Human Resource Management

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

In the late 1980’s a group of academics came together to write the first British book on Human Resource Management. Many people were uncertain about this new approach to managing labour and many criticised HRM claiming that it was just another fad to try to take-over personnel management and industrial relations. Throughout the 1990’s academics such as Beardwell and Holden, Legge, Beaumont and many other authors have shown that HRM is not just a passing phase but a new revolutionary idea which can enable us to explain the way in which individuals think in the workplace. From this knowledge the above authors have argued that we are able to use these skills in order to maximise the potential of labour and therefore increase employee morale, and motivation. Since 1989 HRM has spread not only within organisations but also within universities and colleges and is now a commonly recognised qualification. Since HRM is now so commonly recognised throughout the world isn’t it about time that we see exactly whether it’s effectiveness is real or just a myth.

In this essay I will critically evaluate the following statement from

K Legge.

“Without doubt the language of HRM – and it’s close cousin, the language of excellence – is that of managerial triumphalism”

In order to critically evaluate this statement we must firstly identify the key elements of the language of excellence. Once I have done this then we can then go onto describe exactly what HRM is and then lastly discuss the meaning of managerial triumphalism.

In Peters and Waterman’s book “In search of excellence” they define what they call the “7 key elements of the language of excellence within management”.

The first element they describe is the belief of being the best. They argue that managers and employees must feel that no one else is able to be as good as them. This type of approach can be very helpful within teambuilding as it helps to build a stronger and more motivated set of individuals.

The second belief is to be able to finish a job properly. In order to achieve management excellence one must be excellent at implementing action in order to carry out tasks.

The third element of excellence is to the job well. There is no point in being excellent at getting the job started if you can’t carry the job out efficiently, effectively and perhaps most importantly to the end.

The fourth belief is to make sure that individuals feel important in their place of work. Managers must make sure that this is part of their daily routines. To make the employee feel important is to make him/her committed and devoted. Even labourers such as factory workers can be shown that the work that they do is very valuable to the company.

The fifth element of excellence is a shared goal, which all members of the company should be looking to achieve. This goal should be the belief in the company to provide a superior quality and service to customers.

The sixth belief is that most individuals within the organisation should have the opportunity to think for themselves and be innovators within the department they are based. If their innovations and ideas fail then the department should be willing to support this failure and look at the failure in terms of a learning experience similar to a management feedback ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The last belief of the language of excellence is that of informality. Peters and Waterman suggest that informal communication channels, informal structure etc. help to enhance communication within organisations.

From these 7 key elements it is now possible for us to compare and contrast Legge’s statement with the language of HRM. But first we must establish the true meaning of Human Resource Management.

According to J Storey (1995) human resource management is;

“a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques”

There is no agreed definition of HRM. The fundamental problem is that many academics believe it to be effective whilst others criticise it which gives in some cases quite the opposite of definitions. For example Hart (1993) describes HRM as “Amoral, antisocial, unprofessional, reactive, uneconomical, and ecologically destructive”.

It is this dilemma where the root of the problem of defining HRM lies.

Beardwell and Holden believe that the debate over defining HRM lies within four different perspectives of looking at it.

The first perspective they examine suggests that people believe that HRM is just a re-labelling of Personnel Management. This perspective of HRM is thought to include exactly the same characteristics as PM but just with a new name.

The second perspective suggests that HRM is a mixture of personnel management and industrial relations which is set on managerial aims and objectives.

The third perspective is focused around a more democratic system. The employee is the most important asset of the company, and that there should be an excellent employee – employer relationship.

The fourth perspective is looked upon as a tool for helping with strategic development. The individual plays a determining and contributory role.

Karen Legge identifies 2 different perspectives of looking at HRM. She writes about the Hard HRM approach and the Soft HRM approach.

The Hard approach is more of an autocratic system where employees are looked upon more so as a number or tool. This type of approach is common in factories where employees are often looked upon as part of a machine or part of a production line. The hard approach could also relate to Douglas McGregors theory X where employees can not be trusted and are supervised continuously.

The soft approach to HRM would be more similar to McGregors theory Y where employees are seen as a being “mature, self-controlled, and needed little in the way of rigid interpersonal or organisational controls”. (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1997) Legge describes the soft approach as a more democratic approach of looking at HRM. In other words the employee is looked upon as being the most important resource of the company and that their skills should be nurtured to their full potential.

In Storey’s book “Human Resource Management A Critical Text” (1995) he identifies 3 aspects of where he believes the Human Resource Management debate lies.

The first aspect Storey writes about is that of meaning. What exactly is HRM ?

Noon (1992) asks whether or not HRM is a ‘map, a model or a theory’ whilst Keenoy (1990) refers to its ambiguity. Karen Legge (1989) exposes it’s contradictions – as do Blyton and Turnbull (1992).

Keenoy and Anthony (1992), explain that the whole point of HRM is that it is designed to inspire. They also explain that to define it would be to destroy it.

Storey (1995) drew a model of what he thought to be the key elements of HRM.

Beliefs and assumptions

It is the individual which helps the company have a competitive edge
The aim should not be to make employees comply with rules and regulations but to help them become committed to their work
Employees should be carefully chosen and then developed

Strategic Qualities

Because of these beliefs and assumptions HR decisions are strategically important.
Senior management should be more involved with subordinates
HR policies should be integrated into the business strategy

Critical Role of Managers

Management should be more involved within HR activities. HRM is too important to be left to just personnel specialists.
Line managers need to be even more closely involved and should help to deliver and drive HR policies
At present HR activities are far too involved with the managing of managers.

Key Levers

Managing culture is more important that managing procedures and systems
Heavy involvement in employee selection, communication, training, rewards and development
Re-organisation to allow employees more responsibility and empowerment

From this model we can see that the individual really is the important part of the development. Without the correct employees the system will not work to it’s full potential.

If every company worked by this model continuously it is argued that they would develop a very successful HR team.

But in reality does this really happen? In 1992 an investigation was carried out in Britain by John Storey, which involved 15 different companies. The investigation was carried out to establish whether or not the above model was actually used within successful organisations. From the results of the investigation it was found that “the way in which managers were seeking to manage labour was undergoing extensive and significant change” (Storey 1992).

Storey’s results also showed that the companies with the highest scores in the investigation were not necessarily the most profitable. In fact it was quite the opposite. Companies which showed to have low HR development actually in some cases had higher financial credibility. This result held a very heavy criticism towards HRM and helped to back up ideas from academics such as Hart.

HRM is argued to be an idea which is designed to help companies achieve objectives and goals in order to establish more market share and ultimately increased profit. From these results we can see that HRM is not living up to what it claims to be able to do.

Perhaps one of the most important findings that Storey made in the investigation was that companies tended to ‘pick-and-mix’ ideas from Human Resource Management, Industrial Relations, and Personnel Management. Storey suggests that the reason behind the HRM phenomenon is that we have been looking for all of the HRM characteristics within a company rather than identifying individual ones.

This brings us back to Legge’s statement of managerial triumphalism. Legge explains that the language of HRM is very similar to the language of excellence. If the language of HRM is that of excellence why is it that the companies examined in Storey’s investigation that had high marks in the HRM characteristics actually have less financial credibility in comparison to the companies that had a ‘pick-and-mix’ approach. In other words the language of excellence and the language of HRM could be quite different and that the language of excellence is actually a mixture of HRM, IR and PM.

In Human Resource Management a Critical Text (Storey 1995), Storey examines the values of HRM to attempt to put together the pieces in order to establish whether or not an HRM approach for organisations is positive or negative.

“Human resource management must be the route by which companies and employing organisations can come to terms with the new situation. It provides the means by which the fullest potential of employees can be developed and used for the benefit of both themselves and their employers. Good HR practice will ensure that every employee knows that they matter as an individual and a human being while the employer will have the confidence that the workforce will perform to the levels needed and beyond for success in today’s competitive world”.

(Farrance, 1992)

Farrance in obviously portraying a very positive approach to HRM with this quote. He believes that HRM is the root of all success and that to adopt HRM completely within a company would be to gain success and confidence within employees and employers.

Farrance and Hart obviously have very differing opinions as Hart sees HRM as having “ousted the decent, welfare and humanistic values of personnel management” (Storey 1995)

Another well-known critique of HRM is Derek Torrington. His view of HRM is not quite as blunt and negative as Hart’s but instead attempts to give a general overview of the good and bad points within the HRM culture.

However we see HRM, Personnel, or Industrial Relations we must establish which form of labour management is best for the organisation. If we have to choose elements from 1 theory to place in another, then so be it. As long as our aim and goal is that of managerial triumphalism. But what is managerial triumphalism?

To define managerial triumphalism is difficult. There is no general definition of the meaning. Perhaps managerial triumphalism is just a phrase that Legge decided to create to replace phrases such as ‘self actualisation’ from Maslow. After evaluating Karen Legge’s article I could see no general meaning as to what she believed it to be. But this is the conclusion I came to.

Managerial triumphalism is the feeling of exultation and happiness derived from a victory of major achievement in the management and control of individuals.

Therefore Managerial Triumphalism is essentially trying to gain control over the workforce to gain a competitive edge against competitors.

I conclude by evaluating that there are many differing opinions on both what HRM is and whether it is right or wrong. Whatever the answer is we will most likely never agree and it is this reason why HRM is still and will probably always be the most debatable issue within Business.

References