For some time HRM was a controversial topic, especially in academic circles. The main reservations have been that HRM promises more than it delivers and that its morality is suspect.
HRM promises more than it can deliver Noon (1992) has commented that HRM has serious deficiencies as a theory:
It is built with concepts and propositions, but the associated variables and hypotheses are not made explicit. It is too comprehensive… If HRM is labelled a ‘theory’ it raises expectations about its ability to describe and predict.
Guest (1991) believes that HRM is an ‘optimistic but ambiguous concept’; it is all hype and hope. Mabeyet al (1998) follow this up by asserting that ‘the heralded outcomes (of HRM) are almost without exception unrealistically high’. To put the concept of HRM into practice involves strategic integration, developing a coherent and consistent set of employment policies, and gaining commitment. This requires high levels of determination and competence at all levels of management and a strong and effective HR function staffed by business-oriented people. It may be difficult to meet these criteria, especially when the proposed HRM culture conflicts with the established corporate culture and traditional managerial attitudes and behaviour. Gratton et al (1999) are convinced on the basis of their research that there is:
a disjunction between rhetoric and reality in the area of human resource management between HRM theory and HRM practice, between what the HR function says it is doing and that practice as perceived by employers, and between what senior management believes to be the role of the HR function, and the role it actually plays.
In their conclusions they refer to the ‘hyperbole and rhetoric of human resource management’. Caldwell (2004) believes that HRM ‘is an unfinished project informed by a selffulfilling vision of what it should be’. In response to the above comments it is agreed that many organizations that think they are practising HRM are doing nothing of the kind. It is difficult, and it is best not to expect too much. Most of the managements who hurriedly adopted performancerelated pay as an HRM device that would act as a lever for change have been sorely disappointed. But the research conducted by Guest and Conway (1997) covering a stratified random sample of 1,000 workers established that a notably high level of HRM was found to be in place. This contradicts the view that management has tended to ‘talk up’ the adoption of HRM practices. The HRM characteristics covered by the survey included the opportunity to express grievances and raise personal concerns on such matters as opportunities for training and development, communications about business issues, single status, effective systems for dealing with bullying and harassment at work, making jobs interesting and varied, promotion from within, involvement programmes, no compulsory redundancies, performance-related pay, profit sharing and the use of attitude surveys.
HRM promises more than it can deliver Noon (1992) has commented that HRM has serious deficiencies as a theory:
It is built with concepts and propositions, but the associated variables and hypotheses are not made explicit. It is too comprehensive… If HRM is labelled a ‘theory’ it raises expectations about its ability to describe and predict.
Guest (1991) believes that HRM is an ‘optimistic but ambiguous concept’; it is all hype and hope. Mabeyet al (1998) follow this up by asserting that ‘the heralded outcomes (of HRM) are almost without exception unrealistically high’. To put the concept of HRM into practice involves strategic integration, developing a coherent and consistent set of employment policies, and gaining commitment. This requires high levels of determination and competence at all levels of management and a strong and effective HR function staffed by business-oriented people. It may be difficult to meet these criteria, especially when the proposed HRM culture conflicts with the established corporate culture and traditional managerial attitudes and behaviour. Gratton et al (1999) are convinced on the basis of their research that there is:
a disjunction between rhetoric and reality in the area of human resource management between HRM theory and HRM practice, between what the HR function says it is doing and that practice as perceived by employers, and between what senior management believes to be the role of the HR function, and the role it actually plays.
In their conclusions they refer to the ‘hyperbole and rhetoric of human resource management’. Caldwell (2004) believes that HRM ‘is an unfinished project informed by a selffulfilling vision of what it should be’. In response to the above comments it is agreed that many organizations that think they are practising HRM are doing nothing of the kind. It is difficult, and it is best not to expect too much. Most of the managements who hurriedly adopted performancerelated pay as an HRM device that would act as a lever for change have been sorely disappointed. But the research conducted by Guest and Conway (1997) covering a stratified random sample of 1,000 workers established that a notably high level of HRM was found to be in place. This contradicts the view that management has tended to ‘talk up’ the adoption of HRM practices. The HRM characteristics covered by the survey included the opportunity to express grievances and raise personal concerns on such matters as opportunities for training and development, communications about business issues, single status, effective systems for dealing with bullying and harassment at work, making jobs interesting and varied, promotion from within, involvement programmes, no compulsory redundancies, performance-related pay, profit sharing and the use of attitude surveys.
No comments:
Post a Comment