Conflicts and Paradoxes in Human Resources Management - Literature review Example

Introduction Employee management practices have been evolving with time. Starting from employee welfare in early 20th century, they changed through Taylorism and personnel management to human resource management. Human resource management concept grew exponentially in popularity during last two decades. However, the “ambiguities, uncertainties” (Caldwell, 2003) and “unitary approach” (Jarvis, 2003) of the model are widely debated. There is a continuous debate of HRM being an American concept in view of its non-union labor strategies, nationalist sentiments and political views. Following study is an attempt to study the ambiguities in the model w.r.t the statement made by Guest that HRM is “American, optimistic, apparently humanistic and also superficially simple”. No primary data has been collected for the study. Secondary data and analysis is taken from various published reports on internet and journals. The essay starts with background study and development which is followed by a thorough analysis of paradoxes and complexities in the model. A conclusion is made in the end. Background Traditional concept of management dealt in establishing rules and regulations in the organization in order to control employees. The development started from employee welfare concept of early 20th century which was introduced before Industrial revolution. Industrial revolution brought manifold increase in industry workforce. In order to gain effective control over the growing workforce in industries Frederick Taylor introduced Taylorism. Human resource management evolved from Taylorism. The concept was introduced in 1980’s after the success of Japanese companies in international automobiles and electronic products markets. Japanese notion that “effective management of employees gives competitive advantage” was taken by the west to improved productivity through people management. Features of Human resource management Contemporary HRM qualitatively differs from traditional systems of personnel management. NeelaMehan has cited differences between the two in her article. Personnel management is directed at the organization’s employees: finding and training them, arranging for them to be paid, explaining management's actions, satisfying employees' needs, dealing with their problems and seeking to modify management action that could produce unwelcomed employee response…….. HRM, by contrast, is allegedly: "directed mainly at management needs for human resources (not necessarily employees) to be provided and deployed (NeelaMehan, 2000). HRM introduced Human resource as a part of strategic planning for the first time. HRM promotes Transformational leadership Transformation leadership brings efficiency in the organization through employee motivation and morale boosting. The transformational leader integrates vision of his followers with organization strategy. Earlier methods used transactional leadership that promotes management through rewards. Involvement and motivation of employees. Senior management is responsible for building a positive culture within the organization. As a part of their profile, line managers are expected to encourage innovativeness, manage resources and instill commitment. Conducive culture HRM promotes supportive environment to build organization capacity, capability and sustainability. “When culture is out of alignment with mission, core values, and operational strategy, it can become a significant liability for the organization” (Woodbury, 2006). Innovativeness Differing from earlier management style, HRM promotes innovativeness in place of repetition. Continuous learning HRM stresses on continuous learning development both at individual and organization level. Non-Union labor strategy The non union labor strategy implies that “there will be no place in a company’s HR strategy of those who threaten the continuity of the organization by attacking its basic aims” (cited in Bratton & Gold, 1999, p.27). Conflicts and paradoxes in HRM Over the years there has been a continuous debate over the relevance of HRM parallel to the Japanese management, Toyota systems, reengineering methods and learning development. Critical examinations of HRM models expose internal conflicts and paradoxes in the concept. At times, more than one stand appears reasonable or contradictory. Watson (1986) and Legge (1989) have defined seven levels of these paradoxes. Ambiguity in HR practitioner’s authority. Often there is uncertainty as to whether the HR recommendations are company directives disguised as advice. Extent of line manager’s involvement in HR practices. The HR activities are usually considered staff activities and extent of line manager’s involvement in HR is unclear. If the HR manager places more emphasis on his own specialist function, managers might give up their own HR responsibilities. On the other hand if he underplays his role, the upper management may ignore his contribution. Caring or controlling department There is often a conflict between the HR policies as a caring or controlling strategy. Ensuring stability or disorder HRM practices are designed to create work and employee related knowledge in the organization which in turn makes the organization manageable. However, it is also argued that HRM practices bring instability and clutter in the system. Watson has termed this as the “paradox of consequences”(1986, p.183). “Paradox of consequences” implies that the HR manager’s actions can have unintentional results. The notion that HR managers should take control by giving it to others explains this paradox. Performance reward systems increases individual performance on one hand and on the other they hurt group harmony. “Long-term employment, seniority payments and promotion, and information systems are cited as typical impediments to international competitiveness by quite a few economists and businessmen, although in this past they were highlighted as sources of Japanese competitive advantage”(Etsuo, 1997). Non-unionized approach HRM model promotes craft based approach (employing multi skilled workforce) to production in contrast to conventional job designs of past. “Multi skilled” workforce has higher bargaining power and is difficult to replace. The non-unionized approach of HRM is contradicted by increased workforce power through multi skilled workforce. ”When non-union firms and workers are the subject of enquiry, they tend to be studied predominantly from the perspective of the propensity of workers to unionise and/or the differences in management practice vis-a-vis unionised firms. Consequently, 'the very term "non-unionism" becomes a limiting definition of workplaces”(Turnbull & Wass,1998). Difficulty in execution The “paradox of consequences” suggests that there is no exact strategy for HR and that the strategies should be modified, introduced and closed continuously. Further the difficulties in measuring the soft attributes of HR make it a “shallow rooted plant” (Legge, 1995, p.338). An American concept Guest has indicated HRM as “American, optimistic, apparently humanistic and also superficially simple. In short, it has rediscovered elements of the American dream. Fitting in with the political views of the Reagan years, this was a powerful message”(Bratton & Gold,1999,p.27). The “Made in America” seal of HRM goes in contrast to the “Japanese management concepts”. Surveys from UK indicate that employees prefer the word personnel in their title rather than human resource. Only a few Canadian companies have adopted the HR model and most of them prefer traditional approaches to management only. On the contrary majority of companies in the United States have taken human resource management techniques. It was found that in EU, the HR practices follow the strategic decisions rather than participating in them. “A coherent human resource strategy, including an early strategic input on human resource issues, is found in only a small minority of those organizations that may be making some use of human resource management techniques” (Guest, 1990, p. 387).” The empirical evidence suggests that the vast majority of work organizations have not adopted the HRM model, others have adopted only elements of the model and , others have emphasized different features of the model to build a high performance work place”(Bratton & Gold,1999,p.33). “ The way that the concept developed in the US-its reliance on specific aspects of Japanese practice; on the examples of a small number of private sector firms; its adherence to an independent frontiers mentality; and its failure to link theory to general practice have been much debated in Europe”(cited by Brewster, 1995,pp.1).The low power distance, direct communication and innovative style of HR management cannot be applied to high power distance, indirect communication and repetitive style of China. HRM practices are highly influenced by the local culture and political environment of the region. “In countries with a tradition of collective advance, such as Germany or the Scandinavian countries (and also Australia)” (Smith, 2006, p.22) the individualist approach of best practices might not work. HRM is superficially simple The ambiguities and difficulties in execution of HRM model rule away the idea of it being simple. Its theoretical uncertainties, unsystematic approach, multiple independent practices and changing political context take it far from simple. HRM policies are designed and implemented by senior management in an organization and can differ completely from one company to the other. Here also command of senior management over policy formulation and decision making process differs. It has also been argued that the HR policies differ in detail and accuracy. Value-adding initiatives suggested result in increased employee-cost to the organization. Legge (1995) has further pointed out that the classical approach of aligning HR strategy with business strategy is obsolete now as it takes the top down management approach in consideration. The decisions are more political and less systematic and rational in nature as Johnson stated that Strategic decisions are characterized by the political hurly-burly of organizational life with a high incidence of bargaining, a trading off of costs and benefits of one interest group against another, all within a notable lack of clarity in terms of environmental influences and objectives (cited in Bratton & Gold, 1999,p.49). Apparently Humanistic approach HRM gives two different approaches for management of employees Hard HRM Companies take a hard approach usually for unskilled workers: they are hired, deployed and replaced if needed. This goes with classical approach that believes in stick and carrot management style. It presumes that employees are disinterested in work and should be pushed to perform. Soft HRM Soft HRM views employee as an integral part of the organization. It takes into account the emotional and behavioral attributes of employees. An emphasis is made to integrate employee’s personal goals with company’s objectives and motivational approach is used. This practice is usually taken for the white collar employees. Experts are of view that none of these concepts work in isolation. However, both these theories are contradictory to each other. Therefore they cannot be applied in synergy. HRM initiatives tend to follow the strategic decisions and strategic decisions are aimed at improving stakeholder’s profit. There is a conflict in placing employee goals over shareholder’s goals. Zuhu, Warner and Rowley have explained that “the initial development of the HRM concept is based on the effective utilization of people, and to treat them as resources leading to the realization of business strategies and organizational objectives”( Zhu, Warner & Rowley,2007). Human resource management strategies with performance parameters are considered more stressful. The unitary approach of integrating organization strategies with employee benefit does not apply at all times. Applicability of model in financial stringency, when the organization is driven to cost cutting, increased productivity and layoff, is unclear. Company might adopt compulsory layoffs and short term performance compensation systems but, they are unlikely to sustain employee motivation and commitment. Best practices or best fit Best practices approach has stemmed from the soft HRM concept as policies are designed keeping employees and their needs in focus. It has been criticized by analysts for its universalistic approach. Critics have also argued that companies build high performance (stressful and competitive) culture in the organizations to increase productivity of the organization. Best fit model could be internal or external. Internal fit model needs employee to fit in the organization culture. External fit model needs employee to act in accordance to the company strategy. Best practice approach is linked with Soft HRM whereas best fit approach relates to Hard HRM. Optimistic Approach The optimistic model of HRM focuses on employee commitment to improve performance. This approach differs from the conventional control model and relates to soft HRM which believes in establishing mutual trust and support than working through control mechanisms. This view takes the best in individual and expects the same. However, this approach has been argued as it tends to focus on the brighter side. There is a continuous debate over theory and practice. Truss et al . said that “Managers are human beings and they seldom make completely rational judgments.”Most of an individual’s perception suffers from inaccuracy, distortions and biases” (Knight & Elsaid, 2006). When a person thinks back in time his memories and experiences are distorted by personal perceptions. Memory also fades with time. Personalities of managers and supervised staff also influence the group’s performance. Conclusion Above study suggests that the proposition made by Guest that HRM is “American, optimistic, apparently humanistic and also superficially simple” holds true. First, the individualistic approach of HRM theory make them unfit for collectivist countries. Adaptability of model differs in different geographical locations and various surveys have suggested that the concept is widespread in American companies. Second, the humanistic approach of HRM focuses on the best in people and getting commitment through motivation. But, the approach might not be valid in all situations. As Skinner said it “seems to be mostly good intentions and whistling in the dark” (Skinner, Third, HRM model gives two contradictory approaches (soft and hard HRM) for managing people. Both demarcate conflicting definitions of human nature. Where one theory lays emphasis on the commitment of employees, the other presumes that employees do not actually like working. No standard has been defined Guest has explained this through following proposition “We do not in fact, believe that participative management styles and sophisticated human resource management policies are the dominant pattern, we believe aggressive resistance to unions and harsh personnel policies are also a part of story, we are convinced that progressive personnel practices have not diffused broadly across employment settings”(Guest,1990,p.52). Fourth, due to its extensive varying nature of applicability, adaptability and measurements; it is difficult to gauge its implementation on standard parameters. So what looks like an easy task in theory can be relatively difficult one in practice. Truss et al. has explained that “Organization rhetoric is soft and reality is hard”(cited from Gill, 1999, p.1). HRM is yet to evolve to a standardized, universal, human and easily applicable model. Until then, it can be taken as a means than an end unto itself. References Bratton, J & Gold, J 1999,Human resource management, Macmillan Press Ltd: New Jersey. Brewster, C 1995,’Towards a European model of Human resource management’, Journal of International Business studies, Vol. 26, No. 1,pp 1-21. Caldwell, R 2003, ’The changing roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New uncertainties’, Journal of management studies, Vol.40, No.4, pp. 983-1004. Etsuo, A 1997,’ Business enterprise in Japan: Views of leading Japanese economists’, Business History, Frank Cass & Company Ltd., viewed online on < http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19544064.html>. Gill, C 1999,’Use of Hard and soft models of HRM to illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality in Workforce management’, RMIT Business, viewed online on 23rd Oct 2010, Guest, D.E 1990,’Human resource management and the American dream’, Journal of Management studies’, Vol.27, No.4, pp 377-97. Jarvis, C 2003,’Unitary perspectives and management’ viewed online on 28th Oct 2010, . Knight, M. & Elsaid, A. M. M. K 2006. ‘Optimism: The Significance of Individual Contribution and Perception’, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, Vol.14, No.2, pp 61-73 Legge, K 1995,’Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities’, Basingstoke: Macmillan. NeelaMehan, M 2000,’HRM vs Personnel management’, New Straits Times, viewed online on 28th Oct 2010 < http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-82519279.html> Smith, A 2006, ‘Control or capability? Human resource practices for a changing environment, viewed online on 22nd Oct 2010 Turnbull, P & Wass, V 1998,’Marksist management: sophisticated human relations in a high street retail store(human resource management)’, Industrial relations Journal, viewed online on 28th Oct 2010, < http://business.highbeam.com/137744/article-1G1-20977032/marksist-management-sophisticated-human-relations-high>. Watson, T.J.(1986), Management, Organization and Employment Strategy, London, Routledge. Woodbury, TJ 2006,’Building organizational culture- Word by Word’, Leader to Leader, viewed online on 24th Oct 2010, Zhu, Y Warner, M & Rowley, C. 2007,’Human resource management with Asian Characteristics: a hybrid people management system in East Asia. The International Journal of Human resource Management, Vol. 18, No.5, pp 745-468. Read More