McDonald's Global Human Resource Strategy

The McDonald’s Corporation is a chain of fast food restaurants operating in over a hundred countries and serving millions of people every day. Although it is the biggest corporation of its kind in the world, it has some of the best-managed and highly motivated teams of employees in the world. McDonald’s motivates its employees through what can be considered as social drivers, namely: recognition, opportunities for advancement, and the fostering of the feeling of belonging to a family. According to Burkinshaw (2010), the company puts a lot of emphasis on awards and celebrations and, if one were to walk into any McDonald’s restaurant in the world, one would be able to see a line of “employee of the month” pictures. Furthermore, there is a vigorous awards system for such things as putting customers first, years of service, or jobs done particularly well. These awards may include money, trips, plaques, and certificates and they are commemorated with much celebration and delight.

The managers at McDonald’s always seem to be very relaxed, and are most of the time indistinguishable from the other employees because they do not simply give orders to those under them, but they also accept feedback from them and are ready to get alternatives to their decisions. This, according to Kincheloe (2002), helps to show that although they have managers, the employee teams at McDonald’s are obviously in their later stages of development and are very comfortable outside their predefined roles, displaying high levels of motivation. The managers do not attempt to put any verbal barriers between themselves and their employees and they, instead, show genuine concern in the emotional and physical well being of their employees, something that is very rare in this type of environment.

The McDonald’s restaurants have a culture that is generally inviting to new employees and these are motivated to work in these restaurants. This is because of the laid-back environment found within them and the fact that the jobs are not very stressful to the employees. Another reason why employees are motivated to continue working at McDonald’s are the different shift schedules, which the management formulates so that they can accommodate every employee. Since most of the jobs found in these restaurants are low skilled, any other employee can take over the other’s shift if they are not able to make it to work due to a need to attend to other more pressing obligations. The numerous growth opportunities available at McDonald’s, because of the training given to the employees at various levels is an additional motivator. The longer one works for McDonald’s, the more the likelihood that he or she will ascend the ranks to the level of assistant manager or manager in just a few years.

It can be said that people not only go to McDonald’s for the great food that it has to offer, but also for the great service. The employees of this company, due to the high levels of motivation that they have as a result of its policies towards them, give the best kind of service to its customers, and this encourages these customers to keep coming. This is one of the reasons why, the profit margins of this company have kept on increasing over the years and it serves to show just how very important it is to keep the employees motivated in their work because they will give their best as a result. According to Ritzer and Atalay (2010) the key to McDonald’s worldwide success is that people everywhere know what to expect when they go to the restaurants it owns but this does not mean that the corporation has resisted change and refused to adapt when local customs require flexibility. For example, McDonald’s restaurants in India serve Vegetable McNuggets and mutton based Maharaja Mac, innovations that are necessary for the business to survive in a country where Hindus do not eat beef, Muslims do not eat pork, and Jains do not eat meat of any type.

Carroll (2011), states that organizations establish internal social networks to give employees the opportunity to connect with the management and to support each other. In 2008, the McDonald’s Corporation established Station M, a social network strictly for McDonald’s employees. Station M provides a space for the chain’s restaurants to share ideas, best practices, as well as customer stories and there is also a forum section that allows dialogue between McDonald’s corporate members and its employees as well as discussions between employees from the different restaurants within the chain. Station M has proved successful in getting the employees more involved with both the corporate office and the other crewmembers.

McDonald’s recently adopted the strategy of abandoning old policy of forcing its employees to retire at the age of sixty in Japan. That change was made to comply with Japanese legislation that took effect in but the company stated that this was not the reason why it was instituting this strategy. Japan law calls for companies to allow people to work longer because the age at which retirees become eligible for pension benefits has been raised. This legislation is intended to add tax proceeds to save the country's pension system and, perhaps more importantly, fill a labor shortage created by a very low growth rate in the population (Smerd 2006).

The employment policy of McDonald’s, which is based on hiring staff on outlook rather than experience or credentials, has been renowned as having created opportunities for people from marginalized communities. In addition, praise has been given for the range of other staff benefits on offer, including eight-week paid vacations and discount cards offering savings on, for example, driving lessons, holidays and computers. In 2005, McDonald’s Corporation became the first large employer to achieve Investor in People Profile status and was voted one of The Times Top 100 Graduate Employers for the seventh consecutive year, something which makes the company unique in its own right. Other recent initiatives, all having been influenced by feedback from employees, included ensuring all company cars are hybrid, environmentally friendly ones. In addition to this, McDonald's launched a Cycle to Work initiative with Universal Bicycles, offering employees bikes at a sixty percent discount, which is delivered to their door (Paton 2007).

McDonald's, in the 1990s, created the Made For You, a new food-production system that was designed to enable employees to make fresh sandwiches to customers' exact specifications while still retaining the restaurant chain's accustomed speedy service. Several equipment changes were made to accomplish the objectives set for the Made For You system and this included the company’s revamping its point of service software, toasters, holding units and prep tables. The new programming that was designed for the Made For You system was to help employees to prepare for upcoming customer orders with predictions. The new system not only prepared employees for a rush, but it also automatically routed expected orders to the staff member who was most likely to be able to handle it immediately. This new system also helped restaurant management determine how quickly employees are working (Doucette 1998 pp.31).

In 2001, the McDonald’s restaurants in the United States started a process of eliminating as many as seven hundred jobs from its home and field offices, primarily by cutting regional divisions to from thirty seven to twenty one. Each division was to be headed by a regional manager, who was to oversee a team which included a vice president of quality, service and cleanliness, the last of which was a new position. Teams also included operations consultants whose primary function was to work with operators and restaurant managers to improve the dining experience within the restaurants. Other initiatives to improve the level of service included restaurant simplification and an improved restaurant evaluation system (Hutchcraft 2001 pp.16).

In 2004, the company was in the midst of revamping its public image after a wave of negative press towards it that cost it a lot of business. Among the major causes of its distorted image was the author Eric Schlosser, who in his best-selling Fast Food Nation, found fault with the fast food industry in general and particularly with this company, mainly due to its popularity, for outbreak of obesity in America. In addition, this view was fomented by the popular 2003 film Super Size Me, in which Morgan Spurlock consumed a diet which consisted of McDonald’s products for one month, and this procedure turned out to have been detrimental to his health. It was therefore necessary for the company to promote its image by presenting itself as a hub of health and wellness (Davolt 2005 pp.1).

In 1996, McDonald's was named a Corporation That Cares by Exceptional Parent, and this was because at that time, this company was still offering the Mcjobs program, which provided training and job openings to disabled people. By 2000, however, the Mcjobs program was no longer in place in the United States, and this was due to the fact that it has evolved from a special program to a mainstream practice within this company. The Mcjobs program was originally began in 1981, and during its existence, provided training for more than twelve thousand individuals with disabilities who then went on to become successful restaurant employees. In the following years, as the result of a loss of financial support, McDonald's ended the use of extraordinary job trainers and instruction programs. In addition, it took the best practices learned in the McJobs program and integrated them into the company’s training procedure. As a result, the accessibility to employment was no longer a priority for the company and instead, it became a means through which business was done. Beginning in 1998, as part of a new system for interviewing employees, managers were provided with information on how to interact with potential employees, and be practical in catch the attention of potential employees. This has developed to an extent of where McDonald's encourages its restaurant managers and their management teams to hire employees with disabilities by working locally with different organizations, schools, and school districts. If job coaches are involved, they come from the community and not from the company as was previously done (Jurasek, 1999).

The success of this company is based on its ability to have very god people working for it on the ground. This means that the employees are well-trained, promotable, diverse and committed. To achieve this, McDonald’s has had to create some extremely good employee policies which have worked to gain their confidence. One of the main reasons for its success has been its ability to bring potential employees into its club, since statistics show that as much as one eighth of the American work force has, at some point, worked in one or the other of the McDonald’s restaurants. This fact shows just how powerful and influential the human resource department of this company has become because it is not as if quick service food chains make for easy recruiting. Despite this fact, many of the current and former employees have several good reasons to name this company as their employer of choice.

One of the foremost reasons behind its human resource success is due to its intense training efforts the company gives employees ample means for self advancement. These efforts are so advanced that this company has been named one of the largest training organizations in the world, superior even to the United States military. When one is hired by the company, a lot of investment is put in the individual in order to encourage them to stay on and develop a career within McDonald’s. Statistics show that as many as sixty percent of the current restaurant managers started out as par of the crews. One of the strongest human resource strategies at McDonald’s is education and this company has developed a system where it offers beginners orientation through its Crew Training Program. Afterwards, a Management Development Program takes up where the Crew Training left off, and this results in the development of a group of leaders for the future of the company (Flynn 1996 pp.54).

According to the article McDonald's: Junk food, junk jobs (2002) the managerial approach that is used in all McDonald’s restaurants is quite well known. In keeping with how the company operates in the United States, the company’s French branch will do whatever it takes to prevent its employees from forming a union. The franchise system has enabled McDonald's to go around the French legal obligation of all employers to negotiate with unions. In addition, the French branch has also adopted the idea of passing on to franchisees the direct costs involved in managing their employees. McDonald's offers crew members the minimum wage, and not much more to higher ranking personnel. It has also been found that overtime is rarely paid for and that there is no such thing as a bonus for the senior employees. The most common business practice in this company is that all the jobs are part time; and the need to speed up and the pressure put on the employees are so intense that they result in high turnover, which leads to the health and safety requirements of such employees to be ignored.

McDonald’s is a company that has continually strived to create a workforce that is full of diversity. The company started its diversity campaign in the nineteen seventies, when it began working with outsourced consultants to build the foundation of what was to become the Affirmative Action Department. That department, which was made official in 1980, has from that time developed into the Inclusion and Diversity Department. The Inclusion and Diversity Department has the role of integrating diversity initiatives which include workforce, education, external partnership development and metrics for McDonald's global business. One mission of this diversity initiative is to provide workplaces with diversity education resources. This company also provides resources and training for the seminars to be conducted in the regional offices. McDonald's diversity and inclusion seminars are made possible by proficient employees with assistance from attached professors. For this company to take action to promote cultural diversity in the workforce, the end result is a working environment that is inclusive and one which is progressive, unlike those which are not inclusive. In addition, diversity often extends beyond the restaurant level since more than sixty percent of the workforce at McDonald's headquarters and restaurants in the United States are comprised of racial or ethnic minorities or women. In addition, just about a quarter of the company's executives come from minority groups (Gibbons 2007, S28).

In conclusion, it can be said that people not only go to McDonald’s for the great food that it has to offer but also for the great service. The employees of this company, due to the high levels of motivation that they have as a result of its policies towards them, give the best kind of service to its customers and this encourages these customers to keep coming. This is one of the reasons why this company has not had a lack of customers over the years and it serves to show just how very important it is to keep the employees motivated in their work because as a result, they give McDonald’s their best.

Civil War Era: Slavery

Among the main reasons why the American civil confrontation came to pass was because of the issue of the abolition of slavery in the United States. This was a situation which many of the southern states could not accept, mainly due to the fact that their economies depended heavily on slave labor. They believed that if slavery was abolished in their states, then there was a likelihood of economic collapse. To counter this challenge to their economy, mainly from the northern states of the union, whose economies did not depend on slaves, the southern states declared themselves to be independent of the union and instead chose to create their own. These came to be known as the Confederate states, all of whose members were slave owning states. This situation led to the coming to prominence of two men, whose views on slavery were entirely opposite of one another. The first is Abraham Lincoln was among the biggest proponents of the eradication of slavery in all the states within the union. The other is Jefferson Davis, who was a principal proponent of the institution of slavery and believed that it was a necessary part of the economy at the time. It is these two men who shall be discussed in this paper in relation to their positions on the institution of slavery.

The institution of slavery lasted for over three hundred and fifty years in what is today the United States until it was finally abolished in the eighteen sixties. It was one of the most brutal and dehumanizing institutions in the annals of the human race with the greatest victims being the African slaves. African slaves were imported like commodities from Africa to work in the large white owned plantations due to the fact that they could withstand those European diseases which normally killed the Indian slaves. Moreover, the ability of the Africans to work in the harsh conditions of a hot sun was seen to be an added advantage for their conversion to slaves. Europeans used various means to justify their enslavement of Africans, and one of these was that the bible stated that they were the children of Ham and that they had been cursed to be slaves to the other races that were descended from Noah. Another justification was the belief that Africans were subhuman, that they were inferior to the white race and that because of this, it was justifiable to treat them in any way one wanted because they had no human feelings at all. These highly mistaken concepts ensured that the slavery continued, and many Africans were brought to America and forced to undertake tasks under extremely harsh and brutal conditions for the sake of making a profit for their masters. It is for the purpose of ending this institution that the American Civil War took place, and despite the many lives that were lost, it was finally achieved with the defeat of the Confederate states in 1965 (Johnson 1242).

Abraham Lincoln was a firm believer that the establishment of slavery was evil and that it had no place in the United States. From the commencement of his political vocation, he often stated that he was against slavery. At a time when there was often heated debate concerning whether slavery should be allowed in the new states that joined the union, Lincoln was one of those who believed that such a thing was not to be allowed. He quoted, on several occasions, the principles of democracy as had been laid out by the Declaration of Independence (Guelzo 313). He stated that this declaration, in itself, made slavery unlawful because it considered all human beings to be equal, none being the master of the other. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was a firm believer in the institution of slavery and often stated that it was a fundamental part of the economic well being of the southern states (Coles 898). Since slavery was what kept the economy of the south running, and this not only benefitted the states of the south alone, but the whole union, Davis believed that it was not to be abolished. Moreover, he did not believe in the equality of all men because he stated on various occasions that the black slaves were not intelligent enough to be treated equally. In direct opposition to Lincoln’s view, Davis stated that even the founding fathers were slave owners who had seen it fit to maintain the institution. If indeed these men had been against it, then they most likely would have abolished it when they formulated the constitution of the union. Since this was not the case, then they must have viewed slavery as a vital part of the American economy. Lincoln countered this line of argument by stating that while the founding fathers may have retained slavery, they had only done so because they believed that the institution would inevitably come to be abolished in time (Robey 184). In later years, Davis, still a firm believer in slavery also stated that it was inevitable that it would come to an end within two or three generations at the most. It seems that Davis came to realize that the inevitability of the end of this institution in the south despite its prominence.

Lincoln, in the years before ascending to the presidency, once declared that although he was against slavery, he did not know how best to end this institution (McDaniel 1062).  He thought that calling for the abolition of slavery would make those states, which practiced it, embrace it even more firmly. This, he believed, would make the situation for the slaves much worse than they already were. Some have criticized this statement, saying that Lincoln must have realized the economic significance of this institution, hence his reluctance to suggest ways to end it effectively. Despite this, once he gained the presidency, Lincoln took an active role in ending slavery by signing the Emancipation Proclamation. This proclamation effectively outlawed this institution within the United States, and it shows just how much thought Lincoln must have put in coming to make this decision (Dirck 382). It shows that Lincoln believed that the Federal government had the moral authority to make those states which practiced slavery to end it.

While many in the non slaveholding north supported this declaration, many in the south viewed it as the federal government’s attempt to interfere with their internal affairs (Oppenheim 65). The biggest advocate of this viewpoint was none other than Jefferson Davis, who was a staunch believer in the right of all the states within the union to make their own decision without interference. He believed that all the states in the union had joined it voluntarily, and this gave them the independence to decide what was and what was not best for them. If the federal government were to keep interfering in the domestic dealings of the states, then these states would inevitably lose their sovereignty, defeating the purpose of the formation of the union. He is noted to have stated that since all states had joined the union of their own free will, they also had the right to leave it if they felt that their interests were not being represented in a manner to their liking. Furthermore, Davis believed that the decision to end slavery lay with the individual states themselves, and not with the federal government (Roark 735). It is extremely likely that it was because of this stance that when the southern states chose to leave the union, they chose him to be their leader. His vision was to maintain slavery in the Confederate states and to expand this institution south into Mexico as this new slave owning federation grew.

It can be concluded that both Lincoln and Davis recognized that the ending of the institution of slavery, in the United States, was inevitable. Their point of view on how it would end is what brought them into conflict. Lincoln wanted to see the immediate ending and emancipation of all the slaves in the union while Davis, on the other hand, was of the view that although the end of slavery was inevitable, it was to be allowed to die a natural death. Each of the states which had instituted it was to make the decision on whether to abolish it or not. In the matter if abolition, however, one would go with the ideas of Lincoln, who stated that maintaining slavery in the United States would be a mockery of the democratic ideals on which the federation was founded. Moreover, it was not right to keep the black people slaves just because of their skin color or the belief that they were less intelligent than the whites. Such beliefs were by the time of the American Civil War, become outdated, and one would speculate that it was inevitable that this conflict took place. It was a war, not only to force the emancipation of the slaves in the south, but also one to destroy those beliefs which kept the democratic progress of the United States bogged down.

Causes of the American Civil War

Among the main reasons that have been states concerning why the American civil confrontation came to pass was because of the issue of the abolition of slavery in the United States. This was a situation which many of the southern states could not accept, mainly due to the fact that their economies depended heavily on slave labor. They believed that if slavery was abolished in their states, then there was a likelihood of economic collapse. To counter this challenge to their economy, mainly from the northern states of the union, whose economies did not depend on slaves, the southern states declared themselves to be independent of the union and instead chose to create their own. These came to be known as the Confederate states, all of whose members were slave owning states. Barbara Fields, however, disagrees with this assumption stating that the United States made war on the Confederates, not because of the abolition of slavery, but because it wanted to preserve the Union (Rios). The Emancipation of all the slaves in the Union was simply an excuse made to start the war that would force the southern states back into the Union. According to Fields, the northern states only declared war on the Confederate states because they not only wanted to preserve the Union, but also to ensure that they did not have a powerful rival. In essence, the northern states wanted to retain their advantage as the leading states in the Union by enforcing their dominance. This situation led to the coming to prominence of two men, whose views on slavery were entirely opposite of one another. The first is Abraham Lincoln was among the biggest proponents of the eradication of slavery in all the states within the Union as well as the preservation of the latter (Pinsker 59). The other is Jefferson Davis, who was a principal proponent of the institution of slavery and believed that it was a necessary part of the southern economy.

While many in the non slaveholding north supported the declaration, many in the south viewed it as the federal government’s attempt to interfere with their internal affairs. According to Shelby Foote, among the most prominent advocates of this viewpoint was none other than Jefferson Davis, who was a staunch believer in the right of all the states within the union to make their own decision without interference. He believed that all the states in the union had joined it voluntarily, and this gave them the independence to decide what was and what was not best for them. If the federal government were to keep interfering in the domestic dealings of the states, then these states would inevitably lose their sovereignty, defeating the purpose of the formation of the union (Dawson 592). He is noted to have stated that since all states had joined the union of their own free will, they also had the right to leave it if they felt that their interests were not being represented in a manner to their liking. Furthermore, Davis believed that the decision to end slavery lay with the individual states themselves, and not with the federal government. It is extremely likely that it was because of this stance that when the southern states chose to leave the union, they chose him to be their leader. His vision was to maintain slavery in the Confederate states and to expand this institution south into Mexico as this new slave owning federation grew. According to Foote, therefore, the American Civil war did not take place because of the need for the southern states to retain slavery, but for them to be able to determine their own destiny without any interference from the northern states, which dominated the United States at the time (Bolin 38). Many southerners at the time felt that the northern states wanted to enforce their will upon them so that they would remain a backwater and this is the reason why they chose to break from the Union.

In the matter if abolition, however, many have come to believe the reasons for Lincoln going to war, who stated that maintaining slavery in the United States would be a mockery of the democratic ideals on which the federation was founded. Moreover, it was not right to keep the black people slaves just because of their skin color or the belief that they were less intelligent than the whites. Such beliefs were by the time of the American Civil War, become outdated, and one would speculate that it was inevitable that this conflict took place. It was a war, not only to force the emancipation of the slaves in the south, but also one to destroy those beliefs which kept the democratic progress of the United States bogged down. Foote and Fields have come to challenge the above beliefs by introducing their own theories concerning why the war took place. Their most common belief is the fact that while the civil war took place in the name of abolition, this was in fact not the case, since it was a war more for political dominance than for the freeing of slaves.