MODELS OF HRM

Models of HRM

Models of HRM

Introduction

In it's simplest form Human resource management (HRM) can be defined as management whose purpose is to recruit, develop and utilise the organisation's personnel in the way that is most suited to achieve the aims and objectives of an organisation. However there is still yet to be written a definition on which all the experts agree. This has led to ambiguity, which enables people to interpret it in a manner that suits them. The reasons why it is hard to define was looked at by John Storey (1989; 1992). He concluded that different people use the term in different ways some see it as the latest buzz word in management and others use it to imply a specific set of management practices steeped in the philosophy of the company. Storey proposed that HRM should be broken down into soft HRM and hard HRM. Hard HRM, he saw as quantitative and calculating, incorporating policies that contribute to organisational strategies which could include low pay, task fragmentation and job insecurity whereas soft HRM was more involved with human relations, motivating staff, communication and leadership.

Harvard Model of HRM and Warwick Model of HRM

Beer et al (Managing Human Assets by Michael Beer, Richard E. Walton, Bert A. Spector, 1984) argue that when general managers determine the appropriate human resource policies and practices for their organizations, they require some method of assessing the appropriateness or effectiveness of those policies. Beer et al devised the famous Harvard Map (sometimes referred to as the Harvard model) of HRM.

This map is based on an analytical approach and provides a broad causal depiction of the 'determinants and consequences of HRM policies.' It shows human resource policies to be influenced by two significant considerations:

Situational factors in the outside business environment or within the firm such as laws and societal values, labor market conditions, unions, work-force characteristics, business strategies, management philosophy, and task technology. According to Beer et al these factors may constrain the formation of HRM policies but (to varying degrees) they may also be influenced by human resource policies.

Stakeholder interests, including those of shareholders, management employees, unions, community, and government. Beer et al argue that human resource policies SHOULD be influenced by ALL stakeholders. If not, 'the enterprise will fail to meet the needs of these stakeholders in the long run and it will fail as an institution.'

The authors also contend that human resource policies have both immediate organizational outcomes and long-term consequences. Managers can affect a number of factors by means of the policy choices they make, including:

- the overall competence of employees,

- the commitment of employees,

- the degree of congruence between employees' own goals and those of the organization, and

- the overall cost effectiveness of HRM practices.

Beer et al state that these 'four Cs' do not represent all the criteria that human resource policy makers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of human resource management, but consider them to be 'reasonably ...