King Company – Job Analysis, Staffing, EEO, and Diversity

King Company – Job Analysis, Staffing, EEO, and Diversity

Two dominant forces affect the workplace environment: global competition and increasing automation. The reduction of revenue as a result of growing competition also affects human resource management. Firms must make disruptive and painful decisions in response to these changes to survive in the market. Often, firms resort to layoffs and restructuring as a means to cut costs. However, if not done correctly, such changes could be a recipe for profit reduction and reduced employee engagement. There are other alternative strategies apart from random layoffs that help firms contain HR costs. King Company is facing a similar issue: having to stay competitive even with falling revenues. The company needs to reduce labor costs but save as many jobs as possible to avoid employee disengagement and litigation.

There are myriad ways firms cut labour costs without necessarily cutting headcount. One such strategy is by putting full-time staffers on a part-time basis. Renowned corporations such as KPMG have employed the strategy in a bid to cut labour costs. Putting full-time employees on a part-time structure can reduce the working duration by a day or two in a week, saving a lot in employee compensation (Cascio, 2010). Although this method may bring some savings, reducing working days risks reducing productivity.

Another way to cut labour costs without cutting staff numbers is by evaluating the business’s roaster for efficiency. It refers to examining operational activities to determine when the workplace environment is quiet (Cascio, 2010). Besides, HR personnel will analyze profitability relative to labour costs. The strategy will help the company to reorganize employee placement, prioritizing high-value business areas.

Also, King Company should try and get their staff on enforced holidays. Enforced employee holidays generally positively impact the balance sheet (Sucher & Gupta, 2018). Better still, the company can apply a mix of both paid and unpaid leaves, such that an employee can take two weeks unpaid leave and another two weeks paid vacation. Savings from unpaid leaves will bolster the organization’s profits. However, HR personnel should be careful not to risk business continuity.

Moreover, explicitly cutting wages can resolve the cost problem. Direct wage cuts are one of the most challenging administrative decisions to take, but management can undertake it if the economic situation demands it (Sucher & Gupta, 2018). Besides, employees would instead accommodate some wage cuts rather than be out of the job altogether. Wage cuts can be accompanied by a few sweeteners, such as performance incentives to make the decision bearable.

Conducting proactive job analysis will help the company understand the limitations and strengths of its employees. Henceforth, corrective action can be undertaken whenever significant mistakes occur (Siddique, 2004).  Proper job analysis also seeks to create a proper internal infrastructure that clearly defines roles and timeliness so that employees know what to accomplish and by what time. The HR personnel will delineate jobs and responsibilities and make them available to all staff members. Consequently, the knowledge will facilitate product development and reduce resource wastage.

Moreover, job analysis bolsters organizational performance by encouraging commitment and a positive workplace attitude. The exercise involves evaluating employees’ social and physical work environment and creating corrective measures whenever there is a problem (Siddique, 2004). Besides, HR personnel can use job analysis to identify the factors that motivate employees to perform. For instance, providing a job description and performance standards is critical to enhancing performance since employees know their obligations (Prien et al., 2009). The process also eliminates unnecessary job requirements and areas of dissatisfaction/conflict. With unnecessary jobs eliminated, the company will save on costs.

Downsizing causes an immediate gap in the workload. The remaining employees are pressured not only to complete their current jobs but also to compensate for the work that was to be done by terminated employees (Dhanpat, 2014). The additional responsibilities may lead to work-related stress, which will eventually demoralize them. Besides, bogging employees with so much work means they have less time to focus on skill development.

In the long run, downsizing can seriously affect an organization’s trust with incumbent employees. Those terminated feel the most insecurity since they are forced to leave their company and look for other opportunities (Dhanpat, 2014). Those who remain are not spared from the psychological trauma of possible termination. Despite being spared by the current job cuts, realizing they may be the next victims frustrates them. The loss of a sense of security in jobs is a precursor for non-commitment.

According to Campion, Guerrero & Posthuma (2011), downsizing can also have legal implications if the process is perceived to undermine equal employment opportunity (EEO) principles. For instance, although downsizing is legal in the US, terminated employees may sue if they feel their termination was discriminatory. Discriminatory allegations are a possibility, although they do not always happen.

Conclusion

Downsizing is an inevitable operational process in today’s business environment. Increasing competition, falling revenue, and the invention of automation mean firms must cut costs to survive. However, there are alternative strategies that can reduce labour costs other than downsizing. Applying alternative strategies such as part-time work, wage cuts, and roaster efficiency can reduce labour costs.

References

Campion, M. A., Guerrero, L., & Posthuma, R. (2011). Reasonable human resource practices for making employee downsizing decisions. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 174-180.

Cascio, W. F. (2010). Employment downsizing and its alternatives. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practical Guide Series.

Dhanpat, N. (2014). Downsizing: Perspectives, outcomes, and implications. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 2.

Prien, E. P., Goodstein, L. D., Goodstein, J., & Gamble Jr, L. G. (2009). A practical guide to job analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Siddique, C. M. (2004). Job analysis: a strategic human resource management practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 219-244.

Sucher, S. J., & Gupta, S. (2018, May 1). Layoffs That Don’t Break Your Company. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/05/layoffs-that-dont-break-your-company?registration=success

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Assignment Overview
Read The King Company Background and Staffing at the King Company to review the information that is needed for this Case 2 assignment.

Case Assignment
Address the following questions in an essay format, which includes an introduction and conclusion (not a Q&A format):

How can The King Company reduce labor costs and still save as many jobs as possible?
How might up-to-date job analysis information aid King in determining how to reduce labor costs?
Discuss the short-term and long-term implications of downsizing. Be sure to also discuss possible EEO issues that may occur in downsizing.
Introduce information from at least 2 sources from the Trident Online Library to help strengthen and validate your discussion.

When possible, provide private-sector employer examples of HRM programs, systems, processes, and/or procedures as you address the assignment requirements. Provide names of the employers. Use examples of different employers in this course than those previously used in your other papers and courses.