Resource Management Essay

Mattel is one the strongest manufacturers of toys in the world. It is the food market attractor in developing toys of highest international standards. But staying at the guide is not easy for Mattel, as it is positioned in one of the most intense natured markets in terms of competition. Mattel has over twenty-five thousand employees around the orb (Mattel, 2010). In fact, what makes Mattel No. 1 in the toy industry is its hygienic trained and high skilled men. This paper will discuss the strategies implemented to enhance the productivity and skills of Mattel workforce.Question 1 The most important scrap for Mattel is to recognize and provide for the need of co-ordinated development. Development is an essential component of any organization. Mattels development programs were introduced by the CEO of the company. The first measurement was to develop broad based strategy. These development programs outgrowthed in skilled and racy workforce. Secondly Mattel wished to integra te merged culture, for which development facilitators met groups of 10 or 12 employees globally and supervised them how to implement the new culture.Mattel also introduced digital formulation centers, by which employees have access to much(prenominal) than 200 e-development courses. These measures have serviceed Mattel to turn its workforce as the most important assets of the company. As a result of all these actions, Mattels selection and recruitment strategies would likely improve and contract more intense. The succession plan start outs to retain HR talent, but as a result Mattels selection criterion would be more challenging.Apart from this, Mattel would wish to seek employees who are sociable and have darling communication skills, as coordinated development efforts require employees from different departments to move more. Further, Mattel might also judge the GK (General Knowledge), IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and EQ (Emotional Quotient) levels of new recruits as a par t of enhanced selection strategy. (Mathis & Jackson, 2008) Question 2 at that place is no probability of the instance where the developmental efforts of Mattel would appeal to some employees more than others.The rationale behind this is that the coordinated development efforts were aimed to work for all employees of the Mattel industry. virtually employees of Mattel are related to manufacturing process, even if they work in different departments. Since bulk employees work towards similar goal (manufacture highest quality toy), their mental and developmental processes would well-nigh be the same. Furthermore, the developmental efforts and programs aim to take a shit skilled and productive workforce does not involve technical training in manufacturing a toy, and so these processes are unquestionable such as to appeal all Mattel employees equally.Lastly, Mattel has late implemented an integrated corporate culture. This culture acts as a receding for the Mattel employees where th ey interact with other teams and seek to pursue coordinated development efforts. gum olibanum Mattel employees chiffonier be defined as bees collectively working to set out honey. In such instances, these development efforts appeal all employees the same. (Bratton & Gold, 2001) Question3 on that point can be several reasons for the Barbie girls group and Hot Wheels boys group not interacting with one another and working effectively together in the past.Firstly, Mattel requires its employees to intuitive feeling the passion and become a part of what they manufacture. Hence, the Barbie girls group had all the instructions and manufacturing processes that coincided with Barbies feminine nature. While the Hot Wheels boys group reflected aggressive, daring and heady nature concepts in their manufacturing processes and instructions. Secondly, Barbie and Hot Wheels were brands of Mattel, and had different market segmentation and bespeak markets. Hence the strategies designed to sel l each brand was different and couldnt have been merged.Barbie was targeted at juvenile girls while Hot Wheels was targeted at teenage boys. Furthermore, the culture within which the employees of Hot Wheels and Barbie worked were completely different. There was nothing customary in the cultural environment where two the brands were manufactured. (Montgomery, 1993) There are, however, several methods by which Mattel could reinforce the needs for these groups to work together. Firstly, the identity of both groups should be reinforce as a part of Mattel family rather than separate entities.Hence, the employees of both brands would witness that they are part of a Mattel family, and could interact with one another and percentage their secrets and strategies about skills, labor empowerment and employee dedication. Secondly, Mattel should more intensely implement a common corporate culture within the company which will create a common ground for Barbie and Hot Wheels manufacturers to work together. Thirdly, the need for coordinated development efforts should be emphasized upon by promoting teamwork and interaction to achieve goals (Mathis & Jackson, 2008).Furthermore, managers can also manipulation succession plans for key positions. Thus they can use terms as Boys need Girls, and vice versa to emphasize the reality that both Hot Wheels (boys) and Barbie (girls) are equally important part of the company. Conclusion Mattel has developed several strategies and techniques to empower its employees. The development programs aims to improve skilled labor, and succession plans aim to retain human resource talent. If properly implemented, these strategies, along with the new corporate culture could enhance the performance and efficiency of all employees.These methods would surely help Mattel to retain the No. 1 spot as market leader in toy manufacturing industry. References Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2001). Human Resource Management Theory and Practice. second EditionN ew York Routledge Mathis, R. L. and Jackson, J. H. (2008). Human Resource Management. 12th Edition. New York Cengage Learning Mattel (2010). Mattel Website. Accessed on dire 23, 2010 from http//www. mattel. com/ Montgomery, B. P. (1993). Mattel, Inc. International Directory of Company Histories Vol. 7, pp. 304.