STRATEGIC HRM

Models of Strategic Human Resource Management

Models of Strategic Human Resource Management

Introduction

The field of strategic human resource management (HRM) has been defined as 'the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization achieve its goals' (Wright and McMahan, 1992: 298), or 'organizational systems designed to achieve competitive advantage through people' (Snell et al., 1996: 62). Both definitions reinforce the notion that HRM practices create valuable resources within the firm that are capable of producing competitive advantage through people. Indeed, more than two decades of research has accumulated a vast body of knowledge which suggests that HRM practices that impact the motivation, knowledge, skills, and behaviors of employees lead to better employee, organizational, and financial outcomes.

Modes Of Theorizing In Strategic Hrm Research

Conceptually, one of the pervasive questions in strategic HRM literature focuses on understanding the ways and conditions under which HRM practices contribute to firm performance. A 'taxonomy' approach, first proposed by Delery and Doty (1996), has been widely taken to categorize and organize strategic HRM research into universalistic, contingency, and configurational perspectives (Delery and Doty, 1996; McMahan et al., 1999). These three alternate perspectives guide most thinking and research in this field up to this day.

Universalistic perspective

The universalistic perspective suggests that there is a set of practices which are regarded as 'best practices in HRM' and work in all organizations regardless of context. Essentially, this perspective suggests that some HR practices are simply good practices and all firms should use them. Practices such as selectivity in recruiting and selection, employee involvement, teams, flexible work assignments, job security, training and development, and incentive programs are argued to be beneficial for any organization that uses them. Selective recruiting, for example, conveys the message that the company values outstanding employees and contributes to the attraction and retention of strategic talent in firms (Koch and McGrath, 1996; Pfeffer, 1995). According to the universalistic perspective, such intermediary outcomes benefit all organizations, despite differences in strategy, technology, industry, and the like.

Contingency perspective

The contingency perspective holds that the impact of HRM practices on firm performance depends on their fit, congruence, or alignment with firms' respective internal (i.e., business strategy, life cycle/developmental stages, culture, technology, structure) and external (i.e., industry) contingencies (Baird and Meshoulam, 1988; Jackson and Schuler, 1995; Jackson et al., 1989; Lado and Wilson, 1994; Lepak et al., 2002). The guiding logic in this perspective is that HRM practices can elicit needed role behaviors for given organizational contingencies (Jackson et al., 1989; Schuler and Jackson, 1987) and affect firm performance through manipulating employees' attitudes and behaviors (Jackson and Schuler, 1995).

Strategy

Within the field of strategic HRM, it is proposed that a firm's strategy has important implications for its HRM practices. To find support for this proposition, strategic HRM scholars have typically drawn from generic strategy typologies such as that of Miles and Snow (1984) who differentiate between prospector, defender, and analyzer companies and that of Porter (1990) who differentiates between a cost leadership and a differentiation ...