Redefined Employee Responsibilities Upon Retaining

¶ … Redefined Employee Responsibilities Upon Retaining and Required Skill Sets

For coping with both the highly competitive environment and the significant demand for logistics arising from the numerous missions assigned to the U.S. troops, DLA decided to undergo a major change in 1998. Thus, it gave up its 20-year-old technology and implemented BMS, a program aimed at transforming DLA from a "reactive, item-oriented agency, to a proactive, customer focused agency" (Lucyshyn, W., Young, S.). Taking into account the amplitude of the change process, one of the most significantly impacted segments was the workforce. In this regard, DLA engaged the entire personnel in the re-engineering algorithm by involving all employees in at least one subset of all processes. Moreover, senior managers took part in periodical meetings for tackling upon the issues they might have encountered, while employees from it and Logistics departments were brought together for finding the best solutions capable of ensuring a successful implementation of the BMS.

In addition to all these, retraining employees was identified as a key to effective change. Indeed, this was extremely important especially that DLA decided to take a decisive step in terms of focus. Thus, if until then, the item managers had been given the red carpet treatment due to their more or less accurate predictions on which DLA's trajectory depended, beginning with 1998, supply and demand managers were brought into the limelight. This implied a significant change in terms of job responsibilities and skills required for coping with the new tasks. First of all, DLA's employees needed to learn how to work with their customers and accurately register their needs. Secondly, they had to learn how to use the new software for processing the data obtained. On the other hand, supply managers needed to be trained for appropriately converting the data provided by demand managers, into pertinent supply plans, and also for fuelling fruitful relationships with the suppliers. Consequently, there were two training levels that they must have undergone: a technical one which implied acquiring computer skills and a communicational one which implied a proper handling of the information flow from and to the customers.

However, employees are not the only ones who should be trained. Managers should also be coached for acquiring or enhancing project and program management skills, communication and facilitation skills etc. In other words, they are the ones who "provide the vision and rationale for change" and, therefore, play a major role in terms of convincing employees to fight for the same cause (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/changemmt/chngmgmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1)

On the other hand, training and involvement (the 2 major levers that DLA decided to use for successfully managing the change process) must be backed up by two-way communication between employers and employees. First of all, there should be a top-down information flow through all the channels that are available. One of the most effective communication methods that research has emphasized consists of e-mail and Intranet. However, not all employees have access to such tools (e.g. shop-floor employees). Thus, DLA should use a mix of newsletters, employee attitude surveys, group meetings, presentations and so forth, for covering the entire workforce regardless of the position held within the organization (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/comconslt/empcomm.htm).

Secondly, there should also exist a strong feedback opportunity for employees. Researches in this field have pointed out that communication issues often arise because of the incongruence between the employer and employee opinions on this subject. Recent studies have showed that employers point to a higher level of communication and involvement than the employees. Such gap is frequently encountered and may lead to an irrevocable debacle of the change process. (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/changemmt/chngmgmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1)

In conclusion, training and involvement are not enough as employees must be told from the very beginning why implementing BMS is so important and how it will impact their jobs. So, first of all, they should be explained how promising and rewarding the light at the end of the tunnel is and, afterwards, be talked into participating in the process. In other words, employees can be resistant to both the contents and the process of change. Sometimes, employers focus on the former and forget about the latter and this is why they are not able to obtain a 100% commitment from employees.

Another approach that could enhance employee involvement could be the development of a new 'employer brand'. This implies redefining DLA's mission and core competencies in accordance with the new BMS program and the objectives it wants to achieve. Hence, it could state that the Department aims at better complying with the customers' needs and, therefore, will prepare and support employees for properly coping with this new orientation (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm).

Given the high attention paid to both customers and personnel, DLA can gain a positive brand image that will help it retain its valuable employees and attract new talents who are willing to join a company which is loyal to its people. As a matter of fact, the need to redefine the employer brand derives from breaking the original psychological contract existing between the employer and employee. This concept which was introduced in the early 1960s and which became popular in the early 1990s was defined as "the perception of the 2 parties, employee and employer, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other" (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm).Consequently, unlike the legal employment contract, the psychological one is informal but is said to be much more influential. According to its traditional version, the psychological contract implied employee commitment in exchange for job security. Nowadays, its "job for life" frame is said to have been replaced by fair pay, training and development. However, there are studies suggesting that the old frame is still valid (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm).

If one was to apply this theory to DLA's case, he/she could state that the originary psychological contract was altered when BMS program was implemented, and, therefore, uncertainty was brought about. People were used to being item-oriented, instead of customer oriented, and also to operate the two legacy systems that had represented the very backbone of their activity so far. Consequently, the ground beneath their feet began to shake and this could result in the loss of many valuable employees. Hence, before implementing change, DLA should have re-established the terms of a new psychological contract, reassuring enough for employees to take part in the re-engineering process.