The term Human Resource Management (HRM) is full of ambiguities. Legge (1995) contrasts the 'hard' and 'soft' schools of HRM and the 'rhetoric' and reality of the phenomena.

HRM was identified in the United States during the 1950's but wider recognition especially in the United Kingdom did not arrive until the mid 1980's. The 1980's saw the first British books written on the concepts of Human Resource Management, which created much scepticism about the new ways in which to organise labour forces. Academics such as Beardwell, Holden, Legge and Beaumont who introduced many supporting theories during the 1990's, demonstrated that HRM wasn't just a passing phase, but a new concept of how employees think and operate in the work place. Monk 1994 described HRM as a 'slippery concept that means different things to different people'. Guest 1987 referred to HRM as ' being people orientated throughout with an ethic of respect for the individual, maximising individual talent, well developed policies and practices, genuine consultation involvement, and clear challenging goals with feedback'. It could be argued that Guest's model does nothing to differentiate HRM from personnel, which was later supported by Legge 1989. Legge commented that 'successful companies guide and shape their company's culture to fir their strategy.' Legge 1995 has described this concept of fit, as one of the many 'ambiguities' of HRM. HRM is commonly referred to simply as a variation of personnel management, under a new label and stated by Armstrong 1987 as being 'Old wine in a new bottle'. Guest 1987 pointed out that a number of personnel departments have 'human resource departments' without any observable change in roles'.

It would appear clear that there is no universally accepted description of the concept of HRM although there are those who have clearly identifies the differences of HRM. Most notably is Storey 1989 who identified the 'hard' and 'soft' model, which was later discussed in more detail by Legge 1995. What is clear is that HRM has become a recognised academic pathway within many Universities and Colleges in addition to playing an important role in the workplace.

When considering the rhetoric surrounding HRM, Legge 1995 ironically explains that 'the contradictions embedded in HRM that have facilitated the development of a rhetoric that may simultaneously render strategic action problematic'. The concept of so-called normative HRM (Noon 1994) has been adopted by numerous firms and can be divided into two main themes:

HR policies should be integrated with strategic business planning and used to reinforce or change an appropriate organisational structure
Human resources are valuable and a source of competitive advantage and are tapped most effectively through policies that promote commitment (Legge, 1995).

This 'normative' approach attempts to outline the simple linear approach between business strategy and HRM, however this normative concept of HRM has encountered many problems concerning implementation at an organisational level, with the lack of commitment at senior management posing a repetitive problem. Keenoy 1990 discussed the problems that could arise from this approach, as the needs of the business were unlikely going to match those of the employee. Strangely Legge (1995, p.40) commented that 'the contradictions embedded in HRM that has facilitated the development of a rhetoric that may simultaneously render strategic action problematic'. Organisations that focus heavily on cost will be unlikely to benefit to such as great degree by treating employees as valued assets (Legge 1995).

This is a preview of the whole essay

Amongst the wide variety of work carried out on HRM styles it can be interpreted as either incorporating a 'soft' or 'hard' situational approach (Boxall, 1996). Legge 1995 has developed the workl of Storey 1992, in more detail in particular, who supported the concept of the 'hard and soft' model, which will be discussed in more detail throughout this piece of work, with particular reference to its role in employment relationship. Hard HRM or 'reality' can be described in terms of a companies cost saving and cost-minimisation strategies or the close fit between organisational goals and strategic objectives (Beardwell et al, 2001). The hard or resource aspect of HRM is referred to by Legge 1995 as 'Unilitarism or Instrumentalism'. Human resources are importantly a factor of production and communicated as tough language of business by management. Employees are reduced to passive objects of production that shouldn't be cherished but assessed on whether they can perform the tasks asked of them by the organisation (Gill 1999). Soft HRM or 'rhetoric' in contrast to the hard model has been described as 'developmental humanism' (Legge et al, 1995), whereby the individual is integrated fully in an organisation, which values trust and commitment.

The 'soft' approach is one, which attempts to recognise the importance of business aims whilst emphasising employee development, through improvement such as training and participation. Employees should be regarded as an important asset to the organisation and act as source of competitive advantage through their continual commitment to the business strategy. The soft version can be seen as a potential method of releasing untapped reserves of human resourcefulness by increasing employee commitment, participation and involvement (Gill 1999). As discussed by Legge 1995, it is quite feasible and probable that elements of hard and soft HRM style are practised by organisations to ensure a close fit between outcomes and business strategy. Mc Gregor's theory (1960) of X and Y could be described as the predecessor of this model as many companies are fond of dressing up hard HRM in soft rhetoric. Mc Gregor 1960 suggested that theory X led managers to believe that employees do not like work, whilst theory Y prompted managers to believe that 'man will exercise self discretion and self control in the service of objectives to which he is committed' (Gill 1999).

While both hard and soft models of HRM provide weight to linking strategy to the importance of people, different meanings are given to each and different assumptions made concerning human nature. Noon suggested that the dichotomy of hard and soft HRM manifests itself as a gap between rhetoric and reality (Noon 1994).Blyton and Turnbull (1994, p4) have quoted Skinner who addresses HRM as nothing more than good intentions and whistling in the dark'. This vision of HRM operating as a powerless theoretical model is supported by Argyris 1998. Could HRM rhetoric have outstripped the reality? (Blyton and Turnbull 1994). Theorists such as Truss et al 1997 found no pure examples of soft or hard HRM in rhetoric or reality and that the rhetoric adopted by many organisations appeared to abide by softer approaches, the reality experienced by employees as similar to the hard model. A study by Sewell and Wilkinson contrasted the rhetoric of employee and employer commitment with the reality of workers in a Japanese company in the UK, which concluded the close similarity of Japanese style to that of the hard versions of HRM. Womak et al 1990 brought particular attention to the lean production methods of Toyota who were functioning as a solely profit making and efficiency dominated organisation. It becomes almost ironic that many companies introduce structured programmes of employee development but also carry out significant 'downsizing' or redundancies and the same time. Legge 1995 proposed that HRM uses rhetoric to obfuscate mass redundancies, and that downsizing is described as headcount reduction, workforce re-profiling or manpower transfer. Often the result of these actions is a lack of employee morale and productivity, which could be described as a hidden cost of downsizing. Vaughan 1994 has suggested that the level of scepticism concerning HRM that is expressed by organisations should be expected and that if only HRM was able to adopt hard theory then this could be avoided.

Despite the plethora of theoretical support for HRM, there is limited evidence to demonstrate it's 'leading' role within organisations and instead would appear to have been implemented on an ad-hoc basis, particularly in times of trouble or reactive situations. Work by Dyer and Holder 1988 have suggested that one of the most difficult barriers facing the implementation of HRM within and organisation is the lack of support from senior management. This senior management support is crucial for the success of any style of HRM. Scepticism is often found in organisations not only within senior management but also throughout the ranks, which express a 'doubt' of HRM's importance and relevance to business survival. Grant et al 1999 described the importance of senior management support and a general lack of representation for HRM to cause top level managers to focus more on their power rather than focusing on real needs for the organisation.

Critics of the hard and soft approaches to HRM often describe how the strategic needs of an organisation run into direct conflict with the development needs of the employees (Storey 1995 & Legge) but more recent work from Grant and Kane 1999 found little evidence to support this. To contrast this it would seem a logical assumption that highly developed countries would find it harder to adopt solely 'hard' HRM style and would require 'soft' developmental aspects. The work of Grant et al did support this but also found that within the five countries examined, there was little evidence of sufficient HRM policies and limited trained staff to implement them.

The whole concept of HRM rhetoric is one of great discussion and scepticism by many who question the distinction between the hard and soft HRM, stating that they are simply different forms of rhetoric rather than different means of implementation. Green 1999. Legge 1995 describing the marrying together of the hard and soft model with the American Dream as 'converting legends of HRM practice that serve to reinforce an ideal into myths that serve to obscure the less than pleasant reality'. Guest 1990 described the main purpose of HRM adoption in the US was for management to hide behind and introduce non-unionism. Blyton & Turnbull 1994 supported this view as HRM has acted to obscure many issues concerning managerial control and that the whole vocabulary of HRM is just an attempt to reintroduce management authority and redefine employee rights. HRM is often viewed as regulators of employment relationship between the managerial demands and the individual needs of the worker and must justify decisions on change whilst clearly defining the organisations commitment to its employees.

Legge 1995 clarifies the existence of not one language of HRM but two, the 'hard and soft models' and that downsizing or redundancies are just a strategy that sacrifices the few to save the many. There is clearly a difference between HRM rhetoric and reality, with rhetoric portrayed as soft and reality hard. Studies of the Australian workforce have identified that although organisational rhetoric was 'soft' the reality felt by the employees was 'hard'. This supports the views of Beardwell et al 2001 that workers are merely a factor of production and an expense of doing business. While productivity increased the work carried out by Gill 1999 identified the longer working hours for employees and the escalating levels of stress. The work of Cully et al 1999 uncovered that the construction industry was an area that was particularly governed by 'hard' HRM practices, which was examined earlier by Drucker et al 1996 who found this was the same for professional and managerial staff. Coffey and Langford 1998 supported the work of Drucker and found no reason why the labourers weren't allowed to participate in the organisation. This would support the widespread level of frustration within the construction industry due to its lack willingness to harness the creativity of the workforce. Gill 1999 concluded to say that this has supported that HRM has facilitated the intensification of work and commodification of labour that re asserts management authority. Interestingly not all rhetoric has been identified as hard, as some organisations consistently invest in employee training and involvement, however this was often dependent on the performance of the bottom line.

Organisations who introduced employee empowerment in attempts to increase overall production often failed to consider the actual employment needs of the individual. This becomes a fundamental failure of HRM theory itself, as it can no longer deliver maximum potential from employees to achieve business strategic goals. The work of Kane et al 1999 supported that of Gill 1999 in an attempt to identify the poor alignment of HRM with strategy, or the hidden agendas of organisations wishing to increase managerial control. This brings more weight to the work of Legge (1995 p.40) 'the contradictions embedded in HRM that have facilitated the development of a rhetoric that may simultaneously render strategic action problematic'. HRM theory has clearly suffered from constant undermining and non-commitment at senior management level, with the use of hard and soft HRM rhetoric only concealing the overall problem. An environment of disbelief and cynics has resulted in the creation of an environment that only fuels this air of distrust (Gill 1999).

References:

Argytis C et al 1998 Empowerment: The emperor's new clothes', Harvard Business Review, 7, 3, 98-105.
Boxall, D E et al 1996 'The strategic HRM debate and the resource based view of the firm', Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 3, 34-53.
Coffey, M et al 1998 'The Propensity for employee participation by electrical and mechanical trades in the construction industry', Construction Management and Economics, 16, 543-552.
Cully M et al 1999 'Britain at work' Construction Management and Economics, 18, 239-250.
Drucker J et al 1996 'Between hard and soft HRM' Construction Management and Economics, 14, 405-416.
Dyer and Holder et al 1988 'A strategic perspective of human resource management' Human Resource Management, 1, 1-46.
Gill C 1999 'Use of Hard and Soft model' School of Management, 1-45.
Grant 1999 'The missing arguments of lean construction' Construction Management and Economics, 17,2, 133-137.
Green S 1998 'The technocratic totalitarianism of construction process improvement' Construction and Architectural Management, 5, 4, 376-386.
Guest D 1990 'Human resource management and the American dream' J of Management Studies, 27, 4, 377-97.
Keenoy T et al 'HRM, meaning and morality' Reassessing human resource management, 233-255.
Legge K 1995 'Human resource management, Rhetoric's and Realities, Basingstoke: Macmillian.
Legge K 1989 'Human resource management' a critical analysis, in Storey, J 1989 New Perspectives of Human Resource Management, London Routledge.
Mc Gregor D 1960 'The human side of enterprise' McGraw Hill, New York.
Noon M 1994 'HRM, a map, model or theory?' Reassessing Human Resource Management, 16-32.
Storey J 1987 'Developments in the management of human resources' Warwick Papers in Industry Relations, 17, IRRU.
Truss C 1997 'Soft and Hard models of HRM' J of Management Studies, 34, 1, 53-73.
Turnbull P 1988 'The limits to Japanization' New technology, 3,1,7-20.
Vaughan E 1994 'The trial between sense and sentiment' J of General Management, 19, 3, 20-32.
Womak J 1990 'The machines that changed the World, Rawson Associates.