The Japanese were the talk of academics, can this HRM work relationship be implemented into British style management? or could Japanese HRM policies be part of their strict culture? Bacon, (1999, p. 2) states ‘employee’s first-hand experience of HRM during the past two decades suggests they have a cynical view of management-employee relations practice’. HRM is based around high performance and high commitment of employees, however, studies have revealed that HRM fails to live up to the ‘hype’ (Bacon, 1999). Even management reportedly believed HRM to have a negative effect on employee perceptions of HRM within the workplace (Bacon, 1999). Iles (1990) believes employee commitment to the organisation is expressed by employee’s acceptance of change. Conversely, it is widely known that people in a work environment have an extreme dislike for change.
There are ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ versions of HRM, ‘hard’ placing little emphasis on employees concerns but on business performance. In contrast ‘soft’ also concerned with business performance but with a greater focus on workers needs (Storey, 1987). Although the ‘hard’ version of HRM is predominately used in America where employees are a resource which can be exploited by management, Legge (1995, p. 2) states that ‘most HRM is ‘hard’. It is simply a reassertion of management control under a convenient new label’. HRM strives to receive commitment from employees, nevertheless, some critics of HRM see this as another major form of control, likened to the ‘Fordism’ method of management.
In addition to control of employees by HRM, the privatisation of organisations has lead to non-recognition of trade unions. Organisations which do recognise trade unions, implement the single union ‘no-strike’ clause, as displayed by the Japanese. Although this method is advantageous for management, for example, any conflicts which occur can be dealt with promptly by one union and is less costly than several unions, it is a disadvantage for employees as further control is enforced upon them. Lady Thatcher’s period in office from 1979 to 1980 set a framework for this control and the recovery of the economy. Inflation in Britain had accelerated and strikes were widespread, therefore, the Conservative government brought in policies that would make the British industry more competitive. Unlike the previous labour government of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, full control was given back to management and restrictions on the power of trade unions were introduced. In the Conservative manifesto (1979) Mrs Thatcher stated
‘We cannot go on year after year tearing ourselves apart in increasingly bitter and calamitous industrial disputes. In bringing about economic recovery, we should all be on the same side….Strikes are too often a weapon of first rather than a last resort’
Consequently, by 1985 trade union membership had dropped by over two and a half million (Sisson, 1994). In 1982 the Employment Act passed and has since been amended three times, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Also affecting employment was the Trade Union Act of 1984, the Wages Act, 1986 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act, 1993 (Bexhill Collage, 2002). The acts have formed a multifaceted legal structure with the purpose of restricting trade union activities and gave management almost complete control over employees. Management having total control over employees and the coming of HRM into organisations brought many criticisms. Monks (1998, p. 2) states ‘In the wrong hands HRM becomes both a sharp weapon to prise workers apart from their union and a blunt instrument to bully workers’.
One major area of change is the recruitment and selection processes. The recruitment process involves the initial interest, for instance, the filling out of the application form and then the selection is the choice of the appropriate person. The recruitment and selection process has become long and drawn out, sometimes taking months to find ‘the right person’. Companies require candidates with not only have an education and formal qualifications, but also relevant experience and the skills to do the job. Smith et al, (1993 p. 6), notes ‘a company could provide training for the job… but training schemes cost far more than appropriate selection methods’. Smith also states that ‘selecting the right person for the job can be literally a matter of life and death’. There are many methods of testing if the person is ‘right for the job’ ranging from the most popular form of an interview to personality tests and cognitive tests. This has made it increasingly hard for young people with no working experience and even graduates to be selected for jobs. The fact that a greater number of people are pursuing higher education means employers require more from potential employees and in some cases, having a degree is not enough. Today employees have to sell themselves to employers and compete for jobs.
Employers require employees who will be committed, loyal and flexible. This comes at a time when employees are feeling progressively more insecure within employment. Full-time jobs have been split into two part-time positions and contracts are offered only temporarily. These positions are usually taken by women with children, who have previous experience in the job. It is cost effective for companies, as they can pay lower salaries and the women do not need training, thus the undervaluing of women’s labour. Employers expect workers to have not only experience of the job but have excellent attitudes towards the job and be flexible. Guest, (1991 p. 144), defines flexibility from a HRM version as the ‘functional flexibility and the existence of an adaptable organisation structure with the capacity to manage innovation’. Many companies have adopted the Japanese method of flexibility (Haralambos, 1990), the structure of an organisation is much flatter than before, workers are required to have much broader skills as their work is varied and the use of computers and new technology has resulted in changes to the patterns of work (Haralambos, 1990), entirely to gain a competitive advantage over rival companies. Most HRM literature states that employees feel increasingly insecure in their jobs, and according to Newell, (2002), flexibility is the main culprit as with other changes made in the workplace. As a result, Foley et al, (1999, p. 4) states
‘Employees may become less attached to their organization because they are more critical of it. Exacerbating employees psychological detachment may be the new, 1990s psychological contract which, is characterised by flexibility, uncertainty, individuality, risk, constant change and self-reliance’.
If HRM is concerned for the welfare of workers, why would these changes be implemented with the understanding that employees would feel this way? Does this prove the point of Guest, (1999), were he stated all HRM is hard and it places little emphasis on employees concerns but on business performance?
In addition to the above changes, concepts like the word teamwork is regularly used within organisations and a question regularly asked in a job interview is “can you work as part of a team?” Empowerment of employees is used instead of delegation, whereas employees are required to complete tasks independently, without the devolution of duties from boss to subordinate. This may give the employee a sense of control or the feeling that they are contributing to the organisation (Graham et al, 1998), but may also cause resentment towards the employer due to the fact that they are taking on elements of the management role. Performance related pay or bonus schemes are used to enhance the performance of the individual. These types of pay incentives cannot complement the concept of teamwork, for instance, if an employee is asked to work as a team, but paid regarding the quantity of work they put in, it is undoubtedly going to cause conflict between the team. In addition too the above, there is appraisal, whereby a judgement is made of the employee’s performance. ‘Many appraisal encounters between a boss and subordinate result in frustrating and problematic for appraisers and appraisees’ (Brunel collage, 2002). So why cause conflict between employee, management and co-workers? Graham et al, (1998) states, its sole object is to discriminate between employees and to motivate them into doing better. But later claims in another chapter p. 72 ‘an employee’s own assessment of whether he or she is being fairly treated is a major factor influencing motivation…. and feel aggravated if they believe they are relatively under rewarded’ These are small things which have come into place within the workplace, nevertheless, they all affect employees and the management of employees within the workplace. HRM literature seems to be very contradictory. There does not appear to be standard principles for HRM, there are different concepts and also different meanings of the concepts. If HRM does not have a stable framework of strategies, how can employees work with management to achieve the strategies implemented by HRM?
The concepts of HRM closely match the Total Quality Management (TQM) the people management model which focuses on employee involvement, teamwork, empowerment, skill variety, training and communication. TQM has been used since the 1980s and according to Yong et al (2001) it is the most commonly used change management tool which is well accepted by managers as it provides a guide to make choosing sometimes unnecessary. TQM as people management does not require the production or service process to change, but employee’s mindset in producing quality work. It encourages employees to ‘get it right first time’ (Yong et al, 2001) and calls for all employees to be involved with decision-making. It is a change instrument and it also allows management to monitor employee’s rate of work. Nevertheless, as stated by Yong et al, it helps management deal with change not employees.
The fascination with the uniqueness and extraordinary Japanese management systems is over according to Mroczkowski, (1998). The attraction has now shifted to debates regarding the demise of HRM Japanese-style. Some theorists, for example Doi, (1986) believed the strict customs of Japanese would be less valued by the new young generation of Japanese unlike the older generation who are uncomplaining towards management. It is predicted that the transaction of HRM policies from Japan to Britain will be phased out by 2010 as Japanese management is converging with British practices (Mroczkowski, 1998). If this is what will happen or what is already happening, will the whole implementation process of integrating HRM into the workplace not just be a farce? Already the few studies which have taken place revealed that employees and management have a cynical view of HRM. HRM is continually criticised by academics for just being a new name for PM and that HRM only pretends to be concerned with workers but in practice it is not (Guest, 1999), it is more concerned with business performance.
With the changes in employment law and government policies regarding trade union activities, major changes were foreseeable. However, the rise in competitive firms and major technological advances were not, subsequently, organisations required flexible and experienced workers to enhance the performance and quality of the business. There are criticisms for each of the elements of HRM, but are the concepts not just a way of moving forward with industry. Change is never wanted by employees and HRM policies have changed the nature of how people are managed, therefore, without a doubt employees will be critical of its existence. Work is not the same as it was twenty years ago, as the jobs have changed, temporary contracts and part-time work have made workers increasingly insecure. The fact that a workers pace and standard of work can be monitored by management impinges on workers Gone are the days of hundreds of people working in mines and in mills, people still work long hours but they are in a controlled environment where policies and procedures have to be followed. Nothing stays the same, as times goes by, organisations progress and policies develop through research of other successful organisations. The development of Japanese management has lead to the examination of their exceptional work methods and has thus lead to the common features of Japanese style HRM being in place in British organisations today.
