Appendices
Contents
Appendix I – Vignettes .................................................................................................................................. 2
Appendix II – Organizational citizenship behavior measurement items ................................................... 4
Appendix III – Web survey ........................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix IV – Checklist for document analysis ......................................................................................... 11
Appendix V – Paper Strategic Human Resource Management “The Public Dimension of Philips”....... 12
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Appendix I – Vignettes
Based on the job dimensions of Hackman & Oldham (1975)
Imagine the following situation:
In your organisation you are part of the talent pool, which means you have talent to become a high
placed manager and therefore your employer wants to use extra time and money to increase your
personal development.
The organisation is setting up a social responsibility programme in which you will work as a volunteer
for a local community or charity. It will be a long term project in which you are not obliged to
participate. You will have complete freedom in how you will do the work in the project and moreover
when it is finished you can see what your contribution to the project has been. It will consists of
different tasks in which you will be able to use a range of your skills and talents. You will receive
feedback of your performance from your co-workers and manager of the project. The philanthropic
organisation is dependent on help from people like you.
What are the chances you would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
Imagine the above situation, however your employer gives you not that much freedom in what your
exact tasks will be within the programme and how you will execute them. Therefore your employer
makes the decisions and you are not involved in the decision making process. What are the chances
you would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
2
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Imagine the situation under vignette 1, however you participate in only a part of the whole programme.
It will not be completely clear what your contribution is to the end result. What are the chances you
would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
Imagine the situation under vignette 1, however the tasks you will do are routine like and simple.
Consequently the skills you will need to use for this task are simple. Therefore the work feels like a
routine job and is predictable. What are the chances you would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
Imagine the situation under vignette 1, however the tasks you will be doing do not affect other people
(in your own organization or in the local community and charity) or your organization. What are the
chances you would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
Imagine the situation under vignette 1, however you do not know how well you are performing on your
tasks. What are the chances you would participate?
o
Definitely
o
Probably
o
Unsure
o
Probably not
o
Definitely not
3
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Appendix II – Organizational citizenship behavior measurement items
Source: Lin et al (2010: 369)
Altruism
AT1.
I help others who have been absent.
AT2.
I help others who have heavy workloads.
AT3.
I help orient new people even though it is not required.
AT4.
I willingly help others who have work-related problems.
Conscientiousness
CS1.
I do not spend time on personal calls.
CS2.
I do not engage in non-work-related talk.
CS3.
I will come to work early if needed.
CS4.
I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.
Sportsmanship
SP1.
I often consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R)
SP2.
I often focus on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side. (R)
SP3.
I tend to make “mountains out of molehills.” (R)
SP4.
I often find fault with what the organization is doing. (R)
Courtesy
CT1.
I try to avoid creating problems for coworkers.
CT2.
I consider the impact of my actions on co-workers.
CT3.
I attend voluntary functions.
CT4.
I help organize get-togethers.
Civic virtue
CV1.
I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image.
CV2.
I keep abreast of changes in the organizations.
CV3.
I read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on.
CV4.
I often assess what is best for the firm.
4
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Appendix III – Web survey
5
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
6
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
7
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
8
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
9
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
10
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Appendix IV – Checklist for document analysis
The following questions were used for the document analysis:
1.
What type of document is it?
o
Newspaper
o
Letter
o
Patent
o
Memorandum
o
Map
o
Telegram
o
Press release
o
Report
o
Advertisement
o
Congressional report
o
Census report
o
other
2. What is the date(s) of the document?
3. Does it have any particularly unique characteristics?
4. Who is the author (or creator) of the document (including position/title)?
5.
For what audience was the document written?
6. What is the purpose of the document?
7.
Why was the document written?
8. What evidence is there within the document that indicates why it was written?
9. Which practices are used, by CTM Benelux, in the program for talent management?
10. Is there evidence that there is some kind of program around corporate social responsibility at
Philips for High Potentials?
11
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Appendix V – Paper Strategic Human Resource Management “The Public
Dimension of Philips”
The public dimension of Philips
Written by:
Ingrid van Miert
Student number:
3055345
Professor:
Dr. Paul Boselie
Course:
Master Strategic Human Resource Management
The Public dimension
Course code:
USG6070
12
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Introduction
Philips is a Dutch multinational company founded in 1891. It is one of the largest global diversified
industrial company with a focus on the sectors Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting. Philips
sells products and services in over 100 countries worldwide, has 118 production sites and 7 research
laboratories. At the end of 2010 Philips Group consisted of 119,001 employees, whereof 55% is located
in mature markets and 45% in emerging markets (Philips Annual Report 2010).
Philips is seen by the public as a private company. Does science confirm this? Are there no public
aspects present in Philips? Therefore the central theme of this paper is the public aspects of Philips. I
will explore this in the first section. The public nature of Philips is not directly clearly. However
nowadays organisations are not merely interested in their shareholders but they expand it to their
stakeholders. In the second section I will analyze the goal of Philips in incorporating social
responsibility in their leadership developmental programme. The central theme of my thesis is the
implementation of social responsibility in the leadership developmental program of Philips. Here it is
not only important that it adds value to the leadership qualities of the future leaders but that it also
will contribute to the performance of the organization. I will examine the contribution of Philips to
social legitimacy. Finally I will draw conclusion of the public dimension of Philips.
The public characteristics of Philips
What are the public characteristics of Philips? Are there any public aspects present in Philips? Rainey
concludes that (2003) “most organizations, including business firms, affect the public interest in some
sense.” According to his statement Philips would affect at least the public interest in some sense. In
which sense is this and can this be seen as a public characteristic of Philips?
Nowadays the demarcation between public and private organizations is becoming more and more
blurred. Employees in both public and private organizations fill out almost the same jobs (Rainey,
2003). More than half a century ago this process came already to the attention of researchers. These
researchers published an article about a complex continuum (Dahl & Lindblom, 1953, cited in Rainey
2003). This continuum ranges from organizations controlled primarily by markets to public owned
organizations (Dahl & Lindblom, 1953, cited in Rainey 2003). In this sense, Philips would be at the
end of the continuum. This means close to enterprise instead of agency as Philips is controlled by
markets. It is listed on the stock exchanges of Amsterdam and New York.
There is a lot of pressure on organizations in the public sector to reform their policies to the policies
from organizations in the private sector (Noordegraaf & Teeuw, 2003). Rainey (2003) believes that
this among others is due to the New Public Management as this movement stresses the importance of
applying the same procedures to organizations in both sectors. Is there also a pressure on private
organizations to adopt some of the procedures of public organizations? Nowadays, organizations take
on many diverse roles in different areas. This has to do with the shift from the traditional shareholder
13
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
view to a stakeholder view. Maybe the real question is whether there is a different identity between
organizations in the public and private sector.
According to Noordergraaf & Teeuw (2003) the identity of an organization is: “There are more or less
permanent characteristics that distinguishes one organization from another and those social
interactions within and around the organization stabilize and give meaning.” This explanation of
identity does not make it clear is there is a distinction between a public and private identity. Therefore
Noordergraaf & Teeuw (2003) discuss the work of Gawthrop (1984, cited in Noordergraaf & Teeuw,
2003) who makes this distinction clear by using four dimensions. These dimensions are the idea of
purposefulness, causation, time and ranking (Noordergraaf & Teeuw, 2003). Which identity would
apply to Philips if we look at the dimensions separately? On the first dimension, the idea of
purposefulness, Philips has a more public identity. It focuses on a higher, long-term goal. The goal of
Philips is the Ambition 2015 and implies:
“Philips wants to be a global leader in health and well-being, becoming the preferred brand in the
majority of our chosen markets. We believe Philips is uniquely positioned for growth through its
ability to simply make a difference to people’s lives with meaningful, sustainable innovations”
(Philips Annual Report 2010).
Next is the idea of causation, which differentiates between atomically and holistically (Noordergraaf &
Teeuw, 2003). Philips is more atomically, the dimension of the private identity. The reason for this is
that Philips makes use of a clear relationship between cause and effect, and ends and means. The most
important effect for Philips is a change in sales and performance. In the end they only focus on this
effect. The third dimension is the idea of time. For Philips it is difficult to say whether this idea is more
public (dynamic) or more private (static). Philips is dynamic because they think of future generations
in their strategy by implementing a vision for sustainability. However they also describe that this is not
only essential for the health and well-being of the planet. More importantly they believe that
minimizing their impact on the environment leads to substantial business opportunities (Philips
Annual Report 2010). This makes Philips more static as in the end they focus more on maximal
efficiency. Greenwood & Hinings (1996, cited in Paauwe, 2004) give a possible explanation for why
Philips incorporates sustainability into the strategy, “as organizations conform to contextual
expectations in order to gain legitimacy and increase their probability of survival”. This is in
accordance with what is stated in Philips Annual Report (2010) namely that “people prefer brands
with a proven sustainability record, and increasingly they are placing sustainability issues at the centre
of their purchase decision”. Another possible explanation can be sought in of the institutional
mechanisms that influence decision-making in organizations. This mechanism is the coercive
mechanisms, which include the influence of social partners, labour legislation, and government. An
organization as Philips, which has offices in many different countries, has to work together with
different national social partners and governments. To keep having an One Philips Strategy globally,
they need to take all these national rules and try to make a universal one. For example, in the
Netherlands both the collective bargaining agreements and labour laws and Dutch trade unions “have
been influential in shaping HRM arrangements at the national, industry/sector and at the company
14
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
level” (Paauwe, 2004). The last dimension is the idea of ranking. Here Philips has again a strong
private identity. There is a vertical ranking, which means the relationships between the employees can
clearly be indicated as superior-subordinate. To conclude Philips has on almost all the dimensions a
private identity, however not on all. This makes Philips a private organization with a few public
characteristics.
Rainey (2003) also tried to make a distinction for categorizing public and private organizations. These
characteristics are ownership and funding (Wamsley & Zald, 1973, cited in Rainey 2003) and authority
(Bozeman, 1987, cited in Rainey 2003). Ownership is quite clear as Philips is privately owned. As
mentioned earlier in this paper, Philips is listed on the stock exchanges of Amsterdam and New York,
and is therefore privately owned. This is also the case for funding. As Philips is listed on the stock
exchanges, the funding is private. However this is only one reason why it is privately funded. Another
reason is that it has sales within economic markets. The last characteristic is authority. Authority has
two sub dimensions, namely public authority and economic authority (Rainey, 2003). Based on the
two other characteristics Philips is a private organization and therefore according to Rainey (2003) has
Philips “relatively little of political authority”. Philips is a large organization, which enables it to have
to some extent the possibility to exert means of social control. One of the examples is that Philips
“called upon mayors and municipal leaders to accelerate sustainability in infrastructure projects and
building renovation to combat climate change” (Philips Annual Report 2009). However the economic
authority of Philips is large as the owners and managers have a big amount of control over the use of
the organization’s revenues and assets. The conclusion is that, in accordance with the reasoning from
the article of Noordegraaf and Teeuw, Philips is a private organization with a few public
characteristics. This is the more empirically approach with the more formal characteristics. These
make clear that it is not useful to make big distinction between public and private organizations as
there is a big variation in both the category of public and private organizations (college prof.dr. Peter
Leisink 22 February 2010). Another approach is the normative approach.
To examine what the normative function of Philips is, the so called four types of Noordegraaf and
Teeuw (2003) will be used. The four organizational positions are depicted below in table 1. Philips is
according to the empirical facts a public organization, therefore Philips cannot be categorized as one of
the two positions on top of the table. Philips pays a lot of attention to sustainability; therefore it can be
categorized as a private organization with a social position.
15
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Public
Administrative position
Public
-
Organization
Business position
Administrative
-
Performance
balancing
-
Performance
Administrative
Private
management
management
Social position
Organization position
Identity
Identity
-
Sustainability
-
Revenue
-
Responsible
-
Organization
management
management
Private
Organization
Table 1: Four organizational positions (Noordegraaf & Teeuw, 2003)
Sustainability is an important part of the strategy of Philips:
“Sustainability at Philips is all about improving the health and well-being of individuals and the
communities they live in. At the same time we strive relentlessly to improve the environmental
performance of our products and processes and to drive sustainability throughout the supply chain”
(Philips Annual Report 2010).
Using the four organizational positions is attractive as they are complementary to the approach of
strategic human resource management that assesses human resource activities according to three
critical human resource goals, namely cost effectiveness, organizational flexibility and social legitimacy
(college prof.dr. Peter Leisink 22 February 2010). The next part of this paper will go deeper into the
social legitimacy of the implementation of social responsibility into the leadership developmental
program at Philips.
Social legitimacy
Paauwe (2004) refers to legitimacy as “the relationship between the organization and society at large”.
Not only the profit and doing exciting things for the environment and society are important. More
important is to recognize the interests of different stakeholders and be accountable for the complexity
of balancing interests. The shareholder wants solely that the organization, in this case Philips, makes
profit. The stakeholder wants to make use the best possible way of competencies, skills and knowledge;
have a balance between work life and private life; offer good working conditions (Kaptein & Wempe,
2002). The legitimacy must be obtained not only via shareholders but all the stakeholders involved,
namely government, unions and society. Social legitimacy is of great importance in societies, like the
Netherlands, where labor laws are enforced through unions (Boxall & Purcell, 2003). However Philips
not only operates in the Netherlands. It has a lot of offices and sites around the world. It has to make
16
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
sure it not only thinks of the stakeholders in the Netherlands, but around the world. Otherwise if they
do not do this, Philips will not be seen as a social legitimate organization.
Adopting this view to the human resource policy of Philips, the concentration is not only focused on
the labor laws in the Netherlands. In the Philips Annual Report (2010) is stated that “We continuously
follow external trends to determine the issues most relevant for our company and those where we can
a positive contribution to society at large”. Philips is guided by the market, not by internal
consideration. This is not something that is only happening recently. According to Henk de Bruin,
Head of Corporate Sustainability Office,
“Philips has a long-standing sustainability history. Our founding fathers Gerard and Anton Philips
were already social entrepreneurs ahead of their time. They realized housing, sporting and cultural
activities for their employees. They also set up schools to ensure basis education for the children of
Philips employees. Since then, our company has evolved greatly, and the social fiber of those early
days has long survived.”
As stated clearly above, Philips has a history of social legitimacy. Nowadays it wants to expand their
social legitimacy. One of the key issues of Philips is to develop all employees, not only the so called
talents. As in the end everybody has talent and it is important to develop this more to achieve a
competitive advantage. In these days the competitive advantage can best be achieved by attracting and
hiring skilled employees (Teece, 1998; Turban & Greening, 1997).
Adopting this view to the research that will be done at Philip, the concentration is not only on the
future leaders but also on the society at large. If the concentration would only be focused on the future
leaders of Philips, there would be not that much of legitimacy. However by incorporating social
responsibility in the developmental program for leaders not only the future leaders will profit from this
but society at large as well. Besides that Philips sees the development of talent as a key success factor
in achieving their goal of sustainable growth, it will also fit to the need of diversity. Last they want to
implement a customer-centric growth culture. This clearly shows that there is only emphasis on the
interest of the shareholders but also on the interest of stakeholders.
It is clear that the research I will do for Philips is closely connected with social legitimacy. Former
research under the future leaders of Philips indicated that they “have the need to serve the community
and spend more time with their families” (Blom, 2010). Soon after this Philips decided to have a closer
look into this statement, which is a good example of social legitimacy. My research is the first step in
this closer look.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper has been to describe the public dimension of Philips and more specifically the
public dimension of the research I will do for Philips. In my research I will not only focus on the added
value, of incorporating social responsibility in the developmental program of leaders, to performance.
More importantly I will focus on the added value on the leadership development and the effects to
society.
17
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
Philips is an organization with mostly private characteristics. Nevertheless, Philips more and more has
a focus on stakeholders instead of shareholders. In my opinion this is important. The society becomes
smarter and expects more from private organizations. The result of this is that the demarcation
between private and public organizations will become smaller and smaller. How this will end is
something we can only know by seeing what will happen. If I compare the Annual Reports of the last
few years it is clear that Philips is every year more concerned and more concentrated on the
environment it works in. This is clear not only by becoming more green as an organization but also this
is clear by thinking of society and how it can help society. Besides that sustainability is high on the
agenda and is worked on across all job positions and sectors.
Concerning my specific research area of my thesis, I can say it is partly focused on private and public
aspects. If I would compare it to the overall strategy and human resource policy of Philips, it is much
more focused on the public characteristics and social legitimacy of the organization. A change which is
in line with the narrowing demarcation between private and public organizations.
Concluding, I see Philips as a social responsible organization which adds more and more a public
dimension to its way of working. It will be interesting which of the results and recommendations will
be incorporated in the strategy of Philips.
References
Blom, S. (2010). Philips’ New Generation High Potentials. Utrecht: University Utrecht.
Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Colleges prof.dr. P. Leisink, 2010.
Kaptein, M. & Wempe, J. (2002). The Balanced Company: A Theory of Corporate Integrity. New
York: Oxforf University Press.
Noordegraaf, M. & Teeuw, M. (2003). Publieke Identiteit: Eigentijds organiseren in de publieke sector.
Bestuurskunde, 12, 2-13.
Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and Performance: Achieving Long Term Viability. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Philips Annual Report (2009). Staying focused, acting decisively. Retrieved February 23, 2010 from
http://www.annualreport2009.philips.com/index.asp
Philips Annual Report (2010). Simply making a difference. Retrieved February 23, 2010 from
http://www.annualreport2010.philips.com/index.asp
Rainey, H. (2003). What makes public organizations distinctive. In C.3, Understanding and
18
Philips
Master thesis ICJ van Miert
managing public organizations (pp. 55-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teece, D. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how,
And intangible assets. California Management Review, 40, 55-79.
Turban, D.B. & Greening, D.W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness
to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
19