Reservations about Human Resource Management (HRM)

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. Mabey et 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 determi- nation 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 self- fulfilling 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 performance- related 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 busi- ness 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.

The morality of HRM

HRM is accused by many academics of being manipulative if not positively immoral.

Willmott (1993) remarks that HRM operates as a form of insidious ‘control by compli- ance’ when it emphasizes the need for employees to be committed to do what the organization wants them to do. It preaches mutuality but the reality is that behind the rhetoric it exploits workers. It is, they say, a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Keenoy, 1990a). As Legge (1998) pointed out:

Sadly, in a world of intensified competition and scarce resources, it seems inevitable that, as employees are used as means to an end, there will be some who will lose out. They may even be in the majority. For these people, the soft version of HRM may be an irrelevancy, while the hard version is likely to be an uncomfortable experience.

The accusation that HRM treats employees as means to an end is often made. However, it could be argued that if organizations exist to achieve ends, which they obviously do, and if those ends can only be achieved through people, which is clearly the case, the concern of managements for commitment and performance from those people is not unnatural and is not attributable to the concept of HRM – it existed in the good old days of personnel management before HRM was invented. What matters is how managements treat people as ends and what managements provide in return. Much of the hostility to HRM expressed by a number of academics is based on the belief that it is hostile to the interests of workers, ie that it is managerialist. However, the Guest and Conway (1997) research established that the reports of workers on outcomes showed that a higher number of HR practices were associated with higher ratings of fairness, trust and management’s delivery of their promises. Those experi- encing more HR activities also felt more secure in and more satisfied with their jobs. Motivation was significantly higher for those working in organizations where more HR practices were in place. In summary, as commented by Guest (1999b), it appears that workers like their experience of HRM. These findings appear to contradict the ‘radical critique’ view produced by academics such as Mabey et al (1998) that HRM has been ineffectual, pernicious (ie managerialist) or both. Some of those who adopt this stance tend to dismiss favourable reports from workers about HRM on the grounds that they have been brainwashed by management. But there is no evidence to support this view. Moreover, as Armstrong (2000a) pointed out:

HRM cannot be blamed or given credit for changes that were taking place anyway. For example, it is often alleged to have inspired a move from pluralism to unitarism in indus- trial relations. But newspaper production was moved from Fleet Street to Wapping by Murdoch, not because he had read a book about HRM but as a means of breaking the print unions’control.

Contradictions in the reservations about HRM

Guest (1999a) has suggested that there are two contradictory concerns about HRM. The first as formulated by Legge (1995, 1998) is that while management rhetoric may express concern for workers, the reality is harsher. Keenoy (1997) complains that: ‘The real puzzle about HRMism is how, in the face of such apparently overwhelming crit- ical “refutation”, it has secured such influence and institutional presence.’ Other writers, however, simply claim that HRM does not work. Scott (1994) for example, finds that both management and workers are captives of their history and find it very difficult to let go of their traditional adversarial orientations. But these contentions are contradictory. Guest (1999b) remarks that, ‘It is difficult to treat HRM as a major threat (though what it is a threat to is not always made explicit) deserving of serious critical analysis while at the same time claiming that it is not practiced or is ineffective.’