Beer and Spector emphasized a new set of assumptions in shaping their meaning of HRM that emphasis on fit linking HRM with strategic planning and cultural change sees people as social capital capable of development and proactive system means manager should anticipate changing in advance, developing of coincide of interest between stakeholders (Holden, 2001).
The Harvard model has wielded considerable influence over the theory of HRM, particularly in its emphasis of the fact that HRM is the concern of management in general rather than the personnel function in general.
Walton (1985), also of Harvard, expanded the concept by stressing the importance of commitment and mutuality: ‘The new HRM model is composed of policies that promote mutuality-mutual goals, mutual influence, mutual respect, mutual rewards, and mutual responsibility. Walton stresses mutuality between employers and employees when attempting to define HRM; Mutual goals, mutual influence, mutual respect, mutual rewards, mutual responsibility. The theory is that policies mutuality will elicit commitment which in turn will yield both better economic performance and greater human development (Holden, 2001).
The Best Practical Model
The best practice or ‘outcome’ model, echoing Walton, emphasizes commitment rather than compliance, and advocates processes of culture management to achieve cultural control.
The Contingency Model
The contingency model concentrates on the achievement of fit between business and HR strategies.
A number of academic commentators in the UK have developed the original concept of American concept of HRM, as described below.
David Guest has explained four policy goals such as Strategic integration, High commitment, High quality and Flexibility (Holden, 2001). Guest believes that the driving force behind HRM is ‘the pursuit of competitive advantage in the market place through provision of high-quality goods and services through competitive pricing linked to high productivity and through the capacity swiftly to innovate and manage change in response to changes in the market place on to breakthroughs in research and development.’
Karen Legge considers that the common themes of the typical definitions of HRM are that: Human resource policies should be integrated with strategic business planning and used to reinforce an appropriate ( or change an inappropriate ) organizational culture, that human resources are valuable and a source of competitive advantage, that they may be tapped most effectively by mutually consistent policies that promote commitment and which, as a consequence, foster a willingness in employees to act flexibly in the interests of the “adaptive organization’s” pursuit of excellence.
Keenoy claims that HRM is more rhetoric than reality and has been a convenient dustbin of rationalisation to support ideological shifts in the employment relationship brought about by market pressures
Storey identified two types of HRM that are soft (rooted in the manpower planning traditional) and hard (rooted in the human relations approach to organisational analysis) HRM. According to Tate (1998) effective HRM and the successful implementation of personnel activities are essential ingredients for improved organisational performance. Lynch refers to the importance of people as a vital resource for sustainable competitive advantage
After these views of HRM definitions and approaches the barriers to effective HRM are shown as the following;
1. Top management’s opinion about HRM issues in the organization.
2. HRM practitioners’ knowledge and skills.
3. The lack of proven knowledge about the impact of HRM at long-term
The analysis of HRM have been studied by authors such as Legge, Watson, fox, Tyson and Fell. HRM had begun take place in organization last decades. Watson analyzed the professional role of personnel managers in organization and Legge analyzed their political location within organization. Tyson and Fell further refined the styles of personnel managers within their tasks. (Holden, 2001)
According to Legge the analysis of HRM has also revolved around hard or soft of HRM will be discussed later.
HARD HRM;
According to hard approach to HRM, people are viewed as an input-output resource in an organization structure. Hard HRM sometimes defined in terms of particular policies that stress a cost-minimisation strategy with an emphasis on leanness in production, the use of labour as resource, and what Legge calls a ‘utilitarian instrumentalism’ in the employment relationship; Hard HRM is defined in term of the tightness of fit between organizational goals and strategic objectives on the one hand HRM policies on the other (Holden, 2001). The hard HRM is aligned with strategic HRM which links with business strategy (Legge). HRM emphasizes business strategic aspects of managing the headcount resource in as “rational” a way as for any other economic factors. According to this approach employees are viewed as just another factor in the input-output equation, to be managed as efficiently and tightly as any other resource .Workers as another key resource that managers use to achieve competitive advance for their company. Hard approach ignores that affects of people’s feeling on their works. It regards people as human capital from which a return can be obtained by investing judicially in their development. As Legge points out it is quite feasible that Hard HRM can contain elements of soft practice, while the criticism that can be made of soft variants is that they can be held to deliver hard outcomes in terms of the tightness of the fit with business strategy that is sought (Holden, 2001).
SOFT HRM;
Soft approach, people are viewed as a resource which contains communication, motivation and leadership. Soft HRM is viewed as ‘developmental humanism’ in which the individual is integrated into a work process that values trust, commitment and communication (Holden 2001). The soft model of HRM emphasizes communication, motivation, leadership and the human relations. It emphasizes communication, motivation and leadership, as described by Storey (1998); it involves treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality (of skills, performance). Soft approach to HRM is focusing to the creation, culture and individual behavior of employees. It is an approach that acknowledges the importance of HRM to the aims of the business, whilst reflecting attempts by management to create a work environment that emphasizes employees development through practices such as training, participation and communication and importance of having innovative, flexible, committed employees who are valued resources (Beer et al.1984 a; 1984 b; Boxall 1996; Guest 1989:1991:1992: Noon, 1992; Walton, 1985).
Barriers and Effectiveness
The perceptions that HRM is ineffective is caused by either by HRM staff who are lack the knowledge, skills, influence, and credibility to develop and implement strategic approach to HRM, or lack of top management understanding and commitment or in HRM nature
There are three main barriers to effective HRM.
1. First barrier is related with top management’s views on HRM issues. Top management attitudes that are shown below have negative affects on HRM effectiveness.
-Top managers do not have long-term perspective. They take short-term perspective on HRM because they believe that the evidence of HRM having a long-term and positive impact on individual or organization level performance is sketchy.
-They do not give high priority to HR issues.
-They are not able to see the real needs of the organizations and they are lack of understanding of HRM. The important thing is their own power and about maintaining control. Top management is more related with short term survival rather than long term benefit. Relative to financial problems, top management prefers the short-term survival instead of long-term benefits. According to all these reasons, top management has low priority and short-term view of HRM issues while being more concerned with issues such as power and control.
-Lack of trust, support and fairness are the general problems which affect the organization and top management is not sophisticated in terms of its understanding of HRM.
-And a lack of top management support for HRM, which may be attributable to the factor that the HRM function lacks representation and therefore power and influence among senior management within an organization. Such a suggestion would appear to be in line with the widely held view that senior management were more concerned with their own power and maintaining control than about the real needs of the organization. Needs that might entail the enhancement of HRM input and influence to the organization’s strategy.
- Second barrier is HR staffs are not able to develop and carry out a long-range integrated HRM program. Because of their lack of knowledge and skills.
-They can not improve the long-term benefits for the organization and the employees because HR staffs have seen their job as routine administration.
-While HRM staffs are generally seen as helpful to managers and employees, they do not possess the knowledge, skills, influence and credibility to develop and implement more effective HRM policies.
-HR staff lack the knowledge and skills to develop and carry out a long range integrated program.
- Third barrier is; the nature of HRM creates the lack of proven knowledge in the field of HRM about which HRM policies and practices are actually the best.
-The real long-term impacts of HRM programs are difficult to quantify.
-It is difficult to manage human resources in a rational way the reason of the complex relations between people.
-There is no crucial knowledge in the field of HRM about which HRM policies and practices are the best.
CONCLUSION
As mentioned earlier main barriers which facing in the implementation of effective HRM are management attitudes deficiencies of HRM staff and state and nature of HRM. HRM effectiveness is achieved by hard and soft approaches and this effectiveness is related to organizational strategy, objectives and employee motivation and development. Many authors have explained their opinion over Human Resource Management regarding its barriers and effect on management process. To be successful in business life companies must seek best solution regarding their human resource planning and definitely must solve all problem if they have.
BIBLIOGRAPY
John Leopold, Harris Lynette, Tony Watson, Strategic Human Resourcing Pearson Limited Education, 1999
Ian Beardwell, Len Holden, Human Resource Management a contemporary approach, UK, Pearson Education Limited, 2001
www.thomsonlearning.co.uk
www.hrmguide.co.uk
John Storey, New Perspective on HRM, London, 1989