PEOPLE IN ORGANISATION (A2): TESTED TOPICS & IDEAS FOR ANSWER

If we were to analyse past year examination papers, the topics covered in the People in Organisation units that can be tested are varied. Look at the following based on the past year Paper 3 from 2012 to 2015.

• Employee Participation - Building Supplies Limited Q1 (9707/32/M/J/12)
• Improving Employee Performance - Mountain Tour Q5 (9707/32/M/J/13)
• Employee Efficiency and Labour Productivity - Ramos Sugar Corporation Q3
• High Labour Turnover - Timtang Corporation Q5
• Remuneration (discussing on the decision to increase pay) - Platypus Accessories Q4 (9707/33/M/J/14)
• Workforce Planning - Pop Cool Q5 (9707/33/13) Farrah's Fruit Farms Q5 (9707/33/O/N/15); Chan Chicken Farm Q5 (9707/31/M/J/15)
• Effective Internal Communication - Lemonfizz Q1 (9707/33/M/J/15)
• Effects of Leadership Style on Employee Performance - Chilled Air Limited Q5 (9707/33/M/J/12)
• Evaluating Appropriateness of Leadership Style on Given Contexts - Patel Bicycles Q3 (9707/31/M/J/12)
• Recruitment - Senbo Construction Q5

Some questions are quite straightforward as they required students to identify the current HR practices such as in Shoe Style International Q1 (9707/31/O/N/12) and perhaps ask for recommendations on how to solve the HR problems in the cases as required in Leo's Fantastic Flower Q3 (9707/33/O/N/12).

However, in Active Fitness Q4 (9707/31/O/N/14), some students appear to be dumbfounded by a HR question asking students to evaluate the enterprise's approach to HRM as all the identified HR practices appear to be positive.  Students have a difficult time to engage in a discussion because they could not find the weaknesses of those HR practices.  In such case, what students need to do is to be able to elaborate on how the current HR practice can benefit the organisation and relate to other relevant concepts.

Other HRM questions deal with the issue of managing industrial disputes which may be resulted from certain decisions or conditions that adversely affect the non-managerial employees.  In these cases, students should consider and make discussion on the following three options

• Abandon the proposed decision
• Compromise
• "My Way or the Highway"

Abandon the proposed decision
This can effectively appease the ill feelings among the workers but students need to evaluate what is the future consequences that will affect the organisation as a whole and whether the well-being of the organisation and the (economic) interests of the shareholders will be taken care of.  

For example, in certain cases, the management may propose a plan to downsize in order to reduce labour costs or to replace workers with the use of automation or other sophisticated technologies like investing in new production machines.  In these situations, some workers will most likely be retrenched and they will most likely be unhappy with the proposal.  Subsequently, this will compel them to seek the aid of their respective labour unions to fight in protecting their welfare.

However, if an organisation is to acquiesce (adhere) to the demands of the workers for not changing, this can jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the business as the enterprise cannot longer operate profitability in a highly competitive market.  As such, it can be argued there is a danger for the whole organisation may collapse and it is much better to sacrifice  some workers and having whole organisation to fail and shut down.

Compromise
If the compromise option is chosen, students should specifically provide a suggestion of what conditions within the proposed change the management is willing to relinquish (let go) and what conditions to maintain.  

However, students can argued whether this may make the management to appear weak in the eyes of the worker and therefore making them vulnerable to future pressure from the trade union and the workers.  Yet, we can counter-argue on whether the management is willing to risk having the workers to engage in protect which will adversely affect the operation.

"My Way or the Highway"
Students are often surprised about this option as it portrays the management and the enterprise as cold-hearted entities.  However, reality can be such that management of the organisation must stand firm in their decision and refuse to give in to any of the employee or trade union demands.  Yet, students should further elaborate that if such option is taken, the enterprise will risk having the workers engage in protests.  This can have severe negative impact in terms of the following (in which some ideas may relate to another).

• Disruption in the business operation
• Failure to meet deadline (which can have legal implications and create dissatisfaction among clients or customers)
• Reputation of the enterprise will be jeopardized
• Future employees  will be apprehsive of seeking employment in such enterprise as they will be worried of ill-treatment and exploitation from the management
• Value of share may reduce due to negative publicity resulting in lack of shareholders' and investors' confidence

Management Attitude
I personally find a good (and excellent) answer is where students discuss about the attitude of the management in managing industrial disputes.  For example, as we look at the case of LeBlance Kitchen Equipment, the CEO appeared to be very aloof and his management team seems to be taking the Taylor's Theory-X perspective in dealing with their production workers (as evidenced in line 46-47).  As such, despite suggestions of being employee-orientated and perhaps to engage the workers to negotiate a compromise, these recommendations will not be considered seriously if the management do not change their attitude.

Following are the cases with questions on trade unions and industrial disputes

• LeBlanc Kitchen Equipment Q3 (9707/31/O/N/13)
• Johnson Courier and Logistic Q3 (9707/32/O/N/13)
• Cloud Catering Q5 (9707/33/M/J/13)
• BAS Q5 (9707/31/O/N/15)