8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

1/18

AC330

What is Human Resource Management Anyway?

Throughout 1980s organizations advanced on major

innovation and restructuring programmes

Large US organizations such as Chrysler and GM

converted to TQM

UK organizations such such as Jaguar Cars

converted to TQM

In academia Industrial Relations became HRM

In business Personnel Management became HRM

In business new HRM specialists elevated to the

board

General agreement - in managerialist literature at least

Change is key to corporate survival

Humans represent the foundation of sustainable

competitive advantage

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

2/18

YetFalse consensus tends to surround HRM

Focus upon reality of competition and consequententhusiasm for change has encouraged casual use of

terminology

HRM spoken ofas ifit represents a unified body of

knowledge and practice

Today will attempt to over-turn this false consensus as

we consider 4 accounts of HRM

4 variously competitive accounts of the best way to

manage the organizations asset

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

3/18

What do models do?

Models of HRM:

Provide an analytical framework for the

examination of HRM variously identifying

situational factors, commitment, management

choice and competence as important variables

Act as legitimation devices. For example..

They suggest that HRM is new

They suggest that HRM is distinctive

They suggest that HRM is uniquely suited

to contemporary competitive dilemmas

They provide a model for research activityinsofar as they

a) offer a characterization of the essence of HRM

and

b) establish key variables and relationships forresearch

They provide a heuristic a simplified but

nonetheless (a sometimes) useful model of the

world, which, for example, suggests key practices

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

4/18

We will consider 4 models of HRM

The Michigan Model

The Harvard Model

The New York Model

The Warwick Model

.other models are available

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

5/18

The Michigan Model

Developed by Formbrum and colleagues in 1984

Key focus

1. Inter-related nature of organizational components

2. Need to achieve internal coherence from the

linking of components

Four key constituent components:

Selection

Appraisal

Development

Rewards

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

6/18

Strengths

Offers a simple heuristic of HRM

Highlights the importance of internal coherence

Focuses attention on matching internal strategies to

external requirements

Highlights a key tension in HRM practice

SelectionPerformance

Development

Appraisal

Reward

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

7/18

Weaknesses

Model tends to prescription

Model is focused upon market needs and consequent

organizational needsso

Model says very little about stakeholders and their

interests

Status of model is unclear statement of the real andexisting nature of the world or overly-simplified

managerialist heuristic for teaching?

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

8/18

The Harvard Model

Developed by Beer and colleagues in 1984

Key features:

1. Inter-related nature of components

2. Need for coherence

3. Need to balance interests that transcend organization

Model composed of 6 basic components

1. Situational Factors

Societal values, workforce characteristics said to

impact upon choice of HR strategy

2. Stakeholder interests

Stakeholder interests oblige managers to seek trade-

offs

3. HRM policy choices

HRM is the outcome of situated choice-making this absent from Michigan model

4. HR outcomes

These assumed to be high commitment and

productivity - it is assumed that policy will/ should

tap under-utilized resources

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

9/18

5. LR policy outcomes

1. Individual well-being

2. Orgn Effectiveness3. Societal well-being

6. Feedback loop connecting outputs to organization and

stakeholders

Stakeholder interests

Management

Shareholders

Community

Situational Factors

Business conditions

Management philosophy

Unions

HRM policy

Choices

Outcomes

Commitment

Congruence etc

Consequences

Well-being

Effectiveness

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

10/18

Strengths

Managers portrayed as situated choice-making actors

Importance of stakeholders in wider society

acknowledged

Some acknowledgement of bargained nature of

workplace relations

Weaknesses

Commitment to bargaining is weak assumedstakeholders readily incorporated into one (perhaps

narrow) organizational agenda

Model is prescriptive assumes certain outcomes

which actualexperience disputes

Lists feedback and linkages between elements of model

but does not offer a coherent theoretical understanding of

nature of these relationships

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

11/18

The New York Model

Developed by Schuler and Jackson (1987)

This is a contingency modelso has elements in

common with Harvard model

Like Harvard argues the content of HRM policy must

vary with business strategy. Business strategy is in turn a

product of the conditions prevailing in the widercompetitive environment

Unlike Harvard does not pre-judge outcomes to sameextent

Key focus

different organizational strategies call for different

needed role behaviours

need to ensure behavioural consistency between

business strategy and HRM approach

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

12/18

Crudely the model differentiates between

Behaviours required for Behaviours required for

Cost-reduction strategy Innovation strategy

Repetitive, predictable behaviour

Very short term focus

Very low concern: quality

High concern: quantity

Very low risk-taking

Very high concern: process

Avoids responsibility

Inflexible to change

Comfortable with stability

Narrow application: skill

Low job involvement

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

13/18

New York Model argues managers need to make choices

about:

Planning

Staffing

Appraising

Compensation

Trainingwhich reflect important contingencies

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

14/18

Strengths

Model has an intuitive appeal

Model emphasises contextual factors

Model highlights some degree of managerial choice

Weaknesses

This is a reworking of Theory x, Theory y?

Does the model license abusecrap jobs abroad?

Choice-making may be more circumscribed than model

acknowledges

Assumes market signals are clear and unambiguous

managers do not react to market signals they enact

these

Model tends not to acknowledge that different HR

choices may be applied within one organization

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

15/18

The Warwick Model

Developed by Hendry and Pettigrew (1990)

Might be viewed as a development of the Harvard Model

Like the Harvard Model it:

Highlights the importance of stakeholder and situational

factors

Suggests that HRM policy choices vary in relation to

these wider factors

Suggests coherence in practice and policy is key

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

16/18

Five elements

1. Outer context

2. Inner context

3. Business strategy content

4. HRM context

5. HRM content

Outer Context

Technical

Legal

Inner Context

CultureStructure etc

Business Strategy

Content

ObjectivesProduct market

HRM Context

Role

Organization

HRM Content

Work systems

Employee Relations

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

17/18

Strengths

Places HRM in context

Suggests content of HRM varies with context

Suggests that content of HRM may feed back to alter

context

Does not assume/ prescribe outcomes

Given UK origination is more sensitive to UK/ European

scene

Provides a basis for comparative study of HRM

Weaknesses

Assumes that organizations with coherent HR policies

will have superior performance howeverlinkage

internal HR practices and business performance is

suggested but not pursued analytically

8/4/2019 330-lecture5-2007-08

18/18

Summary

Have attempted to highlight varieties of HRM both in

terms of analytical models

And

In terms of the varieties of HRM practice that are

possible when HRM is understood in context

Have attempted to show different ways in which HRM

might be envisaged/ interpreted

Have attempted to show the contests and controversies

that exist within HRM