Human Resource Management in Britain - Assignment Example

International HR management take a country of your choice and consider how the various human resource management activities have been shaped by the internal and external contexts. The case of Britain. 1. Introduction When having to examine and evaluate the status and the performance of an organizational concept, it is necessary to understand the framework in which this concept has been created and operate. At the next level, it is necessary to identify the key factors that are expected to influence the specific concept – either in the short or the long term. Such approach has been used in this paper for identifying and interpreting the characteristics of HRM in Britain. Particular emphasis has been given on the role of the internal and the external contexts in the current form of HRM in the specific country. Through the literature, which has been published in the specific field, it is revealed that the HRM in Britain responds to many different needs. Because of this fact, efforts are made by the local authorities to support the development of HRM across the country, a target that is not always achieved. The unions, which had traditionally a significant power in Britain, have found to have a controversial role in the promotion of the rules of HRM. Under certain terms, the claims of the unions are not always supportive for the HRM, but such problem could be normally expected since the HRM does not refer solely to the employee but to the employer also, incorporating the views and the interests of both these parties. In the above context, this paper aims to present the current forms of HRM in Britain, as being influenced by a series of internal and external contexts. At this point, it was considered as necessary to refer to the nature and the characteristics of these contexts, especially regarding their involvement in the development of HRM across Britain. 2. Human Resource Management in Britain 2.1. HR in Britain – overview The form and the development of HRM in Britain have been traditionally related to the local social and cultural trends – a phenomenon common in other countries worldwide. In accordance with Storey (2007, p.4) one of the most critical points for the development of HRM has been its transformation in 1980s. It was then that the personnel management, as the labour management was then organized changed; a new, advanced form of personnel management, the HR management appeared. Like the personnel management in the previous decades, the HR management in Britain had to face a series of significant problems. Regarding this issue, the following comments should be made: HRM, as appeared in Britain in 1980s, also developed in USA and in other countries worldwide. However, it was in Britain where the theoretical context of HRM, as an advanced form of personnel management, was developed. Furthermore, HRM in Britain was not related just to the workplace or the labour laws. It was also related to the local political ideologies, a fact emphasized in the study of Storey (2007). In the above study, emphasis is given on the following fact: HRM in Britain has been related simultaneously with economics and politics, at such point that it could be characterized as a political and economic framework, and not just an organizational framework, as it could be initially thought (Storey 2007, p.4). The dependency of HRM from the political and economic conditions in Britain is clearly explained in the study of Hendry (1995). The above researcher refer to the political and economic environment of 1980s – when HRM appeared – in order to show the close relationship between the external environment and the HRM, a phenomenon which made quite clear in Britain. It is explained that during the 1980s the British economy had to face strong pressures because of the turbulences in the global market; inflation in the British market was negatively influenced. As a result, wage inflation was also affected, a problem which faced by increasing the level of wages across the country. Indeed, at that period, the increase of wages in Britain was above the average level, a fact that positively affected the British economy – in terms of the level of consumption. However, at that period the following problem appeared: many of the traditional industries of UK, including the coal and the steel industry have to be limited, even eliminated. Through the collapse of industries in Britain, the following needs emerged: a) firms had to identify new policies for communicating and negotiating with employees, aiming to keep their performance at high levels, b) the number of redundancies was significantly increased leading millions of employees to unemployment, c) the investment on technology was increased, aiming to reduce operational costs, referring especially to the wages of employees, d) firms tried to identify markets and methods that could help them to increase their profits (Hendry 1995, p.25). All the above practices led firms in Britain to the recovery, being characterized by the significant increase of productivity – reference is made particular to the manufacturing industry (Hendry 1995, p.26). It was in this context that HRM was introduced in Britain, replacing, at a significant level, the personnel management; the latter had to be replaced indicating the transition to more effective and reliable labour management practices. Bratton et al. (2001) set the following issue: HRM appeared in Britain with no prior theoretical or empirical evidence. The potential effectiveness of this, new, concept could be easily doubted. In fact, the doubts regarding the potential of HRM to resolve inter-organizational problems in Britain would be justified taking into consideration the complexity and the volume of these problems – as highlighted in the relevant literature. Thus, it was necessary for this concept to be appropriately supported, both in terms of theory and in terms of practical methods, i.e. strategies that could help towards the applicability of the specific concept within a real organization. This need was made clear to theorists and academic in Britain. Courses were introduced in higher educational institutes. At the same time a series of programs were developed aiming to help the employees to understand the context of HRM, as an organizational framework (Bratton et al 2001, p.4). 2.2 How the internal and the external contexts have shaped HRM activities in Britain As noted above, since its appearance, the HRM in Britain had to face a series of challenges and delays. It seems that despite the support provided to HRM from theorists and academics, the above concept has not been welcomed, at least not fully, by organizations across the country. Many different reasons can be identified for the specific outcome. As explained earlier, the HR management in Britain has been a rather recent concept. Up to 1980s, when the HR management appeared in Britain (also in USA and certain other countries), organizations in Britain had to operate in accordance with the rules of the personnel management. The above concept did not have high power within organizations, at least not at the same level with HRM; unions had to intervene and ask for the protection of the rights of employees. In other words, the personnel management, which was used instead of HRM in organizations across Britain, had led to the development of the following trend: a series of rights were recognized to the employees but it was not clear at what level employees could fight for these rights nor whether the employer was responsible for respecting these rules. Moreover, the consequences for the employer in case of violation of the rules of personnel management by his side were quite limited, giving no particular value to the personnel management as a concept protecting the interests and the rights of employees. HR management introduced a different practice. Clear rules were set regarding the rights of the employees. The consequences also for the violation of the rights of employees were clearly described activating the existing legal rules, which had become almost obsolete. Before the entrance of HRM, the ability of employees to seek for legal measures in order to protect their rights was not clear. Instead, the use of strikes and other common forms of collective reaction against the violation, or the threats for violation, of the rights of employees was preferred. The above practice had given to unions in Britain significant power but it had also led to another problem: employees did not try to resolve their problem in the workplace directly with the employer. Instead they preferred to ask for the protection of their rights through their union, as discussed above. In this context, gradually, the level of communication within organizations in Britain has been deteriorated. The effects of this problem on the performance of organizations of various industries have been clear. Through the HRM, a new practice in the resolution of inter-organizational conflicts has been introduced. Employees have been given the right to proceed to negotiations with their employer and ask for the protection of their rights. In cases of conflicts that are not resolved through negotiations, the use of legal rules has been promoted. In this way, a more proactive way of confronting disputes in the workplace has been developed in Britain because of HRM. At the same time, the communication between the employer and the employees has been improved (Goss 1993, p.177). Negotiations have been highly valued as a tool for resolving conflicts between employees and employers. At the same time, a series of effective practices has been introduced for limiting the chances for such conflicts; concepts like team working and networking have been established in organizations across Britain helping to improve inter-organizational relationships. However, the intervention of HRM in traditional organizational contexts, such as the relationship between employees and employers should be normally expected to have certain implications. Indeed, despite their powerful rules and their emphasis on fairness and equality across the organization, HRM policies did not have the expected support – referring to the unions (Marchington et al. 2005, p.265). Being, obviously, regarding as a threat to certain interests, which were well established in the past decades, HRM policies faced difficulties in order to be accepted by the unions. The fact that these policies emphasize on the use of negotiations for resolving inter-organizational conflicts, was considered by unions in Britain as a threat both for them, as legal entities, leading to the decrease of their power, but also for the employees. From this point of view, HRM in Britain had to face the resistance of social groups, which had, traditionally, a high power on the development of industrial relations across Britain. Under these terms, the conflict between HRM, as an advanced form of employee relationships management, and the unions should be considered as unavoidable. On the other hand, Britain is a highly industrialized country. The use of technology in everyday business activities is highly appreciated. At the same time, the support of the state to the organizational activities is important, helping the limitation of barriers in innovation and research and development. However, the high range and volume of business activities across the country sets another risk: the emphasis on specific organizational problems, like the monitoring of the application of HRM policies, may face delays, especially if there are no mechanisms focusing on the particular activity (Martin 2005, p.421). The global financial crisis also contributed to the above phenomenon. The identification of resources for covering the specific organizational need has been proved to be a challenging task. As all organizational activities, the development and the application of HRM policies should be monitored not just in terms of the organization but also at the level of the state, ensuring the lack of subjectivity when evaluating the quality of a firm’s HRM plans. The challenges that HRM has to face in Britain can be made clear by referring to the following fact: the power of line managers to decide, independently, on all the key issues of their department has been considered as one of the most important elements of HRM. However, in practice, the promotion of the above practice across organizations has been quite problematic. At this point, the differentiation in the way that British managers could evaluate the HRM, compared to managers in other countries, was made clear. More specifically, the senior personnel managers in Britain have not accepted the rule of HRM that line managers would enjoy independency from the central HRM department (Storey 2007, p.211). Moreover, the British managers have emphasized on the fact that the increase of power of line managers at such level cannot be considered as justified. The above practice is similar with that adopted by the Italian managers who also support the unique power of the HR department to decide on all the employees’ issues across the organization. This practice is in opposition with that of Danes, who recognize increased responsibilities to line managers accepting their autonomy from the HR department (Storey 2007, p.211). Another HRM sector, which has not been adequately supported in Britain, is that of training. More specifically, in the context of HRM, training is considered as of key importance offering to the employees the necessary information for supporting the various organizational activities. However, in Britain, training programs across organization seem to be rather limited, compared to what expected in a country where HRM was first introduced as a key organizational framework. The above problem is highlighted in the study of Storey (1999). In the above study particular emphasis is given on the following fact: despite the fact that organizations in Britain are at extremely low level regarding the training programs providing to their employees, still, these organizations have promoted a series of changes in their existing training programs (Storey 1999, p.15). In other words, quality is promoted rather than quantity, regarding the training programs available to employees in organizations across Britain. At the same time, the following trend has been identified: efforts are made so that training to be incorporated in the organizational plans, i.e. to become an integrated part of the strategic planning. In this way, its improvement will be easier achieved, even in the long term. The need for improvement of the training provided to employees in Britain is also emphasized in the study of Mabey et al (1998). Particular emphasis is given on the fact that the level and the quality of training provided to employees in Britain is lower compared to the similar practices of other countries, like Japan and Germany (Mabey et al. 1998, p.164). The performance of HRM in Britain is analysed in the study of Price (2007) where reference is made to the following problem: businesses in Britain have been found to be quite valuable to globalisation. In fact, through a governmental report published in 1997, it is noted that the level of vulnerability of UK businesses is higher compared to that of businesses in other countries. It is further explained that in the future, employees in Britain are more likely to be negatively affected by the further expansion of globalisation. The existence in Britain of many foreign firms that can, anytime, relocate because of the global financial pressures, is mentioned as an example of the potential threats of globalisation for British economy and employees across Britain. For this reason, appropriate measures are suggested ensuring the support to the employees of UK firms, which have been more affected by globalisation. It is assumed that HRM policies in Britain need to be appropriately updated and transformed ensuring the protection of employees towards globalisation. From a different point of view, Cole (2002) examined the interaction between the British perspectives on HRM and those of Japanese, who have promoted a different perspective of HRM, being more related to the organization rather to the employees. In the study of Cole (2002) reference is made to the entrance of UK of many Japanese firms, which focused on the establishment of manufacturing units. Japanese manufacturing units in Britain had to be based on the British workforce; this fact has been considered as a challenge taking into consideration the important differences between the Japanese and the British perceptions on labour management and the rights of employees. It is explained by Cole (2002) that by working in the Japanese firms, British employees had to align their behavior with the Japanese HRM rules, which were different from those of Britain’s. The above fact revealed another issue: HRM has appeared in Britain, as a key organizational context, but it has been gradually differentiated after entering other countries. Major differences can be identified in the form and the rules of HRM in Japan compared to Britain, probably a result of the different cultural and ethical backgrounds. The interaction between the Japanese framework of HRM and the British one, as developed in Japanese manufacturing units in Britain, proved that both forms of HRM could be developed in the British market, a fact that also proves the flexibility of the specific framework. However, the rate of adjustment of each framework to the rules of the other can take quite long. In the case of the Honda unit in UK (at Swindon) it took about ‘16 years for the Japanese managers to recognize the employees’ union’ (Cole 2002, p.37). 3. Conclusion The development of the HRM in Britain can be characterized as a strategically appropriate method for addressing the following two issues: a) to help towards the rapid and effective resolution of conflicts within organizations; replacing the methods traditionally used by the unions for such claims – referring especially to the strikes, b) to update the level and the quality of communication within organizations. In fact, most of the conflicts developed in the workplace are related to the low level and the poor quality of communication between the employer and the employees. Through the HRM, a new, proactive trend has been developed in organizations across Britain: communication is considered as having a primary importance. At the same time, HRM has helped towards the change of organizational culture: customers are not anymore the priority for organizations. Rather employees are considered as the key contributor to the organizational performance and development. Of course, the barriers and the delays in the implementation and the development of HRM in Britain have not been avoided. Through the years, the resistance to the principles and the methodologies of HRM has been decreased, as proved through the extensive theoretical and empirical studies developed in the specific field. The fact that HRM had, since its appearance, the support of theorists and academics has been quite important. In the workplace also, HRM managed to gain the respect and the support of employees and employers, a reason for the continuous expansion of this framework as a key organizational concept. References Armstrong, M. (2006) A handbook of human resource management practice. London: Kogan Page Publishers Bratton, J., Gold, J. (2001) Human resource management: theory and practice. London: Routledge Cole, G. (2002) Personnel and human resource management. Belmont: Cengage Learning Hendry, C. (1995) Human resource management: a strategic approach to employment. Butterworth-Heinemann Goss, D. (1993) Principles of human resource management. Belmont: Cengage Learning Mabey, C., Salaman, G., Storey, J. (1998) Human resource management: a strategic introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A. (2005) Human resource management at work: people management and development. Norfolk: CIPD Publishing Martin, J. (2005) Organizational behaviour and management. Belmont: Cengage Learning Palmer, G. (1997) Employment Relations. South Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan Australia Price, a. (2007) Human Resource Management in a Business. Cengage Learning EMEA Storey, J. (2007) Human resource management: a critical text. Belmont: Cengage Learning Storey, J. (1999) New perspectives on human resource management. Belmont: Cengage Learning Read More