Fluent Essays

Start your short paper by briefly answering the following questions: 1. Explain why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this topic). 2. Explain how current global conditions in Maersk’s industry impact human resource management practices within this organization (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this topic). Then, using the material on recruitment strategies provided in this week’s lesson and the case study, address the following: 1. Compare and contrast recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates in general. 2. Describe how Maersk has recruited and selected new employees who were aligned with the organization’s vision and goals over the years. 3. Assess the effectiveness of its recruitment process and determine what changes if any you would recommend to improve employee success and retention.Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be 2–3 pages in length and double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font. Be sure to list your references at the end of your paper. ol_211_milestone_one_guidelines_and_rubric.pdf evaluating_strategic_talent_management_initiatives.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview OL 211 Final Project Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric Overview: This milestone is designed to begin a critical analysis applying knowledge gained within the course. This short paper assignment is the first step in the analysis of the company that will become your final project. For the final project, you will review the human resource management (HRM) in an organization through a real scenario. This case study will give you the opportunity to explore various roles and processes within the human resources profession. A key skill for any professional working in human resources is the ability to develop and implement processes that align with a company’s strategic plan and mission. Begin by reading the first 13 pages of the case study, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives (up to HR-Customer Initiative at Maersk), located in your Harvard Business Review Coursepack. Start your short paper by briefly answering the following questions: 1. Explain why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this topic). 2. Explain how current global conditions in Maersk’s industry impact human resource management practices within this organization (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this topic). Then, using the material on recruitment strategies provided in this week’s lesson and the case study, address the following: 1. Compare and contrast recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates in general. 2. Describe how Maersk has recruited and selected new employees who were aligned with the organization’s vision and goals over the years. 3. Assess the effectiveness of its recruitment process and determine what changes if any you would recommend to improve employee success and retention. Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be 2–3 pages in length and double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font. Be sure to list your references at the end of your paper. Rubric Critical Elements HRM Functions and Practices: Function Exemplary (100\%) Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation is supported with evidence Proficient (85\%) Explains why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan HRM Functions and Practices: Global Conditions Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation is clear and detailed Explains how current global conditions in the industry impact human resource management practices within organizations Staffing: Recruit Meets “Proficient” criteria and description demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the relationship between recruiting and the organization’s vision and goals Meets “Proficient” criteria and establishes which method would be more beneficial for an organization based on the research Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format Describes a process to recruit and select new employees who are aligned with the organization’s vision and goals Staffing: Candidates Articulation of Response Compares and contrasts recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Needs Improvement (55\%) Explains why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan, but explanation is cursory or inaccurate Explains how current global conditions in the industry impact human resource management practices within organizations, but explanation is cursory or has gaps in accuracy Describes a process to recruit and select new employees who are aligned with the organization’s vision and goals, but description is cursory or inaccurate Compares and contrasts recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates but comparison lacks detail or contains inaccuracies Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Not Evident (0\%) Does not explain why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan Value 23 Does not explain how current global conditions impact human resource management practices within organizations 23 Does not describe a process to recruit and select new employees who are aligned with the organization’s vision and goals 23 Does not compare and contrast recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates 23 Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas Total 8 100\% 9-412-147 REV:MAY5,2013 BORIS GROYSBERG SARAH L. ABBOTT A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives At the start of 2012, Maria Pejter, senior director of Maersk Group’s Human Resources department, and Bill Allen, head of Human Resources (HR), sat down to consider some key aspects of Maersk’s talent management strategy. Through 2008, Maersk had experienced several years of rapid growth and strong profitability. The global recession in 2008 had negatively impacted both Maersk’s top line and its returns; however, operating results had since improved, and Maersk earned record profits in 2010. In recent years, Maersk had seen a rise in its unusually low historic employee turnover rate. And Maersk had experienced a notable change in its corporate culture as it transitioned from a familyowned Danish shipping company into a global, publicly-traded conglomerate. Allen and Pejter were evaluating Maersk’s talent management priorities in the context of the increasingly competitive and fast-moving talent market of the 21st century. As Maersk continued to grow, finding, developing, and retaining high-quality talent was becoming a bigger challenge. In particular, Maersk was experiencing five notable talent challenges. The first of these was increased employee turnover. Maersk had traditionally relied heavily on employees who started with the Group as trainees and then spent the entirety of their careers there. However, with competition in the labor market increasing, a greater number of Maersk employees were leaving the Group for external opportunities. Maersk estimated that, of the approximately 400 trainees it brought on board each year, only 20\% of them were still with the Group after five years. In light of this rise in attrition, Maersk’s HR had increased its efforts to bring in experienced hires from the outside. Allen and Pejter needed to better understand how much of a problem this higher attrition rate was creating. How did it compare with what other firms were experiencing? And was it possible that this higher turnover also provided an opportunity to bring in high-quality talent and to further diversify the Group’s employee base? The second challenge centered on what to do with Maersk’s training and development programs. The training that Maersk had traditionally provided to its trainees was extensive, and included both formal courses and on-the-job training, including rotational programs that allowed employees to move across geographies and business units. This training was costly, but had been considered a solid investment because many employees stayed with Maersk throughout their careers. However, with employee attrition rates rising, and industry competitors targeting Maersk employees because of their strong training, perhaps this strategy needed to be rethought. Additionally, as the need arose to ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Professor Boris Groysberg and Research Associate Sarah L. Abbott prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020. 412-147 A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives Copyright © 2012, 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-5457685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School. hire more experienced individuals, should more emphasis be placed on the training needs of these individuals? What other types of training should Maersk be offering its employees to ensure they were well equipped to meet the business challenges of the 21st century? Third, should Maersk continue to hire experienced individuals from outside the firm? In recent years, the percentage of senior positions filled by external hires had increased from virtually none to 30\%. What were the pros and cons associated with hiring from outside? How should Maersk think about integrating these external hires? Feedback on Maersk’s integration efforts to date had not been positive. Was it Maersk’s responsibility to integrate these senior hires, or was it a matter of hiring the type of people who understood what it took to be successful in an environment like the one at Maersk? Many companies practiced “natural integration.” What practices should Maersk put in place to integrate experienced hires, if any? Fourth, one way of bringing in external talent, while potentially reducing the associated integration risk, was by rehiring former Maersk employees (“boomerangs”). While Maersk had no formal policy on rehiring, it had historically been considered taboo. However, given Maersk’s significant talent needs, Maersk had reversed its position on this policy a few years back. Pejter and Allen planned to look at how this policy was working and determine whether or not the change had been a good one for the Group. Should it rehire former employees? If so, under what conditions? And, at what level should they be brought in? Finally, Maersk was becoming a more diverse company with a more diverse customer base, and was operating in an increasingly diverse business environment. In light of this, how did Maersk build an inclusive culture? Did one already exist? Or was it something they needed to continue to work on? A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Company Background The A.P. Møller - Maersk Group (“Maersk” or “the Group”) was founded as a shipping company in 1904 by Arnold Peter Møller and his father, Captain Peter Maersk Møller. Arnold Peter Møller served as CEO of Maersk until his death in 1965. He was succeeded by his son, Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller, who served as CEO until 1993 and chairman of the board until 2003. In 1993, Jess Søderberg, who had been with the Group since 1969, became CEO, but resigned in 2007 after a rumored clash with McKinney Møller.1 He was replaced by Nils S. Andersen, an external hire who had been with Carlsberg A/S for over 20 years—most recently as president and CEO—but had served on Maersk’s board of directors since 2005. Headquartered in Copenhagen, by 2012, Maersk was the largest company in Denmark, and operated in 130 countries with nearly 110,000 employees. Maersk comprised over 1,000 companies, and operated one of the largest container shipping businesses globally as well as oil and gas exploration and container terminals operations. Additionally, Maersk held a 68\% stake in Dansk Supermarket Group and a 20\% interest in Danske Bank. Maersk’s businesses included: • Maersk’s container services businesses—Maersk Line, Safmarine, MCC Transport, and Seago Line—which contributed 40\% of Maersk’s revenues. These operations consisted of 645 owned and chartered vessels with aggregate capacity of 2.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). • Maersk Oil, Maersk’s oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) operations, which contributed 20\% of revenues. Maersk had E&P operations in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Qatar, and Algeria. This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020. A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives 412-147 2 • APM Terminals, which owned and operated container terminals globally and contributed 7\% of revenues. Its network included 55 container terminals and 154 inland facilities in 64 countries. • Maersk Drilling, offshore drilling and land rig operations (including a 40\% interest in Egyptian Drilling Company), which contributed 3\% of revenues. • Other businesses: Maersk Supply Service (anchor handling and platform supply vessels); Maersk Tankers (oil and gas tanker shipping); Damco (logistics); Svitzer (towing and salvage operations); Maersk FPSOs (serviced floating oil and gas producers via its fleet of three floating production, storage, and offloading units (FPSOs), one floating gas storage offloading unit (FGSO), and one jack-up production module) and Maersk LNG (owned and operated Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) carriers). 2002–2008 saw strong growth globally for the container shipping industry, driven in part by the expansion of outsourcing, growth in emerging markets, and China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Maersk’s other businesses also experienced robust growth, resulting in a 15\% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in group revenues, and a 14\% CAGR in both EBITDA 1 and assets over this time period. However, in 2008, the global recession resulted in slower growth across many of Maersk’s business lines. In subsequent years, container industry volumes were relatively flat, and with significant overcapacity, rates remained soft. In light of this environment, Maersk focused on expansion in growth markets, such as Asia and Africa, and on cost control and improved efficiency in mature markets. One business which remained a growth area was energy, with rising oil prices driving strong top-line growth. Maersk produced 333,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day in 2011 and had a strategic goal of producing 400,000 BOE per day. As of December 31, 2011, Maersk’s total market capitalization was $28 billion (in U.S. dollars). The company had been publicly traded since 1982, and was listed on the NASDAQ OMX Nordic exchange. Maersk had two classes of shares: A shares, which possessed voting rights, and B shares, which had no voting rights. As of December 31, 2011, Maersk’s share capital consisted of 4,395,600 shares, 50\% of which were A shares and 50\% of which were B shares. The Møller family’s foundation controlled 41.22\% of the share capital and 50.6\% of the total votes. (Through other entities and private ownership, the Møller family controlled an additional 25.9\% of the voting power of Maersk.) Fortyone percent of the share capital was freely floated. (See Exhibit 1 for share price data for Maersk, and Exhibits 2 and 3 for detailed financial performance data.) Talent Management at Maersk Talent Management in the Pre-2003 Era The evolution of Maersk’s talent-management practices can be viewed in light of the company’s overall evolution and growth. As Maersk transitioned from a family-owned Danish company to a publicly-traded global conglomerate, its work force changed, as did its talent needs and practices. Many of these changes also reflected trends in the broader market, as talent became increasingly mobile. 1 Earnings before interest, tax, and depreciation and amortization. This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020. 412-147 A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives 3 This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020. A.P. Møller - Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives 412-147 Pejter described the workforce culture that had traditionally dominated Maersk: “In many ways, A.P. Møller has been a company of people who work there for life … We have disproportionately many people who get to their 40-year anniversary or 50-year anniversary with the company, and no one makes a big wahoo out of 25-year anniversaries because they are very common.” She added that, due in part to the presence of a strong founding family, Maersk employees felt they were part of something that was more of a “familial relationship.” Maersk had historically focused on hiring and training young, inexperienced individuals. It was not uncommon to hire individuals directly from high school. Maersk’s two-year training program entailed on-the job-training and formal coursework. Successful trainees were guaranteed an overseas placement as part of their ongoing training. Individuals were hired by the Group, and moved regularly across Maersk’s business lines. In keeping with Maersk’s familial culture, managers were often slow to let go of underperforming employees. What emerged as a result of these practices was a strong, arguably homogenous and companyfocused, culture. Bill Allen described the culture at Maersk as “an insular organization, internally focused, quite successful, very successful when it came to Denmark, quite successful globally, a big headquarters, slow moving, bureaucratic. [There were] lots of control mechanisms in headquarters indicative of a control culture.” He added, “In terms of things we were doing well—good focus on leadership, good focus on values, and appreciation for the heritage of the organization, [there was] a passion, a tremendous passion, about the industry, or industries that we were in, and a good foundation, if you will. Smart, competitive people. It’s got a lot to [do with] our selection procedures over the years.” Jesper Madsen, a vice president in HR at Maersk Drilling, argued that while Maersk was good at filling the firm’s needs, it was less good at focusing on the needs of its individual employees. He explained, “But where we’re not doing well enough is on leveraging the talent of each individual. I think we have a number of employees in our organization that are not the best version of themselves— that we could actually benefit from engaging more in their personal development. So, the individual career management—career development, personal aspiration development—I think that’s the area where we are underleveraging for the time being.” Rolf Habben-Jansen, CEO of Maersk’s Damco unit, posited that the homogenous nature of Maersk’s employee base could present challenges. He argued, “The DNA of many of our people [is similar]— they have been selected in the past based on certain personality profiles that are very, very similar. And I’m a firm believer in the need to have some diversity also in terms of personality because suddenly when you hit more turbulent times, it sometimes just helps to have some people that don’t always go with the flow because they can help you challenge the conventional wisdom.” And, he continued, “Because we had basically grown up all the management executives the same way, that’s how we ended up with a leadership team with too similar beliefs, which is not ideal for running a truly global and very diverse business.” Bill Allen concurred, arguing that traditionally Maersk employees “knew how the organization worked. They were very, very, very good operationally. They got things done, [and were] very execution-focu ... Purchase answer to see full attachment