Can a Strong Culture Be Too Strong

As per your instructions in the class, we are submitting analysis report on the case “Can a Strong Culture Be Too Strong”, as our official submission towards the group-assignment component of the Written Analysis and Communication course, PGP Mumbai, IIM Indore. This report analyses the dilemma faced by Indira Pandit, Vice President of HR, while deciding whether to endorse new People Support function. This report includes a detailed analysis of the situation at hand and the different options available. The major criterions used for evaluation are alignment of People Support function with company culture and its impact on the retention of the employees. After much analysis our recommendation would be not to endorse the People Support function. In case CEO of the company insists on implementing the function, a contingency plan is included suggesting the modifications required to be made in People Support function in order to reap maximum benefits.

Executive summary

With Parivar making a mark above second tier IT companies, Parivar has been looking to implement People Support function in an attempt to strengthen its employee caring culture, improve turnaround rate and to provide best employee practices in industry. But Operations head, Kumar has certain concerns regarding cost, scalability and management of People Support function. Therefore Vice President of HR, Indira is in dilemma whether to endorse People Support function. Based on the evaluation we recommend that Indira should not endorse People Support function. A contingency plan is provided in the end, in case CEO insists on implementing the function. [Words: 100]

Situation Analysis
Parivar was growing in its revenues, profitability and reputation, and rising above second tier IT services companies. But as Parivar grew it was confronted with the challenge of losing its employees at a much faster rate than its employee hiring rate, its turnover rate up to 35% and more than 100 employee giving notice in recent weeks. Parivar had an inclusive work culture and fostered the philosophy of genuine caring for its employees by giving attention to both personal and professional matters of the employees. Indira and her team along with some employees had come up with an idea of People Support function which was meant to control the employee attrition and attract new professionals. But the proposal of People Support had been debatable with Indira, Vikram and Kumar debating on, that the family like work environment had no longer been able to retain the employees and it was the pay hike which had been the motivation for the employees to work for a company in IT services sector.

After the exit interview with Amal, in which Amal told that he was alienated from interacting with senior executives, the differences in opinion of Amal and Amal’s manager, and the attrition numbers in her hand, Indira was left wondering with what exactly was true. Further there had been questions on the feasibility of the People Support function as Sudhir and the management staff discussed the cost of the function, its scalability, evaluation of the assigned listeners and so on. Sudhir held the view that people everywhere want their company to take care of them but insisted on hearing an honest opinion from Indira. Indira on the other hand had her skepticism and was not sure of how the family like culture of Parivar can be formalized into processes and roles. Moreover the employee attrition numbers told a different story with respect to Parivar’s cultural philosophy. With all these, Indira was left in a dilemma of whether People Support function was the solution Parivar was looking for and what to say to Sudhir in the upcoming meeting. Problem Statement

Should Indira endorse People Support function.
Options
1. Indira should endorse People Support function.
2. Indira should not endorse People Support function.
Criteria for Evaluation
1. Cost of Function: Cost of implementing People Support to company 2. Scalable: Ease of implementation as the company grows
3. Employee Retention: Effect of function on increase in employee retention 4. Employee Productivity: Increase in employee productivity due to implementation 5. Competitive Edge: Effect of function on company’s competitive edge 6. Alignment with Company Culture: Alignment of function with the company culture 7. Employee Satisfaction: Increase in employee satisfaction due to implementation 8. Talent Attraction: Role of function in attracting talent

Evaluation of Options
1. Option 1: Indira should endorse People Support function
Implementing People Support will cost dearly to the company and it will be difficult to replicate the function as company grows in size and across the globe. Implementing the function will not ensure employee retention, productivity, and satisfaction as employee preference for supportive culture and monetary benefits is not very evident. The function will be in perfect alignment with company’s supportive culture but this will not ensure a clear competitive edge for company. The function will attract new talent but not to a great extent because of the lower monetary compensation. 2. Option 2: Indira should not endorse People Support function Not implementing the function will have following effects:

1. Monetary saving as no additional cost is involved
2. Scalability problem will not arise
3. Move will not be aligned with company culture
4. Employee satisfaction will remain at similar level
5. New talent attraction will not occur
6. It will not have any effect on competitive edge of the company, employee productivity and employee retention Options
Evaluation Criteria
Option 1
Option 2
Cost of Function
High
Nil
Scalable
No
Yes
Employee Retention
May Be
–
Employee Productivity
May Be
–
Competitive Edge
May Be
–
Alignment with Company Culture
Yes
No
Employee Satisfaction
May be
No
Talent Attraction
May be
No
Recommendation
Based on our analysis we recommend Indira not to endorse People Support function. Contingency Plan
As a contingency plan to our recommendation we would propose “Partial and Informal implementation of the People Support idea”. In our implementation, instead of institutionalizing people support idea in a formal way consisting of officially trained “listeners” between the direct reports and the manager. We would rather train the managers themselves to be “listeners” as well as develop a more informal culture in company which will enable the direct reports to reach out to the managers with their grievances. This would eliminate the additional layer of people between managers and direct reports which could have added to the problems by increasing the communication gap between the two. Contingency Action Plan

1. Provide training to the managers on how to be a good “listener” 2. Develop a conducive informal culture in the company which makes the managers more approachable by their direct reports 3. Empower the managers so that they can resolve the grievances reported to them 4. For the grievances which are NOT-solvable by the managers, develop a channel so that the managers can report it to the pertinent authority which would be able to resolve it [Words: 983]