Models of HRM

Models of HRM

'Storey (1989) has distinguished between hard and soft
forms of HRM, typified by the Michigan and Harvard
models respectively.
'Hard' HRM focuses on the resource side of human
resources. It emphasizes costs in the form of
'headcounts' and places control firmly in the hands of
management. Their role is to manage numbers
effectively, keeping the workforce closely matched
with requirements in terms of both bodies and
behavior.
Contd..
'Soft' HRM, on the other hand, stresses the
'human' aspects of HRM. Its concerns are with
communication and motivation. People are
led rather than managed. They are involved in
determining and realizing strategic objectives.

Contd..
The modern view of human resource
management first gained prominence in 1981
with its introduction on the prestigious MBA
course at Harvard Business School.
Simultaneously, other interpretations were
being developed in Michigan and New York.
Contd..
Sparrow and Hiltrop (1994) picked out four main
approaches from this period:
The Michigan and New York Schools: strategic
matching theories
The Harvard school: a multiple stakeholders theory
The Warwick School: a political and change process
theory
The Schuler School: a behavioural transformation
theory

Contd..
As some scholars argue, many companies
employ both soft and hard models either at
different times or for different groups of
employees.
For instance, managers, core employees and
skilled workers may be treated according to
the soft model, and casual or unskilled workers
according to the hard model.
Contd..
Budhwar and Debrah for instance identify five
main models and analyze them. These are
i. The Matching model
ii. The Harvard model
iii. The contextual model
iv. The 5-P model
v. The European model
Contd..
Matching model: This model highlights the
resource aspect of HRM and emphasizes the
efficient utilization of human resources to meet
organizational objectives. It also emphasizes a
right fit between organizational strategy,
organizational structure, and HRM systems.
Hard HRM
A harder approach - people as human resources

A different view of HRM is associated with the
Michigan Business School (Fombrun, Tichy and
Devanna, 1984).
There are many similarities with the Harvard 'map' but
the Michigan model has a harder, less humanistic
edge, holding that employees are resources in the
same way as any other business resource. People
have to be managed in a similar manner to equipment
and raw materials. They must be obtained as cheaply
as possible, used sparingly, and developed and
exploited as much as possible.
Contd..
The Michigan model is also known as the 'matching
model' or 'best-fit' approach to human resource
management. In essence, it requires that human
resource strategies have a tight fit to the overall
strategies of the business. As such, it limits the role
of HR to a reactive, organizational function and
under-emphasizes the importance of societal and
other external factors.
For example, it is difficult to see how the current
concern for work life balance could be integrated into
this model.
Contd..
Fombrun et al identified four common HR
processes performed in every organization:
Selection: matching people to jobs
Appraisal of performance
Rewards: emphasizing the real importance of
pay and other forms of compensation in
achieving results
Development of skilled individuals

Contd..
The matching model has attracted criticism. At a
conceptual level, it is seen to depend on a rational,
mechanical form of organizational decision-making.
In reality, strategies are often determined and
operationalized on a more intuitive (sensitive,
spontaneous) , political( biased, supportive) and
subjective ( one sided, personal, individual) level.
Certainly, the decision-making is more complex than
the model allows. It is also both prescriptive and
normative, implying that the fit to business strategy
should determine HR strategy.
Harvard model
This model stresses the human, soft aspect of
HRM and is more concerned about with the
employer-employee relationship. It highlights
the following
Situational factors
Stakeholder interests
HRM policy choices
HR outcomes
Long-term consequences
Contd..
Contd..
Classifies inputs and outcomes at both
organizational and societal level.
Absence of a coherent theoretical basis for
measuring the relationship between HR inputs,
outcomes and performance.

Contextual model
This model is based on the premise that
organizations may follow a number of
different pathways in order to achieve the
same results. This is so mainly because of the
existence of a number of linkages between
external environmental context (socio-
economic, technological, political-legal and
competitive) contd.
Contd..
And internal organizational context (culture,.
Structure, leadership, task technology and
business output). These linkages contribute
directly to forming the content of an
organizations HRM.
5-P model
This model (Schuler, 1992) consists five human
resource activities
Philosophies
Policies
Programs
Practices and
Processes
Contd..
This model shows the inter-relatedness of these
activities and explains their significance in
achieving the organizations needs.
European model
This model is based on the argument that
European organizations are constrained at both
international (European union) and national
level by national culture and legislation. They
are also constrained at the organizational level
by patterns of ownership and at the HRM level
by trade union involvement and consultative
arrangements. These constraints need to be
accommodated while forming a model of
HRM

Internationalization of HRM
The management of human resources of a company
does not take place in vacuum and various factors
inside and outside the company influence its shape
and content.
One of the major external factors is the socio-cultural
environment within which the company operates.
For a multinational company with business interest and
activities in diffident parts of the world, this
environment is all the more complex because of the
sheer variety of it.
National culture
What is national culture and how does it affect
employee management in general and HRM in
particular?

Culture is a unclear concept as to its precise
meaning and definition.
Culture has at at least two broad meanings,
depending upon the context in which it is
discussed.
Contd..
In anthropological and sociological terms culture
refers to values and attitudes that people
belonging to a given society hold.
Outside the academic world and in day-to-day
life, culture is usually identified with the arts
and literature, for example poetry, theatre,
music, opera, painting and so on.
Contd..
Within its broader scope, management scholars
have offered their own definition of national
culture.
Hofstede, for instance, defined it as the
collective programming of the mind based on a
broad tendency to prefer certain state of affairs
over others.
Contd..
Tayeb defined culture as historically evolved
values, attitudes and meanings which are
learned and shared by the members of a given
community, and which influence their material
and non-material way of life. From the
definitions above it is clear that culture is
different between nations.

Contd..
A nations culture or national character is shaped by
historical geographical and philosophical factors. As
each country has a different history, geography and
philosophy so they have different cultures.
In management studies and any other aspects of human
relations the recognition of cultural differences
between different people is essential and helps to
understand the motives and behavior of those with
whom we interact.
Contd..


Culture is more often a source of conflict than
of synergy. Cultural differences are a
nuisance at best and often a disaster.
.
Why culture is important in
international business
Doing business on a global basis requires a good
understanding of different cultures. What
works in your country might not work well in
another, and could even be interpreted as an
insult! And in your role as an international
human resources professional, its important to
raise the awareness of cultural issues within
your organization to ensure effectiveness