The notion that people should be regarded as assets rather than variable costs, in other words, treated as human capital, was originally advanced by Beer et al (1984). HRM philosophy, as mentioned by Karen Legge (1995), holds that ‘human resources are valuable and a source of competitive advantage’. Armstrong and Baron (2002) stated that.
People and their collective skills, abilities and experience, coupled with their ability to deploy these in the interests of the employing organization, are now recognized as making a significant contribution to organizational success and as constituting a significant source of competitive advantage.
Unitary philosophy
The HRM approach to employee relations is basically unitary – it is believed that employees share the same interests as employers. This contrasts with what could be regarded as the more realistic pluralist view, which says that all organizations contain a number of interest groups and that the interests of employers and employees do not necessarily coincide.
Individualistic HRM is individualistic in that it emphasizes the importance of maintaining links between the organization and individual employees in preference to operating through group and representative systems.
HRM As a Management-driven Activity
HRM can be described as a central, senior management-driven strategic activity that is developed, owned and delivered by management as a whole to promote the interests of the organization that they serve. Purcell (1993) thinks that ‘the adoption of HRM is both a product of and a cause of a significant concentration of power in the hands of management’, while the widespread use ‘of the language of HRM, if not its practice, is a combination of its intuitive appeal to managers and, more importantly, a response to the turbulence of product and financial markets’. He asserts that HRM is about the rediscovery of management prerogative. He considers that HRM policies
and practices, when applied within a firm as a break from the past, are often associated with words such as commitment, competence, empowerment, flexibility, culture, performance, assessment, reward, teamwork, involvement, cooperation, harmonization, quality and learning. But ‘the danger of descriptions of HRM as modern best-management practice is that they stereotype the past and idealize the future’. Sisson (1990) suggested that: ‘The locus of responsibility for personnel management no longer resides with (or is “relegated to”) specialist managers.’ More recently, Purcell et al (2003) underlined the importance of line management commitment and capability as the means by which HR policies are brought to life.
People and their collective skills, abilities and experience, coupled with their ability to deploy these in the interests of the employing organization, are now recognized as making a significant contribution to organizational success and as constituting a significant source of competitive advantage.
Unitary philosophy
The HRM approach to employee relations is basically unitary – it is believed that employees share the same interests as employers. This contrasts with what could be regarded as the more realistic pluralist view, which says that all organizations contain a number of interest groups and that the interests of employers and employees do not necessarily coincide.
Individualistic HRM is individualistic in that it emphasizes the importance of maintaining links between the organization and individual employees in preference to operating through group and representative systems.
HRM As a Management-driven Activity
HRM can be described as a central, senior management-driven strategic activity that is developed, owned and delivered by management as a whole to promote the interests of the organization that they serve. Purcell (1993) thinks that ‘the adoption of HRM is both a product of and a cause of a significant concentration of power in the hands of management’, while the widespread use ‘of the language of HRM, if not its practice, is a combination of its intuitive appeal to managers and, more importantly, a response to the turbulence of product and financial markets’. He asserts that HRM is about the rediscovery of management prerogative. He considers that HRM policies
and practices, when applied within a firm as a break from the past, are often associated with words such as commitment, competence, empowerment, flexibility, culture, performance, assessment, reward, teamwork, involvement, cooperation, harmonization, quality and learning. But ‘the danger of descriptions of HRM as modern best-management practice is that they stereotype the past and idealize the future’. Sisson (1990) suggested that: ‘The locus of responsibility for personnel management no longer resides with (or is “relegated to”) specialist managers.’ More recently, Purcell et al (2003) underlined the importance of line management commitment and capability as the means by which HR policies are brought to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment