What is happening to the packaging industry at the time of the case?
At the time of Sonoco’s case, the packaging industry was experiencing dynamic changes. Firstly, the packaging industry focuses on the environment. Secondly, the packaging industry is facing intense global competition due to the turbulent economic conditions. According to the case, the packaging industry is experiencing high innovation levels and development. Lastly, the packaging industry is experiencing reduced demand for its products due to the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crises (Sonoco Case Study page 3).
Cindy’s objectives
Cindy’s first objective was to increase the General Manager’s responsibility about the management of talent in the organization. The second objective was to ensure equal distribution of talent in the organization to help in promoting consistency in the HR processes. The last objective was to optimize the ability of the HR in providing strategic and customized support in the organization (Sonoco Case Study page 1).
How will these changes impact Sonoco’s strategy?
The dynamic changes in the packaging industry will have a significant impact on the strategic activities of Sonoco. The changes in the industry force Sonoco to change its strategies to help it competing globally. The changes will lead to innovation at the company. The company will adopt the latest technology to drive its activities in new markets across the world. The changes will lead to the restructuring the firm. The restructuring of the company shall increase its global competitiveness (Carson 2006, p. 396).
The success of the Sonoco's HR changes
The new HR strategies were successful in promoting talent management within the company. The HR policies motivated the employees at Sonoco because they were treated as corporate resources. The HR policies promoted flexibility and adaptability of the employees to the external environment, and these increased the company’s competitiveness in the packaging industry. The HR policies promoted efficient and successful management of the employees at Sonoco. The HR strategies were proactive because they focused on training and managed the performance of employees (Becker & Gerhart 1996, p.790).
How right was the sequence of changes?
The sequence of changes at Sonoco was right. The sequence of changes was as a result of strategic decision-making with the company. The sequence of changes focused on management of talent in the company. The sequence of changes increased the number of strategies that helped in managing talents within the company (Zeytinoglu et al. 2008, p.700).The sequence of changes promoted consistency in the HR functions of the company by distributing talents equally in all the company departments. The sequence of changes at Sonoco optimized the ability of the HR department to offer strategic support in the company. The sequence of changes was designed in such a way that the focused on the importance of the employees in the company. The sequence of changes increased the flexibility of the company thus it helped the company to adapt the changes in the packaging industry (Gibb 2003, p.282)
What is the right HR structure at Sonoco?
Pros and cons of a centralized structure
According to Wright, Dunford and Snell (2001, p.705), a centralized HR structure suits Sonoco. A centralized HR structure will improve performance at Sonoco by streamlining the operations of the company. The centralized HR structure will enable the HR to play a significant role in making strategic decisions of the company. A centralized HR strategy will encourage innovation, commitment and organizational changes. The centralized structure is advantageous because it would minimize process and administrative expenses in the organization (Becker & Gerhart 1996, p.800). Conversely, a centralized HR would translate the HR function into another cost center. Similarly, the centralized structure would restrict the alignment of the employees’ business needs with the objectives of the company.
Pros and cons of a hybrid structure
Another option that could be used at Sonoco is a Hybrid structure. Hendry et al. (2006, p. 47) explain that the main advantage of a hybrid HR structure is it would promote the autonomy of the HR manager. Conversely, the hybrid model would be complicated in the case of Sonoco because it will not be efficient in promoting changes at Sonoco. Therefore, a centralized HR structure suits Sonoco (Carson 2006, p. 399).
Will the changes be sustained?
According to Grossman and Salas (2011, p. 234), the changes at Sonoco will be sustained if all stakeholders in the organization will be committed to the changes. The workers should focus on change to by embracing it in their daily jobs. Change at Sonoco will be sustained if there will be reinforcement in the form of feedbacks (Hendry et al. 2006, p. 49). The management at Sonoco should promote the sustainability of change by reviewing its progress and making the necessary alterations. Commitment is integral in the sustainability of changes in the company. If the management focuses on the development of positive job attitudes in employees, change will be sustainable (Zeytinoglu et al. 2008, p.677).
What would you do advise Cindy Hartley and Harris Deloach?
I would encourage Cindy and Harris to create value at Sonoco by empowering employees. I would encourage them to review the performance of all employees and reward employees who show good performance. I would tell them to consider extrinsic and intrinsic factors before rewarding their employees. I would suggest they focus on growing positivity and increasing performance in the company (Becker, & Gerhart 1996, p. 800). I would urge them to invest in their employees through training and developing them. I would also recommend that they should focus on performance management by focusing on relevant skills required by employees. I would tell Cindy and Harris to ensure that qualified employees are hired in the company. I would also recommend that the company adopts a centralized HR system.
Reference list
Becker, B. & Gerhart. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of management journal, 39, p.779–801.
Callaghan, G. and Thompson, P. 2002. '‘We Recruit Attitude: The Selection and Shaping of Routine Call Centre Labour', Journal of Management Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, March.
Carson, M. 2006.'Saying it like it isn’t: The Pros and Cons of 360 Degree Feedback', Business Horizons, vol. 49, p. 395—402.
Gibb, S. 2003. 'Line manager involvement in learning and development: Small beer or big deal?', Employee Relations, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 281 - 293. 5.
Grossman, R. and Salas, E. 2011 'The transfer of training: what matters', International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 15, no. 2.
Hendry, C., Woodward, S., Bradley, P. and Perkins, S. (2006) 'Performance and rewards: cleaning out the stables', Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, August, pp. 46-62.Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. 2001 'Human resources and the resource-based view of the firm', Journal of Management, vol. 27, p. 701–721.
Zeytinoglu, I.U., Cooke, G.B., Harry, K. and Chowhan, J. 2008 'Low-Paid Workers and On-the-Job Training in Canada', RI/IR, vol. 63, no. 1.
