relationship Property Image

University Student Educate, graduate

Business Function Strategic partner

Administrative Expert

Employee champion

Change agent

Institute Member Service, discipline,

qualify,

Society Status Public interest

Comparing professional standards documentation

of HKIHRM and CIPD


Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management

Exhibit 1 The CIPD’s professional map (bands and

transitions) Exhibit 2 The career ladder of HKIHRM


At first glance, appear very different

Upon Closer Inspection - Similarities Both sets of standards contain three

main elements.

HKIHRM – 1) knowledge, 2)

capabilities and 3) experience

CIPD – 1) knowledge, 2) activities

and 3) behaviours.


Two broad themes


Knowledge and “behaviours”.

First, the CIPD’s knowledge and activities elements are

broadly equivalent to the HKIHRM’s knowledge (HR

professional areas) component.

Second, the HKIHRM’s capabilities (HR competencies)

and experience (HR roles and responsibilities) elements

are broadly equivalent to the CIPD’s behaviour

component.

Knowledge

HKIHRM Knowledge standard CIPD Knowledge and activities standard

1. HR and Business

HR

Bo

dy o

f Kn

ow

led

ge

1. Insights, Strategy and Solutions Co

re 2. Employment-Related Legislations 2. Leading HR

3. Human Resource Planning 3. Organization Design

Oth

er P

rofe

ssio

nal a

rea

s

4. Sourcing and Staffing 4. Organization Development

5. Reward Management 5. Resource and Talent Planning

6. Performance Management 6. Learning and Development

7. Employee Relations and Employee

Engagement 7. Performance and Reward

8. Industrial Relations and Unions 8. Employee Engagement

9. Learning and Development 9. Employee Relations

10. Corporate Wellness 10. Service, Delivery and Information

11. International HRM

Source: HKIHRM HR body of knowledge Nov 2009, CIPD professional map 2009


Matching Knowledge and Activities, 6 themes

Shared knowledge area HKIHRM knowledge standard CIPD knowledge and activities

1) HR strategy and

business knowledge

1. HR and Business

1. Insights, Strategy and Solutions

2. Leading HR.

3. Organization Design;

4. Organization Development

2) HR planning, sourcing and

staffing

2. Human Resource Planning

3. Sourcing and Staffing

5. Resource and Talent Planning

3) Learning and development 4. Learning and Development 6. Learning and Development

4) Performance and reward

5. Reward Management

6. Performance Management

7. Performance and Reward

5) Employee engagement,

relations and related

legislation

7. Employee Relations and

Employee Engagement

8. Industrial Relations and Unions

9. Employment-Related Legislation

8. Employee Engagement

9. Employee Relations

6) Corporate coordination 10. Corporate Wellness 10. Service, Delivery and Information

7) Others 11. International HRM None


Source: adapted from HKIHRM HR body of knowledge Nov 2009, CIPD professional map 2009

Knowledge


Two biggest elements 1) HR strategy and

business knowledge

2) Employee relations, engagement and related legislation

(HKIHRM professional standards guide, 2010)

Recommendations

International dimension for CIPD

4+2 Model, or five standards or 10 body of knowledge,

HKIHRM

Ensure correct setting of professional (e.g. before or after

managerial)


Behaviours

HKIHRM core standard in HR behaviours CIPD core standard in HR behaviours

Professional Knowledge

Business Partnership

Communication/Influence

Ethics

Customer/User Focus

CA

PA

BIL

ITY

HR

Co

mp

ete

ncy M

od

el

Curious

Decisive Thinker

Skilled Influencer

Personally Credible

Collaborative

Driven to Deliver

Courage to Challenge

Role Model

BE

HA

VIO

UR

S Business Partner

Strategy Implementer

Organisation Development

Designer

Expert Practitioner

Culture and Change Agent

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

HR

Ro

les a

nd

Resp

on

sib

ilities

Source: HKIHRM HR professional standards model 2010, CIPD professional map 2009


Matching Behaviours, six shared themes Shared

Behaviours

HKIHRM Capability

and Experience

CIPD

Behaviours

Description

(cited from sentences in key descriptor information )

1) Influence

Communication/

Influence

Skilled

Influencer

Decisive thinker

Demonstrates the ability to use information, insights and

knowledge in a structured way to influence and gain the

necessary commitment from stakeholders and to influence the

development and execution of HR strategies.

2) Partnership

and collaboration

Business Partnership

Business Partner

Customer/User Focus

Collaborative

Encourage partnership in decision making, working with

partners with colleagues inside and outside the organization to

provide joint HR solutions or services to users

3)

Professionalism

Professional Knowledge

Expert Practitioner

Personally

Credible

Apply and transform HR professional knowledge into HR

practices through combining commercial and HR expertise

4) Integrity Ethics Role Model Displays integrity and acts with integrity, impartiality and

independence within organization

5) Change Culture and Change

Agent Curious

Future-focused, seeks out evolving and innovative ways to

support change initiatives, open-minded

6)

Implementation Strategy Implementer

Driven to

Deliver

Contributes and implements determination, resourcefulness to

deliver the best results

7) Other

Organisation

Development

Designer

- Supports the development of organizational capability through

high-performing people

- Courage to

Challenge

Shows courage and confidence to speak up skilfully,

challenging others even when confronted with resistance or

unfamiliar circumstances.

Source: adapted from HKIHRM professional standards model 2010, CIPD professional map 2012 Note: HKIHRM behaviours in bold derive from HR experience and in italic from HR capabilities


Initial Summary


Similarities

• So in theory more similarities than differences, but for the purposes of this study these similarities still pitched at a fairly abstract level

Standards

• Need to move more explicitly into the standards themselves, as this is the regulatory/qualifying domain.

Membership

• In turn, this raises the question of membership type which distinguishes the “qualifying criteria” of different levels of professionalism

Membership Matching Member Types HKIHRM CIPD Description

Affiliate Member Yes

Serv

ice

-ba

sed

Yes

Affilia

te

HKIHRM & CIPD: Open to all, no qualification and work

experience is required

Corporate Member Yes No

HKIHRM: Available to companies

Student member Yes

Pro

fessio

na

l-rou

te

Yes

Stu

de

nt

HKIHRM: Studying a full-time HKIHRM recognized course /

HR programs fully endorsed by HKIHRM.

CIPD: enrolling on a CIPD approved qualification program.

Fellow Member

(F.I.H.R.M)

Chartered Fellow

(FCIPD)

Yes Yes

Pro

fessio

na

l

HKIHRM: Supported by convincing practical cases of required

competencies, roles and responsibilities as evidenced

CIPD requires: completion of qualification and depending on

relevant HR or development experience or through

assessment

Professional Member

(M.I.H.R.M)

Chartered Member

(MCIPD)

Yes Yes

HKIHRM: with university degree and selecting either select

Route A or Route B in meeting knowledge, experience and

capability.

CIPD: Study a level 7 Advanced Diploma in HRM or

equivalent or complete an experience assessment

Associate Member Yes Yes HKIHRM & CIPD: Has completed an recognized course/ HR

programs or through experience assessment

Academic Associate

No

Yes Acad

em

ic

mem

be

rsh

ip

CIPD: a professional membership for those working in the HR

academic or research field Academic Member Yes

Academic Fellow Yes



Explore standards in practice (empirical) at different levels of membership, organizational seniority and HR experience.

Knowledge

Behaviour/ experience

How? On-line survey of HKIHRM and CIPD members

- At different levels of membership, seniority, HR experience

- Using questions taken from professional standards documentation of

the two institutes at different membership levels (calibration)

- UK and HK respondents answer questions from both sets of data


Who? Individuals

- Predominantly full-time 82% (UK) 95% (HK)

- Time spent on HR activities 75% (UK) 81% (HK)

- UK 70% (542) female (total 775)

- HK 76% (176) female (total 232)

- UK median age 41-50

- HK median age 31-40


Gender by position

Gender General Specialist Managerial Executive Total

Male 10 (4.2%) 61 (27%) 69 (30.5%) 86 (38%) 226

Female 77 (14.6) 148 (28.1%) 201 (38.2) 100 (19%) 526


UK sample

Gender General Specialist Managerial Executive Total

Male 10 (17. 9%) 7 (12.5%) 22 (39.3%) 17 (30.36%) 56

Female 31 (17.7%) 29 (16.6%) 83 (47.4) 32(18.29%) 175

HK sample

Questions? 1. Membership type

- Professional route membership

2. Position

- Executive

- Managerial

- Specialist practitioner

- Assistant, general

3. Years HR experience

<1 to 20+ banded


Responses for knowledge 1. Membership

- 8 MIHRM standards

- 8 MCIPD standards

2. Position

- Executive

- Managerial




<1 to 20+ banded


MIHRM KNOWLEDGE (8) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

FCIPD 4.60 121-123

MCIPD 4.26 171-174

Graduate

Associate

4.07

3.80

47-50

207-209

Student 3.65 71

Affiliate 3.80 56-58


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

FIHRM 4.71 6

MIHRM 4.27 66-67

Associate 3.59 79-81

Corporate 4.23 18

None 3.51 20-21

MCIPD KNOWLEDGE (8) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

FCIPD 4.37 122-123

MCIPD 4.02 169-173

Graduate

Associate

3.91

3.81

49

205-209

Student 3.80 70-71



HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

FIHRM 4.42 6

MIHRM 4.09 67


Corporate 4.04 18

None 3.31 21

MIHRM KNOWLEDGE (8) by POSITION

UK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Executive 4.45 170-171

Managerial 4.11 234-236

Specialist 4.04 189-191

HR Assistant 3.30 77-78


HK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)





Note all bands considered

MCIPD KNOWLEDGE (8) by POSITION

UK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)






HK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)






MIHRM KNOWLEDGE (8) by HR EXPERIENCE

UK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

20+ 4.44 229-232

11-20 4.21 196-198

6-10 3.89 141-142

1-5 3.47 96-98

<1 2.38 17


HK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

20+ 4.58 38

11-20 3.96 75-76

6-10 3.72 39-40

1-5 3.39 45-46

<1 3.08 9


MCIPD KNOWLEDGE (8) by HR EXPERIENCE

UK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

20+ 4.21 227-231

11-20 4.08 196-197

6-10 3.82 141-142

1-5 3.60 97-98

<1 3.15 16-17


HK Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

20+ 4.33 38

11-20 3.84 75

6-10 3.70 40

1-5 3.34 45-46

<1 3.03 9


Summary 1) For both CIPD and HKIHRM the higher the membership

the more knowledge

2) For both CIPD and HKIHRM the higher the position the

more knowledge

3) For both CIPD and HKIHRM the more HR experience the

more knowledge

4) Very inexperienced UK practitioners (<1 year) attain

markedly low (2.38) MIHRM level knowledge. Compared to

3.08 for HK (< 1 year) and UK (1-5 years) 3.47

4) Very inexperienced HK practitioners (<1 year) attain

comparatively lower (3.03) MCIPD level knowledge.


Implications 1) Knowledge standards seem to be incredibly robust - all

responses go exactly in the direction expected. It’s almost

a perfect fit.

2) CIPD members tend to score slightly higher on average

than their HKIHRM counterparts BUT this is probably a

function of longer average years experience and their

relatively higher position within organization. Further

analysis can tease this distinction out.

3) Also possible to provide profile of HKIHRM and CIPD

members via factor analysis

4) Very inexperienced HR practitioners should not be

thrust into difficult HR positions.


Responses for behaviour/experience 1. Standards

- 13 CIPD (5 Associate) (5 MCIPD) (3 Challenge)

- 16 MIHRM (5 Technical) (3 Professional) (5 Managerial)

(3 Executive)

2. Position

- Executive

- Managerial




<1 to 20+ banded Professionalization of HRM in Hong Kong and United Kingdom

HKIHRM TECHINICAL (5) by MEMBERSHIP

CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 3.14 62-63


Graduate

Associate

2.73

2.79

43-45

192-193

MCIPD 2.27 159-160

FCIPD 2.10 111-115


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Associate 3.33 74

MIHRM 2.51 61-64

FIHRM 1.60 6

Corporate 2.91 18-19

None 3.24 21

HKIHRM PROFESSIONAL (3) by MEMBERSHIP

CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 3.42 62-63

Affiliate 3.36 53

Associate

Graduate

3.45

3.63

194-195

44

MCIPD 3.64 160-161

FCIPD 3.89 113-115


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Associate 3.46 74

MIHRM 4.13 63

FIHRM 4.44 6

Corporate 4.11 19

None 3.56 20-21

CIPD ASSOCIATE (5) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 4.09 61-63

Affiliate 3.73 53

Graduate

Associate

4.10 (2)

3.93

45

194-195

MCIPD 3.84 (3) 161-162

FCIPD 4.04 (1) 114-116


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)


MIHRM 4.11 63-64

FIHRM 4.13 6

Corporate 4.11 19

None 3.87 20-21

HKIRM MANAGERIAL (3) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 4.14 63


Associate

Graduate

4.02

4.21

194-195

45

MCIPD 4.26 161-164

FCIPD 4.50 115-116


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Associate 4.00 74

MIHRM 4.40 64

FIHRM 4.80 6

Corporate 4.37 19

None 3.89 21

CIPD MCIPD (5) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 3.44 62-63



Graduate 3.81 44-45

MCIPD 3.94 159-162

FCIPD 4.42 115


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)


MIHRM 3.99 64

FIHRM 4.53 6

Corporate 4.03 19

None 3.67 21

HKIRM EXECUTIVE (3) by MEMBERSHIP CIPD

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Student 3.44 63



Graduate 3.78 44

MCIPD 4.05 160-161

FCIPD 4.44 115


HKIHRM

members

Average across 8

knowledge standards

No. of responses

(range)

Associate 3.30 74

MIHRM 4.10 62-63

FIHRM 4.89 6

Corporate 4.09 18-19

None 3.49 20-21

CIPD CHALLENGE (3) by MEMBERSHIP “Can challenge views of..”

CIPD members Senior

managers

Middle

managers

Employees No. range of

responses

Student 4.00 4.22 4.25 63

Affiliate 4.04 4.19 4.32 53

Associate 3.99 4.23 4.26 192-194

Graduate 4.09 4.41 4.48 44

MCIPD 4.48 4.59 4.57 161-162

FCIPD 4.71 4.76 4.70 114-115


HKIHRM members Senior

managers

Middle

managers

Employees No. range of

responses

Associate 3.20 3.43 3.59 72-74

MIHRM 4.07 4.19 4.21 60-62

FIHRM 4.83 4.83 4.83 6

Corporate 4.00 4.26 4.26 19

None 3.00 3.19 3.67 21

SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS 1. Behaviour/experience standards also seem to be incredibly

robust - all responses go almost exactly in the direction

expected. (similar for position and experience)

2. However, CIPD Associate-level standards a little bit mixed.

Transition from graduate to associate penned for 2014

3. Direction of practices switches at transition from

technical (e.g. assistant high, MIHRM low) to

professional (e.g. MIHRM high, assistant low). Are

more qualified members doing too many “simple tasks”

should more responsibility be given to Associates?

4. HK respondents without professional membership

generally score lower than their peers, especially on

knowledge.


Rank order ideal balance between practice and experience (general HR issues) (UK)


ITEM (top 10 only) 17 total Ideal balance of practical

knowledge and experience

% of total

responses

Consulting and communicating

with staff 516

83.5%

Recruitment and selection 497 79.9%

Staff disciplinary processes 483 78.2%

Performance management 483 77.9%

Staff complaints/grievances 482 77.7%

Delivering training 418 67.9%

Employment law 404 65.3%

Employee Engagement 393 63.9%

Equal opportunities practices 389 62.9%

Organizational restructuring 359 58.1%

Rank order ideal balance between practice and experience (general HR issues) (HK)


ITEM (top 10 only) 17

total

Ideal balance of practical

knowledge and experience

% of total

Recruitment and selection 129 67.9%

Employment law 120 63.2%

Pay and benefits 110 57.9%

Consulting and

communicating with staff 105

55.9%

Staff disciplinary processes 104 55.0%

Performance management 101 53.4%

Redundancy 100 52.4%

Staff complaints/grievances 89 47.1%

Equal opportunities practices 83 43.9%

Employee Engagement 83 43.7%

Rank ”adequate practice but inadequate theoretical knowledge” (UK sample)


ITEM (top 10 only) 17 total Adequate practice

but inadequate

theory

% total % of

those

doing

Pay and benefits 114 18.4% 28.5%

Workforce planning 112 18.2% 28.2%

Employer branding and

reputation as employer 100

6.6% 7.6%

Job (re)design 97 7.4% 8.7%

Organizational restructuring 82 12.5% 25.0%

Employment law 79 9.7% 14.7%

Negotiating with union/staff

representatives 77

15.7% 25.1%

Employee Engagement 67 13.3% 50.0%

Equal opportunities practices 67 10.8% 14.7%

Leadership Development 63 12.8% 16.4%

Rank ”adequate practice but inadequate theoretical knowledge” (HK sample)


ITEM (top 10 only) 17 total Adequate practice

but inadequate

theory

% total % of

those

doing

Consulting and

communicating with staff 43

22.9% 29.1%

Workforce planning 39 20.5% 35.5%

Employee Engagement 38 20.0% 31.4%

Job (re)design 37 19.5% 35.9%

Organizational restructuring 35 18.3% 34.7%

Employer branding and

reputation as employer 34

17.9% 41.5%

Performance management 34 18.0% 25.2%

Employment law 33 17.4% 21.6%

Leadership Development 31 16.3% 30.4%

Staff complaints/grievances 30 15.9% 25.2%


The role and influence of HR operationally and strategically

Who?

Organizations

Organizations Organization Variables UK (CIPD) HK (HKIHRM)

Sector

Public 213 (28%) 38 (17%)

Private 452 (59%) 183 (80%)

Ind. 96 (13%) 7 (3%)

Size

Self emp 101 (13%) 1 (0%)

<20 76 (10%) 22 (10%)

<250 351 (59%) 139 (60%)

>250 296 (40%) 91 (40%)

Status of HR function Distinct function 369 (50%) 106 (47%)

Not distinct 375 (50%) 121 (53%)

Size of HR No one 123 (16%) 12 (5%)

1 136 (18%) 21 (9%)

2-5 171 (23%) 86 (37%)

6-10 67 (9%) 43 (19%)

11+ 254 (34%) 68 (30%)

Form of employee representation (tick all)

TU reps at work 287 (38%) 19 (8%)

TU rec/not pres. 65 (9%) 11 (5%)

Company assoc. 156 (23%) 46 (20%)

None 320 (43%) 169 (74%)


Questions? Role of HR strategic vs. operational

1. Strategic HR functions

2. Operational HR functions

3. Who decides (strategic)

- HR mainly responsible

- Joint

- Senior team

4. Who decides (operational)

- HR mainly responsible

- Operational department


Rank order of the role and influence of HR function strategically (UK respondents) Question Tendency

Total – do not do, don’t know

Job design/employment contracts HR main responsible (304) 545

Equality and diversity policy HR main responsible (304) 526

Work-Life balance policy HR main responsible (274) 504

Consulting or negotiating with union HR main responsible (199) 375

Employee engagement Joint (206) HR (187) 527

Staff planning/Talent management Joint (207) HR (188) 533

Performance Management Joint (209) HR 177) 550

Staff pay grading structure Senior (168) HR (155) Joint (150) 510

Redundancy Joint (230) senior (139) HR (120) 516

Health and safety/risk assessment Devolved to operation (151) joint

(151) HR (126) 520

Change management Joint (224) Senior (156) HR (125) 535

Employer branding and reputation as

employer Senior (205) joint (146) HR (110) 485

Organizational Development Joint (224) Senior (210) HR (66) 544

Outsourcing of in-house activity Senior (181) Joint (134) HR (67) 432


Rank order of the role and influence of HR function strategically (HK respondents) Question Tendency

Total – do not do, don’t know

Job design/employment contracts HR (108) Joint (52) 184

Equality and diversity policy HR (100) Joint (41) 162

Health and safety/risk assessment HR (88) Joint (36) 166

Employee engagement HR (96) joint (57) 180

Staff planning/Talent management HR (89) Joint (65) 174

Performance Management HR (88) Joint (65) 184

Work-Life balance policy HR (85) Joint (49) Senior (9) 156

Staff pay grading structure HR (87) Joint (54) Senior (28) 177

Consulting or negotiating with

union HR (36) Joint (30) 82

Employer branding and reputation

as employer Joint (55) HR (49) 159

Redundancy Joint (78) Senior (43) HR (40) 175

Outsourcing of in-house activity Senior (49) Joint (44) HR (41) 148

Change management Senior (66) Joint (64) HR (26) 166

Organizational Development Senior (81) Joint (68) HR (19) 178

Rank order of the role and influence of HR function operationally (UK respondents)

Question (a) HR has

main responsibility

(b) The operational department has

main responsibility a-b

Monitoring labour turnover and staff

shortages 368 132 236

Staff disciplinary issues 326 210 216

Staff sickness absence 323 210 213

Staff training/induction 374 168 206

Staff complaints/grievances 370 165 205

Recruitment of new staff 356 174 182

Parental leave requests 320 205 115

Training needs analysis 312 211 101

Flexible working requests 313 216 97

Individual pay issues 308 215 93

Promotion/grading 274 245 29

Outsourcing of in-house activity 164 177 -13

Planned use of temporary staff 212 292 -80

Promotion and progression of staff 195 332 -137

Health and safety 188 303 -115

Rank order of the role and influence of HR function operationally (HK respondents)

Question (a) HR has main

responsibility

(b) The operational department has

main responsibility a-b

Staff training/induction 144 33 111

Staff complaints/grievances 138 38 100

Recruitment of new staff 136 42 94

Parental leave requests 124 28 96

Health and safety 125 38 87

Monitoring labour turnover and staff shortages 128 49 79

Training needs analysis 121 48 73

Individual pay issues 127 54 73

Staff sickness absence 122 57 65

Flexible working requests 95 47 48

Promotion/grading 109 70 39

Staff disciplinary issues 106 73 33

Promotion and progression of staff 84 95 -11

Outsourcing of in-house activity 53 73 -20

Planned use of temporary staff 58 118 -60


Most positive and negative issues on HR

Who?

HR Function

Rank order of 13 selected issues of most positive over negative influence (UK respondents)

Question

Positive influence

on HR

Negative

influence on HR Balance

All

response

Technology 353 21 332 560

Employment law 316 44 272 567

Expectations of younger workers 241 63 178 567

The older workforce 200 36 164 569

HR from established countries 161 6 155 513

HR from emerging economies 149 18 131 561

Pensions 197 108 89 569

Migrant workers 143 55 88 566

HR from China 84 21 63 544

Trade unions 132 106 26 572

Government policy on

employment 168 144 24 564

Government policy on welfare

policy or education 145 133 12 564

Effects of the Global Financial

Crisis 83 214 -131 556

Rank order of 13 selected issues of most positive over negative influence (HKrespondents)

Question

Positive

influence on HR

Negative

influence on HR Balance

All

response

Technology 100 5 95 180

Employment law 71 16 55 182

Pensions 57 15 42 180

HR from established countries 43 5 38 159

Expectations of younger workers 53 27 26 182

HR from emerging economies 45 20 25 173

(... specifically China) 47 30 17 171

Government policy on employment 39 33 6 177

The older workforce 31 26 5 182

Government policy on welfare

policy or education 37 35 2 181

Migrant workers 20 27 -7 180

Trade unions 19 51 -32 181

Effects of the Global Financial Crisis 17 92 -75 178


Other views from participants

Who?

Individuals

Theme Example

HR lack of ethics

HR is too often called upon to rubber-stamp poor and ethically

questionable decisions of management. HR cannot properly

be conducted in isolation from management at the most senior

level but sadly, it usually is.

HR falls to stand up to moral and ethical problems

External-Internal

balance

It is incumbent on HR to look at the weather forecast for the

company be it employment law changes, economic climate

changes, internal or external pressures, but HR need to be

looking at all that matters to it's organization and the

organization's industry to really deliver helpfully.

HR leader HR needs to more proactive in measuring and leading the

human contribution to the organization

Independence Sadly I feel that HR does not appear currently to have a

positive image. In my experience too many HR professionals

are unwilling to challenge poor practice and behaviours and

only when this is addressed will HR achieve the respect and

recognition it is capable of recieving.


Theme Example

Language HR should use less jargon and management speak in all its

activities.

Commercial

awareness

Lack of commercial awareness of HR departments. Non reply

to recruitment candidate applications ( appalling bad

marketing)

Dancing with

business

You should ask the participant: to what extent do you think the

boss or other department heads understands or co-operates

with the work project initiated by HR?

Survey style

I believe the survey did not make provision for people currently

unemployed as all the questions asked are directed to people

who are employed.

As a self employed consultant some questions are not relevant

to my organization

Future questions

The questions ask for what does happen, but they do not ask

for what I 'think' HR should and could do to support an

organization

E-HR, talent management


Conclusions 1. In theory two sets of standards fairly similar – knowledge and behaviours

2. Knowledge standards seem to be incredibly robust (membership, position,

experience)

3. Behaviour/experience standards also seem to be robust - almost exactly in

the direction expected.

4. Differences between CIPD and HKIHRM likely function of sample (CIPD older,

higher position and higher membership on average)

5. Direction of practices switches at transition from technical to professional (e.g.

MIHRM high, assistant low). Are more qualified members doing too many

“simple tasks” should more responsibility be given to Associates?

6. HK respondents without professional membership generally score lower than

their peers, especially on knowledge.

7. Technology and employment law most positive influence on balance, effect of

global financial crisis most negative


Recommendations 1. For employers - direction of practices switches at transition from technical to

professional (e.g. MIHRM high, assistant low). Are more qualified members doing too

many “simple tasks” should more responsibility be given to Associates?

2. For employers - very inexperienced HR practitioners should not be thrust into difficult

HR positions.

3. For employers - are more qualified members doing too many “simple tasks” should more

responsibility be given to Associates?

4. For practitioners - HK respondents without professional membership generally score

lower than their peers, especially on knowledge. If you are interested in HR pursue

professional path

5. For CIPD – international HR, clarify Associate and Graduate memberships. Do not

neglect importance of pay and benefits, workforce planning, union negotiation and

organizational restructuring as practice elements with inadequate knowledge

6. For HKIHRM – situate professional domain, clarify no. of standards. Do not neglect, job

redesign, workforce planning, leadership development as practice elements with

inadequate knowledge


For HR 1. Where is the gender balance (female 70% but executive <20%,

compared to 30-40% male)

2. Where is your professional independence?

3. Where is the ethical dimension –

“Dancing with business“ or occasionally “stepping on a few toes”?


Professionalization of HRM in Hong Kong and United … · · 2013-12-23HR? Professionalization of...

Documents

Transcript of Professionalization of HRM in Hong Kong and United … · · 2013-12-23HR? Professionalization of...