Select Page

Start your short paper by briefly answering the following questions:
1. Explain why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this
topic).
2. Explain how current global conditions in Maersk’s industry impact human resource management practices within this organization (use ideas from the
Module One discussion on this topic). Then, using the material on recruitment strategies provided in this week’s lesson and the case study, address the following: 1. Compare and contrast recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates in general. 2. Describe how Maersk has recruited and selected new employees who were aligned with the organization’s vision and goals over the years. 3. Assess the effectiveness of its recruitment process and determine what changes if any you would recommend to improve employee success and
retention.Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be 2–3 pages in length and double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font. Be sure to list your
references at the end of your paper.
ol_211_milestone_one_guidelines_and_rubric.pdf

evaluating_strategic_talent_management_initiatives.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

OL 211 Final Project Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: This milestone is designed to begin a critical analysis applying knowledge gained within the course. This short paper assignment is the first step in the
analysis of the company that will become your final project. For the final project, you will review the human resource management (HRM) in an organization
through a real scenario. This case study will give you the opportunity to explore various roles and processes within the human resources profession. A key skill for
any professional working in human resources is the ability to develop and implement processes that align with a company’s strategic plan and mission.
Begin by reading the first 13 pages of the case study, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives (up to HR-Customer Initiative
at Maersk), located in your Harvard Business Review Coursepack.
Start your short paper by briefly answering the following questions:
1. Explain why the human resource function should be aligned with an organization’s strategic plan (use ideas from the Module One discussion on this
topic).
2. Explain how current global conditions in Maersk’s industry impact human resource management practices within this organization (use ideas from the
Module One discussion on this topic).
Then, using the material on recruitment strategies provided in this week’s lesson and the case study, address the following:
1. Compare and contrast recruitment and selection of internal versus external candidates in general.
2. Describe how Maersk has recruited and selected new employees who were aligned with the organization’s vision and goals over the years.
3. Assess the effectiveness of its recruitment process and determine what changes if any you would recommend to improve employee success and
retention.
Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be 2–3 pages in length and double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font. Be sure to list your
references at the end of your paper.
Rubric
Critical Elements
HRM Functions
and Practices:
Function
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
explanation is supported with
evidence
Proficient (85%)
Explains why the human
resource function should be
aligned with an organization’s
strategic plan
HRM Functions
and Practices:
Global Conditions
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
explanation is clear and detailed
Explains how current global
conditions in the industry impact
human resource management
practices within organizations
Staffing: Recruit
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
description demonstrates a
nuanced understanding of the
relationship between recruiting
and the organization’s vision and
goals
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
establishes which method would
be more beneficial for an
organization based on the
research
Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and organization
and is presented in a professional
and easy-to-read format
Describes a process to recruit
and select new employees who
are aligned with the
organization’s vision and goals
Staffing:
Candidates
Articulation of
Response
Compares and contrasts
recruitment and selection of
internal versus external
candidates
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Needs Improvement (55%)
Explains why the human
resource function should be
aligned with an organization’s
strategic plan, but explanation is
cursory or inaccurate
Explains how current global
conditions in the industry impact
human resource management
practices within organizations,
but explanation is cursory or has
gaps in accuracy
Describes a process to recruit
and select new employees who
are aligned with the
organization’s vision and goals,
but description is cursory or
inaccurate
Compares and contrasts
recruitment and selection of
internal versus external
candidates but comparison lacks
detail or contains inaccuracies
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Not Evident (0%)
Does not explain why the human
resource function should be
aligned with an organization’s
strategic plan
Value
23
Does not explain how current
global conditions impact human
resource management practices
within organizations
23
Does not describe a process to
recruit and select new
employees who are aligned with
the organization’s vision and
goals
23
Does not compare and contrast
recruitment and selection of
internal versus external
candidates
23
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
Total
8
100%
9-412-147
REV:MAY5,2013
BORIS GROYSBERG
SARAH L. ABBOTT
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic
Talent Management Initiatives
At the start of 2012, Maria Pejter, senior director of Maersk Group’s Human Resources department,
and Bill Allen, head of Human Resources (HR), sat down to consider some key aspects of Maersk’s
talent management strategy. Through 2008, Maersk had experienced several years of rapid growth and
strong profitability. The global recession in 2008 had negatively impacted both Maersk’s top line and
its returns; however, operating results had since improved, and Maersk earned record profits in 2010.
In recent years, Maersk had seen a rise in its unusually low historic employee turnover rate. And
Maersk had experienced a notable change in its corporate culture as it transitioned from a familyowned Danish shipping company into a global, publicly-traded conglomerate.
Allen and Pejter were evaluating Maersk’s talent management priorities in the context of the
increasingly competitive and fast-moving talent market of the 21st century. As Maersk continued to
grow, finding, developing, and retaining high-quality talent was becoming a bigger challenge. In
particular, Maersk was experiencing five notable talent challenges.
The first of these was increased employee turnover. Maersk had traditionally relied heavily on
employees who started with the Group as trainees and then spent the entirety of their careers there.
However, with competition in the labor market increasing, a greater number of Maersk employees
were leaving the Group for external opportunities. Maersk estimated that, of the approximately 400
trainees it brought on board each year, only 20% of them were still with the Group after five years. In
light of this rise in attrition, Maersk’s HR had increased its efforts to bring in experienced hires from
the outside. Allen and Pejter needed to better understand how much of a problem this higher attrition
rate was creating. How did it compare with what other firms were experiencing? And was it possible
that this higher turnover also provided an opportunity to bring in high-quality talent and to further
diversify the Group’s employee base?
The second challenge centered on what to do with Maersk’s training and development programs.
The training that Maersk had traditionally provided to its trainees was extensive, and included both
formal courses and on-the-job training, including rotational programs that allowed employees to move
across geographies and business units. This training was costly, but had been considered a solid
investment because many employees stayed with Maersk throughout their careers. However, with
employee attrition rates rising, and industry competitors targeting Maersk employees because of their
strong training, perhaps this strategy needed to be rethought. Additionally, as the need arose to
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Boris Groysberg and Research Associate Sarah L. Abbott prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class
discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.
This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
412-147
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives
Copyright © 2012, 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-5457685,
write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be digitized,
photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
hire more experienced individuals, should more emphasis be placed on the training needs of these
individuals? What other types of training should Maersk be offering its employees to ensure they were
well equipped to meet the business challenges of the 21st century?
Third, should Maersk continue to hire experienced individuals from outside the firm? In recent
years, the percentage of senior positions filled by external hires had increased from virtually none to
30%. What were the pros and cons associated with hiring from outside? How should Maersk think
about integrating these external hires? Feedback on Maersk’s integration efforts to date had not been
positive. Was it Maersk’s responsibility to integrate these senior hires, or was it a matter of hiring the
type of people who understood what it took to be successful in an environment like the one at Maersk?
Many companies practiced “natural integration.” What practices should Maersk put in place to
integrate experienced hires, if any?
Fourth, one way of bringing in external talent, while potentially reducing the associated integration
risk, was by rehiring former Maersk employees (“boomerangs”). While Maersk had no formal policy
on rehiring, it had historically been considered taboo. However, given Maersk’s significant talent
needs, Maersk had reversed its position on this policy a few years back. Pejter and Allen planned to
look at how this policy was working and determine whether or not the change had been a good one for
the Group. Should it rehire former employees? If so, under what conditions? And, at what level should
they be brought in?
Finally, Maersk was becoming a more diverse company with a more diverse customer base, and
was operating in an increasingly diverse business environment. In light of this, how did Maersk build
an inclusive culture? Did one already exist? Or was it something they needed to continue to work on?
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Company Background
The A.P. Møller – Maersk Group (“Maersk” or “the Group”) was founded as a shipping company
in 1904 by Arnold Peter Møller and his father, Captain Peter Maersk Møller. Arnold Peter Møller served
as CEO of Maersk until his death in 1965. He was succeeded by his son, Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller,
who served as CEO until 1993 and chairman of the board until 2003. In 1993, Jess Søderberg, who had
been with the Group since 1969, became CEO, but resigned in 2007 after a rumored clash with McKinney Møller.1 He was replaced by Nils S. Andersen, an external hire who had been with Carlsberg
A/S for over 20 years—most recently as president and CEO—but had served on Maersk’s board of
directors since 2005.
Headquartered in Copenhagen, by 2012, Maersk was the largest company in Denmark, and
operated in 130 countries with nearly 110,000 employees. Maersk comprised over 1,000 companies, and
operated one of the largest container shipping businesses globally as well as oil and gas exploration
and container terminals operations. Additionally, Maersk held a 68% stake in Dansk Supermarket
Group and a 20% interest in Danske Bank.
Maersk’s businesses included:

Maersk’s container services businesses—Maersk Line, Safmarine, MCC Transport, and Seago
Line—which contributed 40% of Maersk’s revenues. These operations consisted of 645 owned
and chartered vessels with aggregate capacity of 2.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).

Maersk Oil, Maersk’s oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) operations, which
contributed 20% of revenues. Maersk had E&P operations in the United Kingdom, Denmark,
Qatar, and Algeria.
This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives
412-147
2

APM Terminals, which owned and operated container terminals globally and contributed 7%
of revenues. Its network included 55 container terminals and 154 inland facilities in 64 countries.

Maersk Drilling, offshore drilling and land rig operations (including a 40% interest in Egyptian
Drilling Company), which contributed 3% of revenues.

Other businesses: Maersk Supply Service (anchor handling and platform supply vessels);
Maersk Tankers (oil and gas tanker shipping); Damco (logistics); Svitzer (towing and salvage
operations); Maersk FPSOs (serviced floating oil and gas producers via its fleet of three floating
production, storage, and offloading units (FPSOs), one floating gas storage offloading unit
(FGSO), and one jack-up production module) and Maersk LNG (owned and operated Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) carriers).
2002–2008 saw strong growth globally for the container shipping industry, driven in part by the
expansion of outsourcing, growth in emerging markets, and China’s entrance into the World Trade
Organization in 2001. Maersk’s other businesses also experienced robust growth, resulting in a 15%
compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in group revenues, and a 14% CAGR in both EBITDA 1 and
assets over this time period.
However, in 2008, the global recession resulted in slower growth across many of Maersk’s business
lines. In subsequent years, container industry volumes were relatively flat, and with significant
overcapacity, rates remained soft. In light of this environment, Maersk focused on expansion in growth
markets, such as Asia and Africa, and on cost control and improved efficiency in mature markets. One
business which remained a growth area was energy, with rising oil prices driving strong top-line
growth. Maersk produced 333,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day in 2011 and had a strategic
goal of producing 400,000 BOE per day.
As of December 31, 2011, Maersk’s total market capitalization was $28 billion (in U.S. dollars). The
company had been publicly traded since 1982, and was listed on the NASDAQ OMX Nordic exchange.
Maersk had two classes of shares: A shares, which possessed voting rights, and B shares, which had no
voting rights. As of December 31, 2011, Maersk’s share capital consisted of 4,395,600 shares, 50% of
which were A shares and 50% of which were B shares. The Møller family’s foundation controlled
41.22% of the share capital and 50.6% of the total votes. (Through other entities and private ownership,
the Møller family controlled an additional 25.9% of the voting power of Maersk.) Fortyone percent of
the share capital was freely floated. (See Exhibit 1 for share price data for Maersk, and Exhibits 2 and
3 for detailed financial performance data.)
Talent Management at Maersk
Talent Management in the Pre-2003 Era
The evolution of Maersk’s talent-management practices can be viewed in light of the company’s
overall evolution and growth. As Maersk transitioned from a family-owned Danish company to a
publicly-traded global conglomerate, its work force changed, as did its talent needs and practices.
Many of these changes also reflected trends in the broader market, as talent became increasingly
mobile.
1 Earnings before interest, tax, and depreciation and amortization.
This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
412-147
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives
3
This document is authorized for use only by Natasha Youman in OL-211-X3835 Human Resource Management 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
A.P. Møller – Maersk Group: Evaluating Strategic Talent Management Initiatives
412-147
Pejter described the workforce culture that had traditionally dominated Maersk: “In many ways,
A.P. Møller has been a company of people who work there for life … We have disproportionately many
people who get to their 40-year anniversary or 50-year anniversary with the company, and no one
makes a big wahoo out of 25-year anniversaries because they are very common.” She added that, due
in part to the presence of a strong founding family, Maersk employees felt they were part of something
that was more of a “familial relationship.”
Maersk had historically focused on hiring and training young, inexperienced individuals. It was
not uncommon to hire individuals directly from high school. Maersk’s two-year training program
entailed on-the job-training and formal coursework. Successful trainees were guaranteed an overseas
placement as part of their ongoing training. Individuals were hired by the Group, and moved regularly
across Maersk’s business lines.
In keeping with Maersk’s familial culture, managers were often slow to let go of underperforming
employees.
What emerged as a result of these practices was a strong, arguably homogenous and
companyfocused, culture. Bill Allen described the culture at Maersk as “an insular organization,
internally focused, quite successful, very successful when it came to Denmark, quite successful
globally, a big headquarters, slow moving, bureaucratic. [There were] lots of control mechanisms in
headquarters indicative of a control culture.” He added, “In terms of things we were doing well—good
focus on leadership, good focus on values, and appreciation for the heritage of the organization, [there
was] a passion, a tremendous passion, about the industry, or industries that we were in, and a good
foundation, if you will. Smart, competitive people. It’s got a lot to [do with] our selection procedures
over the years.”
Jesper Madsen, a vice president in HR at Maersk Drilling, argued that while Maersk was good at
filling the firm’s needs, it was less good at focusing on the needs of its individual employees. He
explained, “But where we’re not doing well enough is on leveraging the talent of each individual. I
think we have a number of employees in our organization that are not the best version of themselves—
that we could actually benefit from engaging more in their personal development. So, the individual
career management—career development, personal aspiration development—I think that’s the area
where we are underleveraging for the time being.”
Rolf Habben-Jansen, CEO of Maersk’s Damco unit, posited that the homogenous nature of Maersk’s
employee base could present challenges. He argued, “The DNA of many of our people [is similar]—
they have been selected in the past based on certain personality profiles that are very, very similar.
And I’m a firm believer in the need to have some diversity also in terms of personality because
suddenly when you hit more turbulent times, it sometimes just helps to have some people that don’t
always go with the flow because they can help you challenge the conventional wisdom.” And, he
continued, “Because we had basically grown up all the management executives the same way, that’s
how we ended up with a leadership team with too similar beliefs, which is not ideal for running a truly
global and very diverse business.” Bill Allen concurred, arguing that traditionally Maersk employees
“knew how the organization worked. They were very, very, very good operationally. They got things
done, [and were] very execution-focu …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment