Read  The King Company Background and  Human Resource Development to review information on the company. Address the following questions in an essay format which includes an introduction and conclusion (not a Q & A format): As an HR consultant, design a process for the King Company to analyze what changes are needed in their HRD procedures, policies, and practices to improve the development of employees. Discuss the process you would follow and why you selected those process steps. Be sure to bring in what you have learned from your change management, internal consulting, and organizational development readings. Provide private-sector employer examples of HRM programs, systems, processes, and/or procedures as you address the assignment requirements. Provide names of the employers in your examples. Use different employer examples in this course than what have been used previously in your other papers and courses. Utilize information from at least 2 sources from the Online Library to help strengthen and validate your discussion.   Paper length: 3–4 pages (not counting the cover and reference pages). Journal 1 Editorial introduction: An introduction to employer engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and HRM research in promoting vulnerable groups’ labour market participation Rik van Berkel, Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Jo Ingold , Leeds University Business School, UK Patrick McGurk, University of Greenwich Business School, UK Paul Boselie, Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Thomas Bredgaard, Department of Political Science, University of Aalborg, Denmark Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 27, no 4, 2017, pages 503–513 Contact: Dr. Rik van Berkel, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511ZC Utrecht, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION HRM and vulnerable groups The aim of this special issue, and our challenge to HRM scholars and practitioners, is to bring vulnerable labour market groups into the mainstream of HRM. In doing so, this special issue introduces the relatively novel concept of “employer engagement.” We define employer engagement as the active involvement of employers in addressing the societal challenge of promoting the labour market participation of vulnerable groups. Since its origins in the early 1980s (Paauwe, 2009), the discipline of HRM has focused on the added value of human resources, human capital, and employees. It does so largely with a focus on the HRM of core employees, in terms of high-skill workers, managers, and specialist functions within large multinational companies (Keegan and Boselie, 2006; Lewin, 2011). A focus on the “most valuable employees” is also visible in the emphasis on talent management in strategic HRM theory and practice, with the potential consequence of reproducing distinctions between groups of workers (Lepak and Snell, 2002). Comparatively, HRM in relation to “vulnerable worke.

1. Read
The King Company Background
and
Human Resource Development
to review information on the company.
Address the following questions in an essay format which
includes an introduction and conclusion (not a Q & A format):
As an HR consultant, design a process for the King Company to
analyze what changes are needed in their HRD procedures,
policies, and practices to improve the development of
employees. Discuss the process you would follow and why you
selected those process steps.
Be sure to bring in what you have learned from your change
management, internal consulting, and organizational
development readings.
Provide private-sector employer examples of HRM programs,
systems, processes, and/or procedures as you address
the assignment requirements. Provide names of the employers in
your examples. Use different employer examples in this course
than what have been used previously in your other papers and
courses.
Utilize information from
at least 2 sources from the Online Library
to help strengthen and validate your discussion.
Paper length:

2. 3–4 pages
(not counting the cover and reference pages).
Journal 1
Editorial introduction: An introduction to employer engagement
in the field of HRM.
Blending social policy and HRM research in promoting
vulnerable groups’ labour market participation Rik van Berkel,
Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands Jo Ingold , Leeds University Business School, UK
Patrick McGurk, University of Greenwich Business School, UK
Paul Boselie, Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht
University, The Netherlands Thomas Bredgaard, Department of
Political Science, University of Aalborg, Denmark Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol 27, no 4, 2017, pages 503–
513 Contact: Dr. Rik van Berkel, Utrecht University,
Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511ZC Utrecht, Netherlands. Email:
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION HRM and vulnerable groups
The aim of this special issue, and our challenge to HRM
scholars and practitioners, is to bring vulnerable labour market
groups into the mainstream of HRM. In doing so, this special
issue introduces the relatively novel concept of “employer
engagement.” We define employer engagement as the active
involvement of employers in addressing the societal challenge
of promoting the labour market participation of vulnerable
groups. Since its origins in the early 1980s (Paauwe, 2009), the
discipline of HRM has focused on the added value of human
resources, human capital, and employees. It does so largely with
a focus on the HRM of core employees, in terms of high-skill
workers, managers, and specialist functions within large

3. multinational companies (Keegan and Boselie, 2006; Lewin,
2011). A focus on the “most valuable employees” is also visible
in the emphasis on talent management in strategic HRM theory
and practice, with the potential consequence of reproducing
distinctions between groups of workers (Lepak and Snell, 2002).
Comparatively, HRM in relation to “vulnerable workers” has
received modest attention. It has been highlighted in critical
management studies (Thompson, 2011) and in publications
focusing on specific “vulnerable groups” inside or outside the
labour market. Such groups typically include older workers
(e.g., Taylor and Walker, 1998), workers in precarious jobs
(e.g., Burgess, Connell, and Winterton, 2013), long-term
unemployed people (e.g., Deckop, Konrad, Perlmutter, and
Freely, 2006), ethnic minorities (e.g., Kamenou and Fearfull,
2006), disabled people and those with long-term health
conditions (e.g., Kulkarni, 2016), and groups with other barriers
to labour market entry or job retention. Vulnerable labour
market groups represent a large and growing cohort in many
countries (OECD, 2013), being adversely impacted by
cumulative economic, social, and labour market changes
resulting from globalisation and financialisation (Thompson,
2011). Labour market entry is often protracted and difficult for
younger workers. At the other end of the age spectrum,
increased life expectancy often means working longer and
delaying retirement. At HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL, VOL 27, NO 4, 2017 503 © 2017 John Wiley &
Sons Ltd Please cite this article in press as: van Berkel, R.,
Ingold, J., McGurk, P., Boselie, P. and Bredgaard, T. (2017)
‘Editorial introduction: An introduction to employer
engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and
HRM research in promoting vulnerable groups’ labour market
participation’. Human Resource Management Journal 27: 4,
503–513 doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12169 bs_bs_banner the same
time, workers are increasingly experiencing periods of
unemployment or underemployment, as well as interruptions to
labour market participation, or reduced work capacity for

4. reasons such as disablement or caring responsibilities. The
context of economic recession has also resulted in growing
labour market inequalities in terms of wage levels, the “low-
pay, no-pay cycle” (periods of short-term, low-paid work
followed by periods of joblessness), a rise in the number of zero
hours/casualised contracts, and high rates of in-work poverty
(Brown and Marsden, 2011; Standing, 2011). This “new reality”
for vulnerable workers across the life course poses significant
challenges for HRM at the organisational level. These
challenges require innovative and interdisciplinary responses
and dialogue, and from a societal well-being perspective (Beer,
Boselie, and Brewster, 2015), addressing these challenges is in
the interest of long-term organisational success.
Journal 2
More than a match? Assessing the HRM challenge of engaging
employers to support retention and progression
Paul Sissons , Centre for Business in Society, Coventry
University Anne E. Green , Institute for Employment Research
(IER), The University of Warwick to 31 May 2017, and City-
REDI, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham
from 1 June 2017 Human Resource Management Journal, Vol
27, no 4, 2017, pages 565–580
This article considers employer engagement within a changing
landscape of active labour market policy (ALMP). Employer
engagement in ALMP has focused on supporting job entry for
disadvantaged groups, through working with employers to attain
changes on the demand side or using dialogue with employers to
implement changes on the supply side. Employer engagement in
this model is orientated to a point in time: the job match.
However, ALMP policy in the UK is beginning to give greater
emphasis to the sustainability of job entries and progression

5. opportunities. This potentially creates a quite different set of
expectations around employer engagement and asks more of
employers. Yet securing strong engagement from employers in
ALMP has tended to be difficult. This article examines the
challenges that such a change in focus will have for existing
models of employer engagement and on associated implications
for HRM theory, policy and practices. Contact: Dr Paul Sissons,
Centre for Business in Society, Coventry University, Priory
Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK. Email:
[email protected]
Keywords: low pay; precarious employment; welfare; training
and development; employer engagement; active labour market
policy.
ACTIVE LABOUR MARKET POLICY, HRM AND SOCIETAL
VALUE
Recent contributions in the HRM literature have stressed the
need for development of HRM theory and practice that is ‘more
relevant at the societal level’ (Boxall, 2014: 588; Paauwe, 2004,
2009; Thompson, 2011). There is a clear societal importance in
understanding the drivers of, limits to, and outcomes from
employer engagement in ALMP. HRM practices should have an
important role to play in enabling the connection of ALMP with
opportunities for individuals entering work to progress, for
example, through addressing issues of ‘learning traps’ and
barriers to personal development (Boxall, 2014). Such issues
are important to contemporary concerns regarding equality of
opportunities and outcomes at the heart of the inclusive growth
agenda (OECD, 2014). The study of ALMP offers the potential
to make important contributions to HRM theory. Notably, the
evolution of ALMP presents fertile ground to test the
assumptions of the ‘consensus HRM discourse’, which it has
been argued has been built primarily on research that has
engaged with studies of ‘the development of core employees

6. (“happy few”) in large multinational companies’ (Keegan and
Boselie, 2006: 1501). The extent to which the ‘neutrality or
benevolence of HRM practices and policies’ (Keegan and
Boselie, 2006: 1505) is extended to job entrants from ALMP is
an area of both theoretical and societal significance. Much of
the existing evidence from ALMP and job entry that we review
in the following sections suggests such benevolence is not
widespread. Institutional accounts have been prominent in
developing a wider societal perspective on HRM, arguing that
the survival of firms depends not only on their financial
performance but also on their social legitimation (Paauwe,
2004; Boon et al., 2009). This legitimation relates to
stakeholders, including employees, customers, governments and
unions (Paauwe and Boselie, 2005), and is based on criteria
such as trust and fairness (Paauwe, 2009). Paauwe (2009)
outlines a multidimensional conception of HRM, where
conventional concerns (productivity, profits, etc.) are viewed
alongside performance (flexibility, agility, etc.), employee well-
being and impacts at a higher institutional level (for example,
the economic sector and society more broadly). This lens allows
for a more comprehensive treatment of the successes and
benefits of HRM policy and practice. Institutionally based
accounts of HRM have stressed that context matters (Paauwe,
2009). The ways in which HR practices are conceptualised and
operationalised varies across employee groups and across
economic sectors (Paauwe and Boselie, 2005). Drawing on the
work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983, 1991), Paauwe and
Boselie (2003: 61) provide a framework of new institutionalism
in HRM. Different institutional mechanisms are posited to
influence HRM practice: • coercive – implementation as a result
of regulatory pressures; • mimetic – imitation (of HRM
practices) as a result of uncertainty/or as a result of new
trends/fads; • normative – management control system,
structured by the professionalism of an employee group.
Institutional settings in different countries will influence HRM
practices in context-specific ways. That context matters opens

7. up a range of opportunities for comparative research across
Challenge of employer engagement 568 HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 27, NO 4, 2017 © 2017 The
Authors. Human Resource Management Journal Published by
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.