How does HRM enable organisations to adapt to the dynamic changes in the

environment? Illustrate with examples.

Nowadays most organizations operate in a dynamic environment. A dynamic
environment, with frequent unpredictable events which have an impact on the
organization, implies that management needs to align the organization with this
ever changing context. Organizations struggle when the rate of change in their
environment outpaces their organizational capacity to keep up (Foster & Kaplan,
2001). It is no longer possible for organization to get better: they need to get
different (Hamel, 2000). We pose that organizations need to get different in the
way they cope with dynamics. One way of doing this is by no longer managing
uncertainty but by embracing it. This is what truly agile organizations do.
Environmental dynamism has lead to a focus on organizational capabilities as the
principle source of competitive advantage in such an environment (Grant, 1996).
These organizational capabilities are referred to as dynamic capabilities (Teece
e.a., 1997). Dyer and Shafer discuss a growing interest in an entirely new
organizational paradigm one that views organizational adaption not as a one-time
or even periodic event, but as a continuous process. That paradigm is
Organizational Agility (1998: 6). Organizational Agility is considered a necessary
dynamic capability for organizations operating in a dynamic environment.
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) expand the concept of dynamic capabilities by stating
that the effective patterns of dynamic capabilities varies with market dynamism.
This means that organizational agility is not an on/off-switch. Organizations can
have a certain level of organizational agility. In this paper we first discuss the
organizational practices organizations apply to cope with a dynamic environment,
thereby enhancing their level of organizational agility. The organizational
practices focused on three agility-competencies will be explored: a scalable
workforce (in terms of quantity and quality), fast organizational knowledge
creation and a highly adaptable organizational infrastructure.
The second, related issue we discuss and explore in this paper is the institutional
setting in relation to the implementation of these organizational practices and
more importantly the response organizations opt for. Organizations sometimes
seem to apply organizational practices that at first sight seem to be incompatible
with the objective of coping with a dynamic environment. For example, they
continue to hire most employees on a permanent contract thereby creating
organizational rigidity. Paauwe (2004) explains this by stating that contingency
factors limit the leeway of both organization and management. In general
institutional theory provides a popular and powerful explanation for organizational
action within this leeway (Dacin e.a. 2002; Paauwe, 2004, Pursey, e.a. 2009).
Where early institutionalists tended to emphasize the constraining effect of
institutional mechanisms (Dacin e.a., 2002; Scott, 2008), more recently attention
is given to using and enlarging the room to maneuver for organizations. This
agency approach refers to the way in which an actor can choose his own response
to institutional pressure (Oliver, 1991; Lee and Pennings, 2002). Human agency and
strategic choice give organizations several options to cope with institutional
pressures varying from active resistance to passive response (Oliver, 1991). Boon,
Paauwe, Boselie & Den Hartog, (2009) develop three types of institutional fit based
on Oliver (1991) and Mirvis (1997): conformist, innovative and defiant.
This paper aims to identify which organizational practices are important
determinants of organizational agility and to determine in what way institutional
mechanisms facilitate or hinder organizations in achieving organizational agility.

Our paper starts with setting out the characteristics of a dynamic environment and
the challenges organizations face in such an environment. Next we discuss the
concept of dynamic capabilities and develop this concept towards an heuristic
framework for organizational agility. In this framework we focus our attention to
three specific topics: the way in which an organization can scale its workforce,
maintain its knowledge base and is able to balance both control and chaos. We
then turn our attention to the institutional context, which might impact decisions
on the adoption and implementation of relevant organizational practices and 6
the attitude and available options towards this institutional context. Finally we
apply this heuristic framework and concepts to four case studies of organizations
operating in a dynamic environment. By doing so we identify organizational
practices and strategic responses to the institutional context aimed at
organizational agility.
What are the three main elements of business communication, explain?
Communication
We communicate all the time, every day. Sometimes we're even aware of it! We
communicate through gesture, body language, facial expressions, and tone of
voice as well as through the words we speak. These variables can be joined in a
variety of ways in our communication. Add to this mix: language; cultural and
social differences; educational background; physical proximity; and individual
fears, insecurities, strengths, and weaknesses. No wonder communication is
complex! There is a huge amount of information on communication and different
methodologies for improvement. The following offers one perspective on
communication.
First of all, being successful in business requires effective communication. This
paper focuses on effective business communication, although the information
can be applied generally. To untangle the mix described above and to improve
communication, we can focus on several key elements:
Purpose
Style
Listening
Purpose
In business, when we communicate we usually have a purpose. Sometimes we
have not considered that purpose sufficiently before beginning the dialogue,
which can lead to confusion and mixed messages. So, first we must clarify our
purpose. What do I want as a result of this communication? What would be a
successful outcome?
As an example, let's consider dialogue with an employee regarding a new
assignment. Initially, we may look at the assignment and consider that its
successful completion is the purpose. But let's break this process further down
into smaller steps, with handing off the assignment being the first step. Our
desired outcome FOR THE MEETING to hand off the assignment might be:
Employee fully understands the assignment
Responds to questions to ensure understanding
Is able to paraphrase assignment requirements
Is aware of consequences of completing or not completing assignment
2

 Employee has an idea of how to proceed

Articulates next steps
Identifies problems, etc
Or we and employee discuss together
Employee knows resources available
Employee knows where to go for help
We and employee agree on a follow-up status check meeting
If we have been successful in this first communication regarding the assignment,
we have already established a paradigm for communication during the
assignment work, including follow-ups to check status, make corrections, and to
compliment upon completion. Clarity in the initial communication makes a huge
difference. And to back up one step, clarifying our purpose before starting the
communication can separate effective communication from that which is unclear,
does not have sufficient detail, leaves no room for questions or advice, or does
not ensure the employee can gain access to sufficient resources.
A clearly identified purpose can mean the difference between success or failure,
and while thinking through a purpose may take time initially, we will eventually
form a consistent habit of clarifying desired outcome which usually leads to
better results.
Style
Style has to do with who we are and how who we are affects our communication.
We may engage in dialogue with little knowledge of the impact of individual
differences. Some of us may have a higher awareness of style differences and
still not use this awareness when communicating. Others of us become aware of
stylistic differences only when having a problem communicating. Let's stop for a
moment and further define "style."
Style is influenced by many factors, some of which were defined at the beginning
of this article. A longer list might include culture, upbringing, religion, gender,
age, education, language, race, politics - and this is not a total list. Some of the
influences of our early years are mitigated or enhanced during our growth and
experience. In all, we become who we are, and who we are influences our
communication.
What is the difference between idle costing and standard costing?
Normal costing is used to value manufactured products with the actual materials
costs, the actual direct labor costs, and manufacturing overhead based on a
predetermined manufacturing overhead rate. These three costs are referred to as
product costs and are used for the cost of goods sold and for inventory valuation. If
there is a difference between 1) the overhead costs assigned or applied to
products, and 2) the overhead costs actually incurred, the difference is referred to
as a variance. If the amount of the variance is not significant, it will usually be
assigned to the cost of goods sold. If the variance is significant, it should be
prorated to the cost of goods sold and to the work in process and finished goods
inventories.
Standard costing values its manufactured products with a predetermined materials
cost, a predetermined direct labor cost, and a predetermined manufacturing
overhead cost. These standard costs will be used for valuing the manufacturer's
cost of goods sold and inventories. If the actual costs vary only slightly from the

standard costs, the resulting variances will be assigned to the cost of goods sold. If
the variances are significant, they should be prorated to the cost of goods sold and
to the inventories.
which are the different ways by which the cost can be analyzed
Cost analysis (also called economic evaluation, cost allocation, efficiency
assessment, cost-benefit analysis, or cost-effectiveness analysis by different
authors) is currently a somewhat controversial set of methods in program
evaluation. One reason for the controversy is that these terms cover a wide range
of methods, but are often used interchangeably.
At the most basic level, cost allocation is simply part of good program budgeting
and accounting practices, which allow managers to determine the true cost of
providing a given unit of service (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 1990). At the most
ambitious level, well-publicized cost-benefit studies of early intervention
programs have claimed to show substantial long-term social gains for participants
and cost savings for the public (Berreuta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, et al.,
1984). Because these studies have been widely cited and credited with convincing
legislators to increase their support for early childhood programs, some
practitioners advocate making more use of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating
social programs (Barnett, 1988, 1993). Others have cautioned that good costbenefit or cost-effectiveness studies are complex, require very sophisticated
technical skills and training in methodology and in principles of economics, and
should not be undertaken lightly (White, 1988). Whatever position you take in this
controversy, it is a good idea for program evaluators to have some understanding
of the concepts involved, because the cost and effort involved in producing change
is a concern in most impact evaluations (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).
THREE TYPES OF COST ANALYSIS IN EVALUATION:
Cost allocation, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-benefit analysis represent
a continuum of types of cost analysis which can have a place in program
evaluation. They range from fairly simple program-level methods to highly
technical and specialized methods. However, all have specialized and technical
aspects. If you are not already familiar with these methods and the language used,
you should plan to work with a consultant or read some more in-depth texts (see
some suggested references at the end of this discussion) before deciding to
attempt them.
COST ALLOCATION: Cost allocation is a simpler concept than either cost-benefit
analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. At the program or agency level, it basically
means setting up budgeting and accounting systems in a way that allows program
managers to determine a unit cost or cost per unit of service. This information is
primarily a management tool. However, if the units measured are also outcomes of
interest to evaluators, cost allocation provides some of the basic information
needed to conduct more ambitious cost analyses such as cost-benefit analysis or
cost-effectiveness analysis. For example, for evaluation purposes, you might want

to know the average cost per child of providing an after-school tutoring program,
including the costs of staff salaries, snacks, and other overhead costs.
Besides budget information, being able to determine unit costs means that you
need to be collecting the right kind of information about clients and outcomes. In
many agencies, the information recorded in service records is based on reporting
requirements, which are not always in a form that is useful for evaluation. If staff
in a prenatal clinic simply report the number of clients served by gender, for
example, you might know only that 157 females were served in March. For an
evaluation, however, you might want to be able to break down that number in
different ways. For example, do young first-time mothers usually require more
visits than older women? Do single mothers or women with several children miss
more appointments? Is transportation to appointments more of a problem for
women who live in rural areas? Are any client characteristics commonly related to
important outcomes such as birth weight of the the baby? Deciding how to collect
enough client and service data to give useful information, without overburdening
staff with unnecessary paperwork requirements, requires a lot of planning. Larger
agencies often hire experts to design data systems, which are called MIS or
management-and-information-systems.
If you are working for an existing agency, your ability to separate out unit costs for
services or outcomes may depend on the systems that are already in place for
budgeting, accounting, and collecting service data. However, if you are in a
position to influence these functions, or need to supplement an existing system,
there are a number of texts that discuss the pros and cons of different ways of
budgeting, accounting, and designing MIS or management-and-information-systems
(see Kettner, Moroney & Martin, 1990).
COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-BENEFIT STUDIES
Most often, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit studies are conducted at a level
that involves more than just a local program (such as an individual State
Strengthening project). Sometimes they also involve following up over a long
period of time, to look at the long-term impact of interventions. They are often
used by policy analysts and legislators to make broad policy decisions, so they
might look at a large federal program, or compare several smaller pilot programs
that take different approaches to solving the same social problem. People often
use the terms interchangeably, but there are important differences between them.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: Cost-effectiveness analysis assumes that a
certain benefit or outcome is desired, and that there are several alternative ways
to achieve it. The basic question asked is, "Which of these alternatives is the
cheapest or most efficient way to get this benefit?" By definition, costeffectiveness analysis is comparative, while cost-benefit analysis usually considers
only one program at a time. Another important difference is that while costbenefit analysis always compares the monetary costs and benefits of a program,
cost-effectiveness studies often compare programs on the basis of some other
common scale for measuring outcomes (eg., number of students who graduate
from high school, infant mortality rate, test scores that meet a certain level,
reports of child abuse). They address whether the unit cost is greater for one

program or approach than another, which is often much easier to do, and more
informative, than assigning a dollar value to the outcome (White, 1988).
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: The basic questions asked in a cost-benefit analysis are,
"Do the economic benefits of providing this service outweigh the economic
costs" and "Is it worth doing at all"? One important tool of cost-benefit analysis is
the benefit-to-costs ratio, which is the total monetary cost of the benefits or
outcomes divided by the total monetary costs of obtaining them. Another tool for
comparison in cost-benefit analysis is the net rate of return, which is basically
total costs minus the total value of benefits.
The idea behind cost-benefit analysis is simple: if all inputs and outcomes of a
proposed alternative can be reduced to a common unit of impact (namely dollars),
they can be aggregated and compared. If people would be willing to pay dollars to
have something, presumably it is a benefit; if they would pay to avoid it, it is a
cost. In practice, however, assigning monetary values to inputs and outcomes in
social programs is rarely so simple, and it is not always appropriate to do so
(Weimer & Vining, 1992; Thompson, 1982; Zeckhauser, 1975).
An example will illustrate some of the differences between Cost-Effectiveness
and Cost-Benefit studies, what they can tell you, and some of the issues that
neither can effectively address:
"Suppose the drop-out rate in an inner-city high school is 50%. Prevention Program
A enrolls 20 students, costs $20,000, and 15 of the 20 students (75%) graduate.
Thus Program A resulted in 5 additional graduates at a cost of $20,000, or one
additional graduate for every $4,000. Prevention Program B enrolls 20 students,
costs $15,000, and 12 of the 20 students (60%) graduate. Thus Program B resulted
in 2 additional graduates at a cost of $15,000, or one additional graduate for every
$7,500 spent. Although Program B is cheaper ($15,000 compared to $20,000),
Program A is more COST-EFFECTIVE ($4,000/each additional graduate, compared
to $7,500/additional graduate). A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS in this situation,
instead of comparing unit costs, would require estimating the dollar value of high
school graduation (for example, by projecting the difference in lifetime earning
capacity of graduates over drop-outs, and lifetime social service costs), and
comparing the monetary value of producing more graduates to the monetary cost
of providing the program in the first place. Neither method effectively addresses
more intangible outcomes of graduation, such as increased self-esteem, or the
value of a peer support system."