IMPLEMENTING HR STRATEGIES

Getting HR strategies into action is not easy even if they have been developed by means of a systematic review and set out within a clear framework. Because strategies tend to be expressed as abstractions, they must be translated into programmes with clearly stated objectives and deliverables. The term ‘strategic HRM’ has been devalued in some quarters, sometimes to mean no more than a few generalized ideas about HR policies, at other times to describe a short-term plan, for example, to increase the retention rate of graduates. It must be emphasized that HR strategies are not just ad hoc programmes, policies, or plans concerning HR issues that the HR department happens to feel are important. Piecemeal initiatives do not constitute strategy.

The problem, as noted by Gratton et al (1999), is that too often there is a gap between what the strategy states will be achieved and what actually happens to it. As they put it:

One principal strand that has run through this entire book is the 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 how that practice is perceived by employees, and between what senior management believes to be the role of the HR function, and the role it actually plays.

The factors identified by Gratton et al that contributed to creating this gap include:

● the tendency of employees in diverse organizations only to accept initiatives they perceive to be relevant to their own areas; 

● the tendency of long-serving employees to cling to the status quo; 

● complex or ambiguous initiatives may not be understood by employees or will be perceived differently by them, especially in large, diverse organizations; 

● it is more difficult to gain acceptance of non-routine initiatives; 

● employees will be hostile to initiatives if they are believed to be in conflict with the organization’s identity, eg downsizing in a culture of ‘job-for-life’; 

● the initiative is seen as a threat; 

● inconsistencies between corporate strategies and values; 

● the extent to which senior management is trusted; 

● the perceived fairness of the initiative; 

● the extent to which existing processes could help to embed the initiative; 

● a bureaucratic culture that leads to inertia.

Barriers to the implementation of HR strategies

Each of the factors listed by Gratton et al can create barriers to the successful implementation of HR strategies. Other major barriers include failure to understand the strategic needs of the business, inadequate assessment of the environmental and cultural factors that affect the content of the strategies, and the development of illconceived and irrelevant initiatives, possibly because they are current fads or because there has been a poorly digested analysis of best practice that does not fit the organization’s requirements. These problems are compounded when insufficient attention is paid to practical implementation problems, the important role of line managers in implementing strategies, and the need to have established supporting processes for the initiative (eg, performance management to support performance pay).