Human Resources Management in McDonalds McDonalds Organisation and (1987) suggest that different types of organisations adopt different

approaches to the control of their workforce, depending on how they compete. They argue that there are three main bases for competitive advantageinnovation, quality and cost-whereas strategies revolving around quality and innovation are usually associated with a committed workforce. For organisations where costs are the most important part of the question, control is likely to be a more important factor than commitment. Although some level of consent is always necessary, control is high on the agenda at McDonald's. Control at McDonald's is not merely achieved by direct supervision, machines, the physical layout of the restaurant and the detailed prescription of rules and procedures but also through recruitment. Even unskilled workers have some power to disrupt the efficiency of the operation by withdrawing cooperation from the production process, disrupting the process or by simply leaving the organisation. Employees may submit to the authority of the employer, but are always likely to retain a strong interest in the use of their labour. Employees and management are, therefore, to some extent interdependent; management cannot rely solely on coercion or even compliance to secure high performance, management also needs to secure active employee consent and co-operation. When workers' efforts are extracted through an elaborate systems of rules, including rules about grounds for promotion and for punishment, employers arguably establish more control over workers' personalities and values than when their efforts are extracted through direct exhortation or force or through the design of equipment (, 1979). (1983) argues that questions of subjectivity are not separable from the analysis of actual work practices in interactive service work because employers actively manage workers' identities. Workers and customers vie with management in a three-way contest for control and satisfaction. (1983) emphasises the distress felt by workers subjected to organisational exploitation of their feelings and personalities; however, (1993) argues that not all workers resist the extension of standardisation to their inner-selves. Rather, many attempt to construct interpretations of their roles that do not damage their conceptions of themselves. (1993) also argues that in some situations service routines provide workers and customers with benefits which help account for their frequent acquiescence in managerial designs. However, (1993) does not suggest that the routinisation of service work and the standardisation of personality are benign, nor do workers, customers and employers necessarily benefit from these processes in a happy congruence of interests. These manipulations are often invasive, demeaning and frustrating for the workers and sometimes for the customers who experience them. The importance of emotional labour in interactive service work, even of the limited kind found at McDonald's, should not be underestimated. Employers who standardise the service interaction exert a cultural influence that extends beyond the workplace. (1983) and (1989) argue that when workers are estranged from their own smiles the company is laying claim not just to physical motions but also to their emotions. Their organisational control strategies

reach deeply into the lives of workers, encouraging them to take an instrumental stance towards their own personalities and towards other people. McDonald's employees working on a till, for example, although only involved in limited service interactions, are expected to control themselves internally by being pleasant, cheerful, smiling and courteous to customers, even when customers are rude and offensive. This applies to all McDonald's workers and their relations with fellow workers and supervisors, with whom they are expected to show obvious pride in their work and employment. When asked how they motivated employees, both UK and German managers at restaurant and senior management level stressed the importance of good communication. Managers are encouraged to apply and concentrate on 's (1966) 'motivators': 'achievement', 'responsibility', 'growth' and 'recognition'. This may take the form of 'employee of the month' awards, day trips and cash bonuses or of encouraging workers to strive for promotion and take on responsibility. On the one hand, the striving for promotion locks managers' and employees' loyalty into the system; on the other, it may offer real opportunities for advancement which may be hard to come by for those with poor academic backgrounds. Managers are encouraged to discount the importance of 's (1966) 'hygiene' factors, such as pay and conditions of work. Managers have no control over these issues because they are dictated by the system. Training reinforces the view that pay and conditions do not really matter; what really does matter is their 'positive' management style and leadership. Job satisfaction is thus defined as a phenomenon determined through the area of psychological concepts, not through good pay and conditions. A good manager will therefore 'solve' the problem of resistance or discontent through good communication. Managers in the UK refer to the three Cs (in Germany, the three Ks), co-ordination, co-operation and communication, as the basis of the solutions to all problems. Identification with the restaurant and other crew members is fostered through the creation of a new form of collective. If 'us and them' is still recognised, it is reinterpreted to mean 'us' as the management and crew and 'them' as the customer. Workers are encouraged to think of themselves as part of a team and managers are encouraged to equate restaurant management with coaching a team. The result of this form of 'teamwork' seems to be that individuals are often loath to be seen by their peers as making extra work for other people by not doing their share. Even the more resentful employees, who had what management saw as 'negative' attitudes, would still work hard to keep the respect of their peers. A typical feature of management style was the repeated use of certain kinds of language, with paternalistic expressions such as the 'McDonald's family'. Management and employees in both countries used the term to describe their work environment. Many responses reflected the strongly paternalistic nature of the employment relationship which management worked to foster.

Read more: http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2009/07/human-resource-management-atmcdonalds.html#ixzz1awZtoLZm