Human Resource Management Organisational Process

Question: Describe about the Human Resource Management for Organisational Process. Answer: Introduction Organizational changes can be deemed as a major part of the progress of an organization. A span of time may arise when the need to restructure or reorganize becomes eminent. But it is to be duly noted that organizational changes should not be made only for the sake of making them, but taking into account the pros and cons of it, as well as a thorough analysis of how it will impact the organization is to be made before the implementation of these changes. In this report, the researcher discusses the Atlassian organization, which is an Australia-based software firm. The discussion would focus on the changes that this organization has brought about recently and its impact in terms of strategic focus and sustainability. The report also evaluates the success ratio that the implementation of the change has achieved along with the reason behind its implementation. Identification of an organization in Australia that has recently implemented a significant change Atlassian is a software organization, based in Australia which has very recently implemented a significant change in their organization. This significant change proved to be an essential factor in the growth of the organization, and this organizational change was named as performance management overhaul. This organization decided to entirely restructure their performance review system (Lusthaus, 2002). According to the administrative department of the organization, the bi-annual performance review system was not producing the desired results. The system was not suitable for the employees as well as it was largely infrequent, so the system was deemed as incompetent. Adding to these issues, as the employee's bonuses depended on upon the numeric performance ratings; the review system did not prove to be helpful at all as an employee with three rating and another with four rating did not have much difference in performance but their bonuses and payouts varied immensely. As a result of al l these issues, Atlassian changed this review pattern and introduced a brand new review model which comprised of more of a continuous system than a numeric one. The new review process involved performance reviews once in every month instead of a biannual formal review, and the whole process is now carried out in a one on one system involving the manager and an employee (Humphreys Brown, 2002). Fundamental points from the interview with the manager of the organization While preparing this report, the researcher conducted a survey interview with the departmental manager of the Atlassian organization, based in Australia, in order to procure his perspectives about the recently implemented organizational change. The manager was asked questions such as whether he was feeling comfortable with the new changes that were implemented, how did he think that the new changes will affect the organization and its employees, in his opinion what sort of impact the new changes could bring about in this competitive market. The key areas of discussion with the manager are elaborated in this section of the report (Carson, Carson, Fontenot, Burdin, 2005). The manager was primarily of the opinion that he was immensely comfortable with the implementation of the changes in the performance review process in the organization. He stressed that the employees were getting more and more agitated with the old bi-annual performance review system as the system was both incompetent and infrequent. The manager further clarified the fact that the introduction of the new performance management system has rejuvenated the employees of the organization for various reasons, the urge to perform has increased and a sense of healthy competition has developed in the organization as a result (KlovienÄ—, 2012). He was also of the opinion that the new changes will bring about higher rates of productivity from the employees which will, in turn, help the organization to strive in this competitive market. Explanation of the organizations change initiative in terms of strategic focus and competitive sustainability The administrative level management of Atlassian introduced a new less numeric and a more continuous performance review system. This change in the organizations approach brought about a sense of focus among the employees regarding their work and productivity for the organization. In terms of strategic focus, this organizational change ticked every box in a positive sense. As Atlassian did not change a particular aspect of the performance review system but restructured it entirely, it shifted the employee's focus and acted in a way of a support plan (Ravasi Phillips, 2011). Once the employees were comfortable with the more continuous performance review process, the working environment became alter which in turn resulted in a beneficiary way for the organization. In a nutshell, it can be easily stated that the strategy behind implementing the change was proven to be spot on (Lee, Ahn, Park, Park, 2016). As long as competitive sustainability is concerned, this organizational change played an essential part in that as well. Atlassian managed to attract more efficient and talented employees with this new system than the other software firms in Australia, and as a result, the productivity of the organization reached new benchmarks resulting in making Atlassian one of the leading software organizations in this part of the world. Explanation of the reason behind implementation of the change The performance management overhaul was performed by Atlassian in the year 2011. There were various reasons behind taking this huge step by the administrative department of the organization. The foremost reason behind the implementation of this organizational change was the internal observation by the management heads in the organization that the biannual performance reviews were a bit too formal and not so effective (Mazur, 2013). Further, the traditional rating based system was unjust in the viewpoint of the majority of the employees. As the performance review system was biannual, it was deemed as infrequent and was a cause of major concern for the employees. Another fundamental reason for bringing about change in the performance review system was the fact that it created a sense of disarray amongst the employees of the organization (Halachmi, 2002). Based on this review system the employee's bonuses were sanctioned, and as it was a traditionally numeric rating based concept, some of the employees were bound to get lesser payouts than the others, and by a very small margin of difference in performance. This scenario understandably created an undesirable working environment in the firm, and thus the administrative department of the Atlassian organization decided to implement this organizational change in order to get satisfactory results on every front (Schreider Mostovaia, 2001). Evaluation of the success brought about by the change or likelihood of success it is about to bring The introduction of the new performance review system has brought about a considerable amount of success for Atlassian organization, based in Australia. It can be clearly observed that after the year 2011, that is, after the implementation of the above mentioned organizational change, Atlassian went big and went on to be one of the leading software companies in the whole of Australia. Transparency between the employees and the employers became more evident after the implementation of the new performance review system and that helped in the organization's cause in an immense manner (Welch-Devine, 2012). Post implementation of the new performance review system, the performance bonuses were assigned in a justified manner and it pleased the employees of the firm. This scenario also brought the best out of the employees as they knew that their performance is getting noticed and monitored by the top level management and this, in turn, created a healthy competition between them in terms of improvement in performance and enhancement in productivity, in turn benefiting the organization as a whole (Hoontis Kim, 2012). In this way, it could be safely stated that the implementation of the mentioned organizational change has brought about immense success in terms of productivity and performance in the Atlassian organization and it is proven statistically as well, as after 2011 the organizations market took off immensely (Stetler, McQueen, Demakis, Mittman, 2008). Report to the CEO about the implementation of the change In this section of the discussion, the researcher is creating a brief report on the implementation of the change for the CEO of the Atlassian organization, based in Australia. From the thorough assessment of the traditional numeric rating based bi-annual performance review system, it can be observed that the system has proved to be inappropriate as it has failed to deliver the expected results. The employees of the organization were immensely unsatisfied with this system as well. In order to revive this scenario, a more continuous and a less numeric method of a performance review system is required, so that both the employees and the organization can benefit from the new system and the company could reach its desired potential in the near future. Conclusion Implementations of organizational changes are such high stake moves which can easily prove to be a make or break strategy for an organization. It is deemed as utterly necessary for the administrative heads of an organization, to judge the requirements before taking such steps otherwise it may prove to be fatal for the organization itself. This report can be concluded by stating the fact that the Australia-based software organization Atlassian, implemented the organizational change in the correct time using the correct approach and as a result, they have set a new benchmark of success for all the software based organizations in Australia. References Carson, K., Carson, P., Fontenot, G., Burdin, J. (2005). Structured Interview Questions for Selecting Productive, Emotionally Mature, and Helpful Employees.The Health Care Manager,24(3), 209-215. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200507000-00004 Halachmi, A. (2002). Performance Measurement, Accountability, and Improved Performance.Public Performance Management Review,25(4), 370-374. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2002.11643674 Hoontis, P. Kim, T. (2012). Antecedents to Municipal Performance Measurement Implementation.Public Performance Management Review,36(1), 158-173. https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/pmr1530-9576360108 Humphreys, M. Brown, A. (2002). Narratives of Organizational Identity and Identification: A Case Study of Hegemony and Resistance.Organization Studies,23(3), 421-447. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840602233005 KlovienÄ—, L. (2012). PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM COMPATIBILITY WITH BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT.Ecoman,17(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.17.2.2163 Lee, S., Ahn, S., Park, C., Park, Y. (2016). Development of a Resource Allocation Model Using Competitive Advantage.Sustainability,8(3), 217. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8030217 Lusthaus, C. (2002).Organizational assessment. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Mazur, K. (2013). Isolating mechanisms as sustainability factors of resource-based competitive advantage.Management,17(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/manment-2013-0053 Ravasi, D. Phillips, N. (2011). Strategies of alignment: Organizational identity management and strategic change at Bang Olufsen.Strategic Organization,9(2), 103-135. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127011403453 Schreider, S. Mostovaia, A. (2001). Model sustainability in DSS design and scenario formulation.Environment International,27(2-3), 97-102. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0160-4120(01)00067-8 Stetler, C., McQueen, L., Demakis, J., Mittman, B. (2008). An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series.Implementation Science,3(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-30 Welch-Devine, M. (2012). Searching for Success: Defining Success in Co-Management.Human Organization,71(4), 358-370. https://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.71.4.y048347510304870