HRM 6000 Module 6 Final Project: How Effective Is HR at Atlantic Shore Hospitality? Example

Measuring HR's Effectiveness: Three Functions and the Delivery Model at Atlantic Shore Hospitality

Student Name

Master of Science in Human Resources Management, Thomas Edison State University

HRM-6000: Managing the Human Resources Enterprise

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Measuring HR's Effectiveness: Three Functions and the Delivery Model at Atlantic Shore Hospitality

Introduction

HR departments are increasingly expected to act as strategic partners to senior management and as consultants to operating managers, while still running the administrative services employees rely on. Whether they succeed is a question of effectiveness: does HR's work produce the results the organization needs? This paper evaluates HR at Atlantic Shore Hospitality, a composite group of four hotels and resorts near Atlantic City, New Jersey, with 2,100 employees. It examines three topics from the course: employee engagement and employer branding, retention management and HR measurement, and the changing workforce and alternative staffing. It then explains the results through HR's delivery model, the subject of the final module, and recommends changes.

The organization is a fitting subject because its HR department sits at a turning point. The company plans to open a fifth property within two years, which will require hiring about 500 people and promoting or recruiting a new leadership team. If HR cannot show that its current practices work, it will meet that expansion with the same problems at a larger scale. The analysis that follows draws on the company's engagement survey, payroll and turnover records, staffing invoices, guest comments and interviews with general managers and HR staff, and it treats each function as a system whose results can be judged.

Criteria for Effectiveness

Effectiveness requires criteria. In nearly a thousand firms, Huselid (1995) linked high-performance practice systems with lower turnover and better productivity and financial results, which argues for judging HR by its effect on workforce and business results rather than by how busy it is. Ulrich (1997) proposed that HR earns its place by delivering in four roles at once: partner in strategy, expert in administration, advocate for employees and agent of change. This paper uses three criteria for each function: whether it is aligned with the business strategy, whether it is carried out consistently across properties and whether it produces measurable improvements in outcomes.

Function One: Engagement and Employer Branding

Current Practice

HR runs an annual engagement survey and posts recruitment content on social media. Results are shared with general managers, but no property is required to act on them. The engagement score is 58 out of 100, and the group's average rating on employer review sites is 3.1 out of 5.

Evaluation

On alignment, the survey measures the right things: research links engagement to guest satisfaction, productivity and turnover (Harter et al., 2002), all central to a hotel's strategy. On consistency, action is uneven. One property created a scheduling committee after the survey and raised its score by seven points; the other three did nothing. On outcomes, the group's score has not improved in three years. The employer brand repeats employees' complaints about schedules and supervision, and recruitment content cannot overcome what current employees say.

Judgment

Partly effective. Measurement is sound, but the absence of required action plans means the survey produces information without improvement. The property that acted shows the potential.

The difference between the property that acted and those that did not is instructive. At the property that formed a scheduling committee, employees helped design a system that posted schedules three weeks in advance and allowed shift swaps through an app. Its engagement score rose from 56 to 63, and its first-year turnover fell by six points. The other properties received the same survey report but no requirement or support to act on it. The lesson is that the survey is an effective instrument only when HR turns its results into action plans with owners and deadlines.

Function Two: Retention and HR Measurement

Current Practice

Hourly turnover is 62 percent, with 45 percent of departures in the first ninety days. HR reports turnover monthly but not its cost, and it tracks HR activities such as hires processed and training sessions held rather than outcomes.

Evaluation

On alignment, retention is not treated as a strategic issue, though turnover costs about $5.7 million a year and affects service quality. On consistency, onboarding differs by property and department, and only one property assigns peer mentors. On outcomes, turnover has risen four points in two years. Allen et al. (2010) showed that organizations reduce turnover through deliberate practices aimed at the real causes; Atlantic Shore has not identified those causes beyond exit interviews, which capture only the views of those who have already decided to leave.

Judgment

Ineffective. HR measures activity rather than results and has no retention strategy targeted at early departures, its largest and most controllable source of turnover.

The measurement problem compounds the retention problem. Because HR reports activity, such as the number of new hires processed and orientation sessions held, executives see a busy department without seeing whether its work reduces turnover or improves service. A general manager interviewed for this paper said that HR's monthly report "tells me what HR did, not what happened." Becker and Huselid (2006) argue that strategic HR depends on measuring how HR practices contribute to the specific capabilities a strategy requires; at Atlantic Shore that capability is consistent guest service, which turnover undermines most directly.

Function Three: Alternative Staffing

Current Practice

The group fills 18 percent of shifts through staffing agencies and on-demand apps, decided by department managers without central oversight. HR does not track the cost, quality or legal terms of these arrangements.

Evaluation

On alignment, flexible staffing fits a business with seasonal and event-driven peaks. On consistency, practice varies widely: one property uses apps for a third of banquet shifts, another almost never. On outcomes, guest comments about banquet service are most negative at the property with the heaviest app use, and regular employees report frustration with covering for workers who do not know the standards. HR has not reviewed agency contracts for joint employer risk. Cappelli and Keller (2013) emphasize that different work arrangements carry different obligations and degrees of control; Atlantic Shore treats them all as interchangeable shift coverage.

Judgment

Poorly controlled. The flexibility is useful, but without oversight the arrangements add cost, quality problems and legal exposure that no one measures.

The cost is also larger than managers assume. Staffing invoices for the last year show about $2.4 million paid to agencies and apps, at hourly rates roughly 40 percent above the wages of regular employees doing the same work. Some of that premium buys genuine flexibility for peak events. Much of it, however, covers routine shortages caused by turnover, which means the group pays twice for its retention problem: once to replace employees who leave and again to cover their shifts with more expensive workers.

Diagnosis: The HR Delivery Model

The three functions share a pattern: HR collects information and processes transactions but does not drive action or own outcomes. The cause lies in how HR is organized. Atlantic Shore's HR team of 22 people is organized by property, with each property HR manager handling everything from payroll questions to investigations. Most of their time goes to administrative tasks, leaving little for analysis or advising general managers.

The model Ulrich (1997) proposed, widely adopted since, organizes HR into three parts: business partners who work with leaders on strategy and people issues, centers of expertise that design programs in specialized areas, and shared services that handle transactions efficiently. Atlantic Shore has none of these distinctions. Its HR staff are generalists absorbed by transactions, so no one has the time or the mandate to act as a strategic partner. This explains why the survey results go unused, why retention is not managed strategically and why alternative staffing has no owner.

Interviews with property HR managers confirmed the diagnosis. Each estimated that 70 to 80 percent of their time went to answering payroll and benefits questions, processing paperwork and handling employee relations cases, leaving little time to analyze survey results or advise general managers. One described her role as "keeping the doors open." The structure also explains the inconsistency across properties: with no center of expertise, each property designs its own onboarding, scheduling and staffing practices, so good ideas at one property do not spread to the others.

Career and Professional Development

The final module's other topic, career and professional development, connects to all three functions. Employees who see a path to advancement are more engaged, more likely to stay and less likely to be replaced by temporary workers. Atlantic Shore promotes only 35 percent of its supervisors from within and has no published career paths for hourly employees. Career paths from room attendant to housekeeping supervisor, from line cook to sous chef and from front desk agent to front office manager, supported by development plans and tuition assistance, would improve engagement and retention and build the talent pool for the planned fifth property.

Recommendations

The reorganization is the foundation. A shared service center, staffed by six of the current team with an online help system, would handle payroll questions, benefits enrollment and records for all four properties. Two business partners would work with general managers on engagement, retention and staffing decisions. A small center of expertise would own talent management, analytics and employee relations. This structure frees capacity for the strategic work the other recommendations require.

Implementation

An eighteen-month timetable fits the size of the change. In the first six months, HR would establish the shared service center and the scorecard, and the engagement action plan requirement would take effect. In months seven to twelve, the business partners would begin working with general managers, the retention program would launch at two properties, and alternative staffing approval would be centralized. In the final phase, the retention program and career paths would extend to all properties. Progress would be reviewed by the executive team each quarter using the scorecard.

The reorganization carries risks that the plan must manage. Property HR managers may fear that a shared service center will reduce their roles, and general managers may resist losing an HR generalist on site. Involving the current HR staff in designing the new structure, retraining two of them as business partners and keeping an HR presence at each property for employee relations would reduce these concerns. The shared service center's performance should be measured from the start, through response times and employee satisfaction, so that the change improves service rather than distancing HR from employees.

Conclusion

HR at Atlantic Shore Hospitality is partly effective in engagement, ineffective in retention and measurement, and poorly controlled in alternative staffing. The common cause is a delivery model that keeps HR staff absorbed in transactions. A structure built on business partners, a center of expertise and shared services, plus the targeted programs and career paths above, would free HR to advise leaders as the course envisions and to show its value in results executives track.

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293668

Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2013). Classifying work in the new economy. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 575-596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0302

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. https://doi.org/10.5465/256741

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press.