HRM As A Beneficial Tool For Both Employers And Employees - Essay Example

Human Resource Management is a beneficial thing for both employers and employees. Critical Analysis One common perception is that HRM practices andpolicies are beneficial for employees. However at organizational level, the organisation’s objectives apart from its strategy are not necessarily assumed to be ‘good’ either for the organisation or for society. The reason behind such perception is the policies and practices of the ‘leading edge’ companies which have always emphasized on HRM decisions. Decisions that concern about identifying the way labour markets work and what the more typical organisations are doing. In this respect not a single organization really concerns for HRM to support the employers or employees. For example in Europe, the focus is all upon HRM understanding of the service sector of employment. (Brewster et al, 2000, p. 8) It is a common perception that HRM aims to defend its’ employees and take decisions within the organisation. In countries like the USA, which has as an affirmed aim of most politicians the objective of ‘freeing business from outside interference’, or among commentators who share that approach, it is understandable that many researchers there develop a vision of HRM which takes as its scope the policies and practices of management. Now, if HRM really considers the benefit for employees theoretically, how could it prove practically that any strategic approach to HRM will involve decisions based on each country’s policies and regulations? Particularly in situations where HRM after integrating with business strategies lead to cost-reduction, thereby eliminating factors like training, communication with employees or employee benefits while making extensive use of outsourcing. But in this case again HRM finds itself in between the policies of employers and employees. The effect of HRM on both employers and employees in the context of different models suggests that if HR fulfils one model, it lacks the capabilities to fulfil the other. According to Gratton et al (1999), today’s management is stucked somewhere in between the soft and hard models of HRM. The ‘soft’ model incorporates that employees work best when they are trusted and trained autonomously (Gratton et al, 1999) whereas the ‘hard’ model suggests that HR control is more concerned with performance management of the organization. In this case HRM is unable to acquire a tight control over individual activities of its employees within the organization (Guest, 1995) Both models conflict each other as both resides on a different set of assumptions; one in human nature while the other manages control strategies. The resultant of the conflict gives rise to ‘strategic integration’, which according to Legge has three dimensions problematic for HRM; 1) To integrate HR policies with business strategy; 2) The consistency of ‘mutuality’ employment policies so that employees remain committed and 3) To maintain the internalization of human resources on the part of leaders and managers in such a manner that it does not effect the motivation factor of employees. (Legge, 1995, p. 45) According to Walker (1994), HR under any circumstances must favour and support business strategy and its’ customer’s needs. (Walker, 1994) That clearly indicates that the foremost priority for HRM is not the benefit for employers or employees, but to be a part of the business strategy. According to this perspective, the other two dimensions which Legge mentions seem obscure. That simply means that HR does not even follows its’ basic rules. Furthermore, Walker (1994) suggests that HRM is not even responsive to the management. In the light of this statement points 2 and 3 are vague. HRM on one hand save the management to be the victim of employees’ blunders during work, while and on the other hand HRM aims to provide safety to employees’ interests. If a rule gives benefit to management then it is the core responsibility of the HR department to check and ensure that the same rule must not give any harm to the employees or employers. But as every country labour law differs therefore, HR does not usually consider and a void remains in maintaining balance between the two. One of the most important areas of global context for HR is the area of employment law. Even though there is only limited employment regulation developed by international organizations, that is, employment law developed by bodies with global reach and/or jurisdiction, and what international development there has been involves quite limited ability of enforcement. Every firm that operates in the global economy must contend with the varying employment laws in every country in which they operate, as well as abiding by whatever international standards exist. (Briscoe & Schuler, 2004, p. 137) Depending on the country’s rule or constitution, if the constitution says that the private company is aloof from the labour laws and can work independently or the company has to abide by the labour laws then the company would not be bound to follow those rules if they are becoming hurdle in the HRM policies. Every country’s employment laws vary significantly from every other country’s employment laws, thereby creating new complexities for HRM. Another critical notion is that of ‘union’. The new century HRM is of course a good thing to consider as long as there is high technology innovation and change, but! it is also true that HRM promotes an environment which is devoid of trade union or does not represent any kind of workforce presence. So, as long as the ‘non-trade union’ organizations are there, HRM in every organizational context is welcomed. (Beardwell, 1996, p. 11) However, the presumed ‘benefits’ of HRM for employers and employees in all non-union firms differ with respect to theoretical and practical usage. One benefit is the non-unionization because HRM uses one or more strategies to avoid the incursion of trade union influence. In others it can occur more by accident than design, simply because trade union organisation has never been an issue in HRM. Management considers that it is alone enough to manage its workforce; therefore it has never felt the need for introducing any kind of workforce collaboration. One attempt to map out the ‘beneficial’ diversity of non-union types is provided by Guest and Hoque (1994), who suggest there are good, bad, ugly and lucky forms of non-unionism. This of course goes in favour of HRM who by no means need the concept of ‘union’ and believes that HR management alone is good enough to manage employee relationships along with various set of rules and policies. An example is that of companies like International Business Machines (IBM) and Marks and Spencer (M&S) who believes that a good ‘non-union’ employer is derived from their company’s images. When they provides an attractive employment package and makes use of sophisticated HRM practices, for example, devolved managerial systems, above average remuneration, training and development and recruitment strategies, there is no need left for the workforce to leave the organization. The bad and ugly non-union firms are often dependent upon larger organisations for their work and operate in highly competitive markets. Organizations with HRM no doubt provide a sophisticated working environment suitable for both employers and employees but how could it guarantee its management for good wages and conditions. (Dundon & Rollinson, 2004, p. 2) Non-union firms often exploit their employees with low wages and poor conditions, but HRM with a defensive mode towards organizations exploit knowledge management in their people. Therefore the difference is that of ‘bold’ and ‘sophistication’. Non-union firms adopt bold techniques while organizations with HRM stick to sophisticated measures of exploitation. Apart from the critical in depth review of all ‘good things’ that have ever happened to the employers and employees regarding HRM, Colbert (2004) while emphasizing upon the HR principles states that HR principles alone when practiced coherently, provides the opportunity for the organization to sustain by utilizing a resource-based advantage in any industry. (Colbert, 2004) It is due to these HR principles when linked with organization’s triple line sustainability, provides utmost opportunities for the organization to build up its capabilities. (Kurucz & Colbert, 2007) That clearly indicates that every thing is beneficial for the organization, but not for the employees or employers. In today’s competitive world, managing employees is one thing and retaining them another. To say that HRM has so far failed in retaining qualified employees or HRM is seeking ways and manners to save organizations from loosing competent workforce, both are one and the same thing. Therefore, HR strategy now tends to increasingly focus on how firms configure knowledge-based resources to create value. They do not consider evaluating how such resources would be useful for their employees or employers. They consider such resources to be beneficial for the firms that compete less on stable products and markets, and more on competencies, dynamic capabilities, new ideas, and innovation. After all, the management is interested in making the most of the situation and knowledge, embedded in their people No doubt such knowledge helps firms creating competitive advantage through properly manipulating and transforming various organizational resources required to perform a task (Burke & Cooper, 2004, p. 58) but at the same time they let the employee concerning more about his career in the firm, due to which the rate of ‘switching’ and ‘retaining’ affects. Another loophole that goes against HR is that being on the “front line”, HR develops the knowledge base in organizations, and therefore it never appears in a leadership role when it comes to create competitive advantage (Snell et al., 2002). This confusion is due to two different perspectives regarding HRM; one that believes HRM is accountable for its employee deeds while the other thinks HR possess no such responsibility. Whatever be the perception, HR being a ‘sandwich’ always remains unable to practise leadership or managerial skills. Employment relationships differ according to culture and company specific values and region. It is said that efficient management approaches are those that apply universally; however differences that might arise from differing beliefs and value orientations of national context are superseded by the logic of technology. According to Brewster et al (2000) “Arguing about different culture, beliefs and communication styles only antecedents that are specific to the organisation explain the existence of HR policies, while country-specific influences can be neglected”. (Brewster et al, 2000, p. 248) A non-union firm maintains employment relationships, thereby practicing leadership skills but HR even knowing the gaps in employee-employer relationships are unable to make both the ends meet. Strategic orientation of HRM analyses the complexity of the interaction between endogenous (e.g. country-specific factors) and exogenous (e.g. the organisational structure and strategy) factors but that interaction does not cover the distance created by organization’s internal conflicts. Therefore the question of whether company-specific variables of HR exercise a unified influence on the European companies surveyed, or whether general country-specific conditions lead to a divergence in the formulation of HR policies, cannot be given a universal answer until the consideration and practise of the HR policies that prioritizes employees, not organizations. (Briscoe & Schuler, 2004, p. 139) HRM rules and policies are generic and implemented by any international company world wide to make rules and regulations for the employees. Now the loop holes comes when the employees by using their countries Labour law, which might be giving relaxation and short cuts compared to the companies HRM rules. So the company has to make amendments in the HRM policies by keeping in mind the targeted country’s Labour Law or else the employee would be benefited for any loopholes by considering the labour laws of the country. References Beardwell Ian, (1996) Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis: Oxford University Press: Oxford. Brewster Chris, Mayrhofer & Morley Michael, (2000) New Challenges for European Human Resource Management: Macmillan: Basingstoke, England. Briscoe R. Dennis & Schuler S. Randall, (2004) International Human Resource Management: Policies & Practices for the Global Enterprise: Routledge: New York. Burke J. Ronald & Cooper L. Carry, (2004) Reinventing Human Resources Management: Challenges and New Directions: Routledge: New York. Colbert BA (2004). “The Complex Resource-Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice in Strategic Human Resource Management”, Academy of Management Review 29(3): 341-358. Gratton Lynda, Hailey Hope Veronica, Stiles Philip & Truss Catherine, (1999) Strategic Human Resource Management: Corporate Rhetoric and Human Reality: Oxford University Press: Oxford. Guest, D. E., (1995). “Human Resource Management, Trade Unions and Industrial Relations” In: J. Storey (ed.), Human Resource Management. A Critical Text. London: Routledge. Kurucz C. Elizabeth & Colbert A. Barry, (2007) “Three Conceptions of Triple Bottom Line Business Sustainability and the Role for HRM” In: Human Resource Planning. Volume: 30. Issue: 1. p: 21+. Human Resource Planning Society; Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London: Macmillan Snell, S. A., Shadur, M., and Wright, P. (2002) “Human resources strategy: The era of our ways” In: M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, and J. S. Harrison (eds), Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Walker W. James, (1994) “Integrating the Human Resource Function with the Business” In: Human Resource Planning. Volume: 17. Issue: 2 p: 59+. Human Resource Planning Society. Read More