Articles

We assumed that we, like most other people in business, knew exactly what strategy was all about. After all, books about strategy fill our bookshelves at work and at home, and the magazines we read usually feature an article about one strategic technology or another. What’s more, we used the term every day: strategic decision-making, strategic impact, strategic partnerships, strategic alignment, strategic outsourcing – and new variations are cropping up on a daily basis. In fact, we discovered that we used the term differently in talking with each other and with our colleagues. Sometimes, we meant “big.” In other instances, we used “strategy” or “strategic” as a synonym for “important.” When we looked back over memos, emails, and articles we had written or received, we found other meanings too: strategy meant bottom line, long-range or executive level. The term often carried with it a suggestion of planning, but sometimes we meant “visioning” rather than detailed step-by-step directions. Some of our communications seemed to imply a need for resource specifications, critical path diagrams or milestones and measurements – but others studiously avoided such tools as too constraining. It didn’t take us long to realize that it meant all of the things we had encountered and more: like the frustrating search for a single definition of headcount a generation ago, it dawned on us that both the definition of strategy and what we decide to do to be “strategic” vary according to context. When we see HR and HRIT as support for the corporation, our strategies focus on support; when we see HR as leaders, then our strategic contribution has a visionary and “enabling” flavor. Likewise, who we define as primary clients – stakeholders, shareholders, employees, management, government regulators, for example – changes what strategy entails.

People living and working abroad are brought into intimate contact with differences in culture, language and social practice. Individuals interact with and react to these differences in a variety of ways. Often the initial response of individuals to contact with different cultures is one of alienation: in the words of A. E. Housman, “I, a stranger and afraid, in a world I never made.” Many individuals find the experience educational and rewarding, which shows that attitudes change as connections with the new culture are achieved. What are the determinants of such outcomes? What factors of the individual or situation facilitate accommodation, adaptation, and success in an international experience? Based on a study of over 100 individuals who have lived and worked away from their home country, this article presents a multi-factorial model of the international work experience. We identify four clusters of factors that influence the performance and subjective experience of individuals in international settings. First, people bring their own individual attitudes, experiences, and personalities to the encounter. One key factor here is a person’s global mindset – a cognitive construct of individual beliefs and attitudes to the international experience. Second, there are cultural factors arising from the practices and attitudes prevalent in the home culture and in the destination culture. Third are identity factors relating to the social role or identity that individuals construct in interacting with the community around them. Finally, there are factors specific to the context or situation of a given individual or experience, such as the kind of job held or the person’s family circumstances.

With the ever-accelerating speed of change and the ever increasing demands placed on global business, our world is both expanding and shrinking -- expanding by promoting broader, more extensive contacts among countries and individuals, and simultaneously, shrinking through faster and easier access to information and people from different cultures around the world. While these paradoxical forces provide increased business opportunities, they also create more occasions for cross-cultural conflict and misunderstanding.

This white paper describes the major developments in data privacy and security relevant to HR and HR systems over the past six years.  It assumes the reader’s familiarity with topics addressed in a chapter on data privacy by this author in Boundaryless HR: Human Capital Management in the Global Economy (IHRIM Press, 2002). 

These topics include: (a) definitions of privacy; types of privacy; values and limits of privacy; and the differences between privacy, security and confidentiality; (b) an overview of the legal protections for privacy that exist in the U.S., the European Union (EU), Canada and elsewhere; (c) the challenge of the EU Data Protection Directive, including enforcement issues; (d) an explanation and analysis of four major strategies for complying with the Directive, namely consent, model contracts, the Safe Harbor Program and global codes of conduct, along with advantages and disadvantages of each; and (e) observations and recommendations concerning a global standard for handling employee data.  Readers unfamiliar with these topics, which form a baseline for this white paper, are encouraged to peruse these earlier writings before proceeding. 

The treatment of the major developments in data privacy and security begins with those occurring within Europe, then turns to Canada, and then to other countries, before taking up developments in the United States.  As we shall see, the single most prominent development of the past six years is the dramatic expansion of regulatory requirements within the U.S.

Managing across Borders: the Transnational Solution, by Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, has been called one of the 50 most influential business books of the 20th century. The 1989 book, recently reissued in an updated edition, has shaped the way many HR professionals think about global management. Of course, Bartlett's work ranges further. When I interviewed him in December 2000, he had a good deal to say, for example, about the implications of his work for human resource management.

This article is a collaborative effort between CedarCrestone and Jeitosa Group International to look at the role of Human Resources (HR) technologies and the value achieved by different types of global organizations. Specifically, this article evaluates different global organizational models and some of their key characteristics, such as their strategy, service delivery structures, and HR application adoption and the value achieved. As a result of our many years working with all types of global organizations (Multinational, Global, International, and Transnational), we wanted to explore the effectiveness of HR technologies across different organizational models – from the highly centralized to the highly decentralized organization, from the highly innovative to the highly collaborative organization. We wanted to test our assumptions that based on their overall mission, vision, culture, and strategic direction, different organization types leverage technology differently and hence achieve different value. Our hypotheses are that highly centralized organizations focus on achieving efficiency with their HR technology adoption. Highly decentralized ones promote flexibility and responsiveness to local market situations. Highly collaborative and innovative organizations cultivate learning and sharing environments across their diverse and disparate global operations. Our hypotheses were confirmed. While we are not suggesting causality, we will show strong linkage between HR technology adoption and efficiency, learning, and financial growth. As our analysis of HR strategies and HR technology adoption across four different organizational models shows: Multinationals support local operations, Globals save money, Internationals develop people, and Transnationals make money.

Few would argue that we live in a global world. The fact is globalization is here and here to stay. Yet, exactly what we mean by “global” varies widely depending on whom you are talking with and what you are talking about. Globalization can mean simply that a company has offices outside their home country and sells their products and services in other countries. There may be little communication or sharing across these offices, but the company is operating globally nonetheless. On the other hand, globalization can mean that a company offers one global service or product to the world, and the country offices serve as pipelines to the local market. And, of course, global can also mean anything between these two extremes.

In order to better understand the differences and stages of globalization, Jeitosa Group International, in conjunction with the association of International Human Resource Information Management (IHRIM), conducted a survey to assess the readiness of the HR and HRIT function to “go global” – from the perspective of the companies’ global strategies and organizational structures, as well as with consideration of the people, processes, and supporting technologies. Specifically, the objectives of this survey have been to:

• Understand where HR/HRIT organizations are in the globalization life cycle;
• Assess the effectiveness and alignment of the global HR/HRIT function; and
• Uncover the value that HR/HRIT brings to today's global enterprise.

This article first provides a brief history of the modern organization and discusses the various types of global organizational models that are common today. The main tenet of this article is that HRIT needs to move to the collaborative transnational organization model in order to deliver services more effectively in the age of Web 2.0.

In the age of increased global mobility, falling trade barriers, and explosive growth in international business, global expansion is on the agenda of most large enterprises. The question on every global company's mind is (or should be) how can they best organize themselves for international operations. Can you do business around the world the same way you do business around the corner, or are substantially different organizational and management approaches required to meet the challenges of global business?

Much has been said and written about 'globalizing' HRIS over the years, but has much been achieved? If the answer is 'yes', what has been the nature of those achievements? Consider the following: What global or even pan-European compensation programs exist that pay managers on the same identifiable, quantifiable performance metrics across all countries (while of course not necessarily on the same scales due to the varying economic situations and standards of living)? How many global HRIS organizations exist that manage worldwide HRIS issues on an ongoing basis? (Think about how many global teams are broken up and redeployed into the local business units once the implementation is declared a success.) What truly global software solutions exist that can manage HR, benefits and payroll needs on an integrated (not 'interfaced') basis, for all countries (or even for the major economic powers) and handle all the different linguistic, cultural, financial, legislative and taxation requirements?

Not since the appearance of Client/Server technology in the early 1990s has the Human Resource (HR) business community experienced such marketing hype surrounding a new technology as we have seen recently with Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). From an IT perspective SaaS is a distributed computing solution and from a business perspective it is a hosted application delivery solution. It is a revolutionary concept that has changed the enterprise perception about computing economics and created a new business model for the purchase and utilization of business applications. As the world sinks into a global recession all forms of business expenditure comes under close scrutiny, and the SaaS business model is a perfect way to reduce Information Technology (IT) costs and help steer companies through the recession period. Although recession-friendly SaaS still has two major barriers to overcome before there is universal adoption of the SaaS concept. They are security and integration. This article describes the SaaS model, identifies why security is a customer concern, and outlines the integration problems associated Human Capital Management (HCM) software applications

There are some major changes taking place in the human resource management systems (HRMS) landscape. Web services, service-oriented architecture (SOA), component development, and new software delivery methods are all contributing to substantial change. On-demand HRMS business solutions are gaining popularity every month. Present indications are the uptake will continue to increase during 2007 and by 2010 the option will become mainstream. On-demand is not just a new technology stack; it is a whole new business platform and will throw down a challenge to the conventional on-premise model that has dominated for so long. The players are still the same but the playing field has been moved to a new level. The acceptance of the new platform will cause some dramatic changes to HRMS and the way software needs are specified, products are built, components are sold and solutions assembled and deployed. Although the rules may have changed, the issues – such as integration – are still the same, irrespective of the platform.

Saving manager time with a Manager Self-Service application has become a new area of cost savings, unattainable with earlier systems since Web applications, portals and related technologies were not available in usable form prior to a few years ago. This approach to determining the tangible cost benefits of implementing a new or improved human resource technology solution is meant to supplement other areas of possible savings wherever possible since a stronger business case can be made with multiple areas of savings.

Just to set your minds at ease, this article will not cover all the points about setting a HR Technology Strategy (HRTS), just the primary ones. To properly address all the aspects, a new text book may well be needed, but for these purposes, we can at least explore what a HR Technology Strategy is, why we need one, and what the most important components of a HRTS are.

If the shifts in the workplace demographics over the last 40 years or so haven't changed most managers' behavior, one wonders what will. Civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960's; females now account for almost half of all workers; the workforce is graying and baby boomers are retiring from the workplace and being replaced by younger techno-savvy workers; and immigration is altering the ethnic makeup of the American citizen. These forces have also changed neighborhoods, people's buying habits, approaches to media, as well as the expectations and interests of the newer workers.

I wonder if the new millennium watch will be able to provide us with any more warning of what Y3K will bring than we had about Y2K? If only we could consult an oracle or fortune-teller to find out what the future holds... Why can't consultants help us better prepare for the future?

Prediction is tricky when analyzing the human resource information systems (HRIS) scene in Europe, because of the many conflicting forces the continent is subject to. In general, these forces can be summarized as dialectic of two trends. On the one hand, Europe has many nations, languages, cultures, histories, and nationalistic tendencies that are pushing it in one direction; on the other, there are significant 'Europeanisation' forces that are pulling it in another, more unified direction with the subsequent emergence of a pan-European business environment.

Most generally agree that a natural function for shared services is the processing of repetitive, transaction-oriented work. This type of work, often considered a burden with little value within the business unit, generally lends itself to consolidation and standardization and thus can become scalable within shared services which usually lowers cost. Research shows us that the majority of early adopters of shared services initially built their operations around the requirements of such transaction processing types of work

Developing shared services in a single country presents a familiar range of challenges that are common to any large new initiative: developing cost-benefit analyses, building organizational structures, selecting locations, managing change and transition, etc. Doing this in a global context brings additional challenges that are not simply incremental but transcend the domestic issues, substantially multiplying the complexity of the undertaking.

In the age of increased global mobility, falling trade barriers, and explosive growth in international business, global expansion is on the agenda of most large enterprises. The question on every global company's mind is (or should be) how can they best organize themselves for international operations. Can you do business around the world the same way you do business around the corner? Or are substantially different organizational and management approaches required to meet the demands of global business? When the company as a whole faces such questions, the HR organization needs to anticipate emergent human capital needs in order to meet the challenges created by the company's globalization goals.

Outsourcing in Latin America is a nascent trend, and the anticipated boom has yet to occur. The political, social, and cultural situation in Latin America provides essential background for understanding the region's comparative lack of progress in outsourcing, as well as for its enormous future potential. Those that witnessed its birth and development in the region are convinced that the moment is propitious for the great wave of outsourcing to emerge in the southern hemisphere — and it will happen with much greater speed and with far broader impact than what took place with our northern neighbors. This trend has already been anticipated by various research firms who predict growth rates for technology-based outsourcing services in Latin America on the order of 30 to 35 percent. This article addresses the development of outsourcing in Latin America, in comparison to the northern hemisphere, especially the U.S. and Europe where outsourcing is more widely practiced. It sheds light on the hurdles that have slowed the expansion of outsourcing — indeed of all technology growth — in the region and examines the prospects for a rapid growth in the future. This article discusses the challenges that growth in outsourcing imposes on the companies and economies of the region. It concludes with an assessment on the prospects for outsourcing — how its development is taking place throughout the world and why its growth in Latin America as a whole, and in Brazil in particular, is expected to take place at rates considerably faster than those currently observed in the northern hemisphere.

There is no question that the demographics of our work force are changing. Since its peak after World War II, world population growth has been steadily declining, such that we now see near zero growth in the global labor force (Henson 2002). While over the last 40 years, countries such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa were doubling their working age populations, predictions over the coming 40 years are that we will see negative growth in the labor pool in most countries outside of India. What labor growth we will see in North America will be primarily through immigration. The global work force is not only getting smaller, it’s also getting older. People are living longer and working later in life. The young people entering the work force today expect to work well into their retirement and stay actively employed into their 70s and 80s. While many will “want to work’ in retirement, with the reduction in government and privately funded pension programs, many will “have to work” in spite of retirement.

With the global work force shrinking and with people living and working longer, we are now seeing four generations working side-by-side in the workplace – veterans, baby boomers, Gen X’ers, and the New Millennials (also sometimes called “Gen Y” or, my favorite, “screenagers”) – a phenomenon never seen before. And, as we all know too well, each generation brings its own world view, economic outlook, work ethic, views on authority, relationships, job expectations, compensation, etc., which can often create conflict across the generations.