Discuss Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corporation within the Human Resources Management (H.R) forums, part of the PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT category; Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) : KFC Corporation (KFC), founded and also known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, ...
| ||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corporation
Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corporation - January 27th, 2011
Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) : KFC Corporation (KFC), founded and also known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, is a chain of fast food restaurants based in Louisville, Kentucky, in the United States. KFC has been a brand and operating segment, termed a concept of Yum! Brands since 1997 when that company was spun off from PepsiCo as Tricon Global Restaurants Inc.
KFC primarily sells chicken pieces, wraps, salads and sandwiches. While its primary focus is fried chicken, KFC also offers a line of grilled and roasted chicken products, side dishes and desserts. Outside North America, KFC offers beef based products such as hamburgers or kebabs, pork based products such as ribs and other regional fare.
The company was founded as Kentucky Fried Chicken by Colonel Harland Sanders in 1952, though the idea of KFC's fried chicken actually goes back to 1930. Although Sanders died in 1980, he remains an important part of the company's branding and advertisements, and "Colonel Sanders" or "The Colonel" is a metonym for the company itself. The company adopted KFC, an abbreviated form of its name, in 1991. Starting in April 2007, the company began using its original name, Kentucky Fried Chicken, for its signage, packaging and advertisements in the U.S. as part of a new corporate re-branding program; newer and remodeled restaurants will have the new logo and name while older stores will continue to use the 1980s signage. Additionally, Yum! continues to use the abbreviated name freely in its advertising.
According to (2001), the discipline process involves more than just managerial instinct or intuition to resolve workplace performance problems. Most organizations have objectives or union agreements in place to protect employees' rights from arbitrary dismissal and lack of feedback. Managers must provide fair, factual, and timely disciplinary feedback. Management has traditionally reserved the right to determine which employees receive work and job security. Discipline, including dismissal as the ultimate punishment, has remained a major management tool in this respect. Today however, union presence and the resulting collective agreements barring discipline without just cause protect a large number of workers. Thus, management’s right to discipline and fire in organized settings where such agreements exist has the correlative responsibility of ensuring that the decision is just. For example, it is the responsibility of the employer to adhere to the mutually established grievance procedure to ensure organizational justice. Even in non-union settings where workers are not protected by grievance and arbitration procedures, the employer's right to discipline has been tied by some courts (e.g., in some cases involving exceptions to the at-will rule) to the correlative responsibility of ensuring good cause and job-relatedness. Thus, obtaining and keeping good performance appraisal records on which to base future decisions becomes an important management responsibility. In addition, it is the employer's responsibility to make sure that workers receive equal treatment by being consistent in the application of disciplinary measures. Periodic training of first-line supervisors or other managers may be necessary to avoid inconsistency. Thus, it is also the employer's responsibility to ensure that the appropriate personnel are well trained and knowledgeable in the organization's discipline and discharge policies.
While management is, in general, opposed to any legislation, federal or state, that could assert statutory just-cause provisions for terminating an at-will employee, there is an increasing awareness of the need to take some action that would be protective against large punitive damage awards in the event a discharged employee contests his termination. Employers may approach the problem in that it would involve the establishment of specific rules or procedures that, if violated, could be the basis for just cause or good cause discharge and the communication of these rules or procedures to all employees by some means. It is incumbent upon an employer adopting this approach, however, to ensure that such rules and procedures are complete and in line with other company personnel policies. The difficulty in establishing such a listing of rules and procedures, the violation of which could lead to discharge, may be emphasized, however, by noting the large number of discipline and discharge cases heard by impartial arbitrators each year. When it is realized that the vast majority of these cases involve employers and employees operating under collective bargaining agreements that may contain extensive rules and procedures developed over a period of several years, the magnitude of the problem becomes more obvious.
‘The danger of discipline lies in its overuse’ ( 1993). If managers attempt to reinforce good behaviour through punishment, when the punishment is removed, the employee will likely continue the old behaviour. Discipline should never be used as a leverage to force an employee to act unethically or work outside his or her job description because to do so would constitute coercive power and violates all codes of ethics. When discipline is abused by management, it quickly leads to resentment, lost trust and respect from subordinates, and poor relations between management and labour. Managers who address small violations will lose the respect and trust of their employees. In summary, ‘The goal of discipline is not to win battles but to create responsible employees’
The integrative model
Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000) integrate the two main models of HR strategy, one
focusing on the strategy’s underlying logic of managerial control, the other focusing
on the reward–effort exchange. Arguing that neither of the two dichotomous
approaches (control- and resource-based models) provides a framework able to encompass
the ebb and flow of the intensity and direction of HR strategy, they build a model
that characterizes the two main dimensions of HR strategy as involving ‘acquisition
and development’ and the ‘locus of control’.
Acquisition and development are concerned with the extent to which the HR strategy
develops internal human capital as opposed to the external recruitment of human
capital. In other words, organizations can lean more towards ‘making’ their workers
(high investment in training) or more towards ‘buying’ their workers from the
external labour market (Rousseau, 1995). Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000) call this
the ‘make-or-buy’ aspect of HR strategy.
Locus of control is concerned with the degree to which HR strategy focuses on monitoring
employees’ compliance with process-based standards as opposed to developing
a psychological contract that nurtures social relationships, encourages mutual trust and
respect, and controls the focus on the outcomes (ends) themselves. This strand of
thinking in HR strategy can be traced back to the ideas of Walton (1987), who made a
distinction between commitment and control strategies (Hutchinson et al., 2000). As
Figure 2.8 shows, these two main dimensions of HR strategy yield four different ‘ideal
types’ of dominant HR strategy:
The commitment HR strategy is characterized as focusing on the internal development
of employees’ competencies and outcome control. In contrast, the traditional HR
strategy, which parallels Bamberger and Meshoulam’s ‘secondary’ HR strategy, is
viewed as focusing on the external recruitment of competencies and behavioural or
process-based controls. The collaborative HR strategy, which parallels Bamberger and
Meshoulam’s ‘free agent’ HR strategy, involves the organization subcontracting work
to external independent experts (for example consultants or contractors), giving
extensive autonomy and evaluating their performance primarily in terms of the end
results. The paternalistic HR strategy offers learning opportunities and internal promotion
to employees for their compliance with process-based control mechanisms. Each
HR strategy represents a distinctive HR paradigm, or set of beliefs, values and assumptions,
that guide managers. Similar four-cell grids have been developed by Lepak and
Snell (1999). Based upon emprical evidence, Bamberger and Meshoulam suggest that
the HR strategies in the diagonal quandrants ‘commitment’ and ‘traditional’ are likely
to be the most prevalent in (North American) work organizations.
It is argued that an organization’s HR strategy is strongly related to its competitive
strategy. So, for example, the traditional HR strategy (bottom right quantrant) is most
likely to be adopted by management when there is certainty over how inputs are
transformed into outcomes and/or when employee performance can be closely monitored
or appraised. This dominant HR strategy is more prevalent in firms with a highly
routinized transformation process, low-cost priority and stable competitive environment.
Under such conditions, managers use technology to control the uncertainty
inherent in the labour process and insist only that workers enact the specified core
standards of behaviour required to facilitate undisrupted production. Managerial
behaviour in such organizations can be summed up by the managerial edict ‘You are
here to work, not to think!’ Implied by this approach is a focus on process-based
control in which ‘close monitoring by supervisors and efficiency wages ensure
adequate work effort’ (MacDuffie, 1995, quoted by Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2002,
p. 60). The use of the word ‘traditional’ to classify this HR strategy and the use of a technological
‘fix’ to control workers should not be viewed as a strategy only of ‘industrial’
54 Human Resource Management
Figure 2.8 Categorizing human resource management strategies
Source: Based on Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000)
Internal Acquisition of employees External
worksites. Case study research on call centres, workplaces that some organizational
theorists label ‘post-industrial’, reveal systems of technical and bureacratic control
that closely monitor and evaluate their operators
Last edited by bhautik.kawa; July 20th, 2016 at 08:46 PM..
| || |
Re: Human Resource Management of KFC Corporation (KFC)
Re: Human Resource Management of KFC Corporation (KFC) - May 28th, 2015
Human resource main function is to make internal communication more effective and how to retain the employee back because when employee moves away, they take clients too and that has been a big risk for the company . I would love to share some of the information related to How KFC retain their employee. However this topic is related to the above topic. Please do have a look it is effective and helpful. LINK
|area of hrm, career development, career management, career path, career planning, company in us, corporation, fringe benefits, hrm of us company, hrm practices, human, human resource management, induction process, job evaluation, job rotation, kfc, management, orientation process, performance appraisal, personnel management, recruitment process, resource, staffing process, strategic hrm, training development|
|Related to Human Resource Management of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corporation|