Is Human Resource Management More Rhetoric than Reality - Essay Example

0Running Head: IS HRM MORE RHETORIC THAN REALITY? IS HRM More Rhetoric Than Reality? [Writer’s name] [Institution’s name IS HRM More Rhetoric Than Reality? Introduction The main aim of human resource management is to deal with people in the employer-employee relationship human resource management HRM from Personnel Management. According to that Stone (1995 p. 4) it is the useful utilization of people and is extremely practical. Storey (1995) describes HRM as a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to obtain competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and skilled workforce, using an array of cultural, structural and personal techniques. However according Boxall (1996) human resource management is rhetoric in nature as attempts to strategically assimilate the function of human resource in the entire corporate strategy. Analysis In spite of the increase in studies regarding human resource management, there is a huge difference between the rhetoric and reality, this difference has increased since 1990. Bert, M. and Spector, B. (1985) said that numerous important aspects of HRM for instance commitment, motivation, and leadership emanate from the part of organizational behaviour, and emphasize management strategy. This has provided the opportunity to connect HRM with organizational behaviour and management strategy. Make specific reference to recruitment and selection of staff, training and development of new and existing staff and remuneration strategies. According to Truss et al (1997) research all organization tends to follow both the hard and soft version of HRM. However these days HRM is considered as rhetoric as most organizations tend to favour the soft version, as it is based on communication and employee commitment, the however HRM can be considered as an reality also as hard model is considered as the reality of organisational goals (Truss, et al, 1997: p. 70). As a result keeping in mind both models of HRM it can be said that HRM is both rhetoric as well as a reality (Vaughan, 1994: p. 28). According to Legge (1995) adopting either model may cause problems as neither one of them are realistic in nature. If the soft model is applied then the organization would focus more on employee satisfaction and less on the objective of the business , this is known as developmental humanism (Legge 1995 p 66), and if the hard model is applied then the organization will ignore the employee and focus entirely on it’s own objectives. In relation to the above question posed, (Greenwood, 2002 p1) discusses HRM ethics very well and states that HRM is 'rhetorical and manipulative in the way it handles employees and a way of controlling employees'. (Kamoche, 1994,) believes that HRM is manipulating in the way that employees do not contribute or develop in the organization, but rather organizations intervene in the employees' lifestyle and morals to receive a contribution to the HRM goals From above interpretation, we can suggest employer's control employees through their HRM goals. Therefore, through Greenwoods suggestions it's extremely difficult to dissuade the fact that employees remain loyal towards external parties when such a powerful influence is present. However (Greenwood 2002 p1) also reminds us that the results were more psychologically assumptive. Human resource management is considered to be more of a rhetoric model than a practical reality. It is a unitarist perspective, and as such it is incompatible with contemporary industrial relations practices. As quoted by (Stone, 1990, p32) 'Orthodox labour relations analysis has, since the effective victory over the unitarist tradition, accepted the pluralist model of the structural conflict within production, the accommodation of which has become the key practical concern of the discipline'. However, it is difficult to identify the relationship between human resource management and strategy and it appears to be easier in theory than in practice and thus it makes more rhetoric and a reality. Marginson et al. (1998) found that 80% of senior managers (used in Marginson et al study) in human resource management claimed that their organization uses almost all the HRM strategies however only a few from the 80% could describe the strategies they used. Researchers as well as managers have found it hard to value the strategies of human resource management in practice. According to Hendry (1994) strategy is the main theme in human resource management however it also a extremely misinterpreted notion and the theorists of HRM present theories of strategy which are extremely glib however these strategies lack sophistication. Perhaps the problem is compounded by lacking of case studies, which enable us have a insight look into the strategy in practice. For practitioner part, the stress of HRM in theory has led to great interest from senior management team but fail to fit the lower-level managers. In fact, just like Guest (1987) described in his book, human resource strategy may only unproblematic in the ideal conditions. He further claims that these conditions are difficult to achieve in practice because most organizations have old staff, buildings and equipment which they cannot let go of. They have a certain pattern of behaviour, which might be a lot different from what the HR philosophy states hence proves that it is more of rhetoric then a reality. In addition, the formalities of HRM planning are vast different specific to different companies and the documents seem to be the done thing to have one. Some organizations develop a detailed several hundred pages document while some use an unwritten guidance. However, neat theoretical approaches with successive phrases of analysis, choice and implementation are rarely seen in practice. On the other hand, many senior managers convey the business goals to their employees by the mission statement, hoping this practice can lead to a high commitment from everyone in the company, since high commitment is seen to be crucial for competitive edge. To some extent, such policy does work for the mission statement tells the employees the essence of what an organization is about: why it exists, what kind of business it intends to be, and who its intended customers are etc. However, it has to acknowledge that many organizations develop a mission statement merely because it is the done thing to have one. Storey (1992) in his research concludes that such integration is rare in British organizations. His project focused on 40 large employing organizations and involved 350 interviews with managers at all levels, in which approximately 80% were line and general managers. He concluded that: 'human resource management type initiatives had been "bolted on" to the embedded system'. The management change was very slow and uncertain process. There seemed to be lack of integration among the way employment (individual and collective), both, and the business strategy as a whole. While it works well in theory surrounding the issue of HRM, human resource management seems to be problematic in practice. Based on the discussion above, we have to admit that human resource thinking, which gives a structure for requirements has its base on rational thinking however in practice the HRM managers have a to face a lot of problems in appreciating and putting the strategy into practice the strategy. Some of the problems people face includes developing new initiatives, restructuring, changing and retaining for new skills. And more difficulties come from cultural and behavioural change and so on. Strategic human resource management stresses numbers, quantitative statements, attitudes, behaviour and commitment while uses harder 'matching' models of HRM (Price 1997 p184), but the implementation is problematic particularly when the responsibilities pass to the line managers. In practice, there are both objective and subjective factors relating to line managers and supervisors that lead to several blocks and obstacles to the integration between HRM strategy and organization strategy and the implementation of strategy. In summary, it is fair to say that human resource management theory works well in theory but not in practice. A big difference lying between the modern Human Resource Management Theory and the traditional personnel management theory is contemporary HRM changed conventional views in the aspect that it treats the employee as the most important resource within an organization. Meanwhile, the HRM has enriched the contents of the personnel management and presented a fusion of personnel management and industrial relations. As a consequence, the managers all take much greater responsibilities than the in the past. The contemporary HRM includes all activities used to attract and retain employees and to ensure they perform at a high level in meeting organisation's strategic goal. Specifically, it features in recruiting appropriate staff, providing training and development programmes for the employees, giving appraisal and feedback to employees, setting reward system, maintaining employee relations. The effects of the HRM on improving staff performance and further on the whole company profitability have been clarified and supported by numerous facts and statistics. Does this indicate there is not any problem when applying the theories of HRM into real situation for its effectiveness and reliability? General preconception is that HRM puts forth ideal theories, and how ever putting then into practice in reality is extremely difficult. However we should ask, if it is so rhetoric that it cannot describe the behaviour in the real world, if so is it useful? Actually, the HRM theories are still playing a significant role in the aspect of the individuals' career life and company strategic goals thus it can be said that it can be practiced in the real world as well. . Since the 1980s, the research project called Organisation and strategic information services (OASIS) had been undertaken, the result of which initially indicated some positive relationship between the HRM practices and the business performance. Moreover, the alignment of the HRM practices and the company overall strategies had neglectable impacts on the business results. The research was extended into the 1990s to further prove the effectiveness of HRM practices. (Ulrich 1997 p303) According to Dowling and Fisher (1997) motivation regarding prestige and discussing human resource issues in committees did matter. Thus HRM is practical in nature as it may cause changes in the organization, Human nature is extremely complex and thus it is hard to apply the deal Motivation and reward theories in practice as they touch numerous disciplines. Even though in HRM a lot of research as been done on both topics, motivation and reword is still complex topics, and when they are put in to practice they give poor results. To comprehend motivation one should has understand the complex human nature itself. And that is where the problems start. Human nature cannot not be any way completely predicted and analyzed, whilst of an understanding and using these theories properly is a requirement of successful employee motivation both in practices and knowledge and thus results in successful management. Conclusion Human Resource Management theories have been developed systematically through long year research based on the large quantity of collection of statistics and experiment. In this sense, the theory should fit into the practical situation quite well. As a matter of fact, although the HRM theory has provided a different way of thinking in the business management compared with the traditional personnel management, it suffers from some failure and difficulties in the reality. With the introduction of the HRM into those traditional companies in the countries and regions of their own origin for the personnel management, the modern HRM theories will definitely encounter substantial conflicts and barriers in practice. Take the example of the countries and regions in East Asia, pronounced differences are found across those host countries and the conventions. Managerial values and various organizational characteristics that serve as control variables are also found to impact on HRM strategy. (Bae, J., Chen, S., & Lawler, J., 1998, p.653 - 670.; Goodall, K., & Warner, M., 1997, p. 569 - 594) Specifically speaking, motivation and reward system is facing the identical situation. Some preliminary questions and doubts must be resolved before implementing the theories. Although the two categories of theories had been proved to be fairly effective in improving the staff performance, booting the morale, and ultimately enhancing the overall business results, there are situations and settings that make it exceptionally difficult for a motivational system to work. These possible factors involve the kinds of jobs or people present, the technology, and the presence of a union, and so on. So far to speak, the motivation and reward activities should presuppose these factors have been articulated in the utilization of the theories. References Bae, J., Chen, S., & Lawler, J., (1998);"Variations in human resource management in Asian countries: MNC home-country and host-country effects", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 9, Number 4, Routledge, pp653 - 670. Bert, M. and Spector, B. (1985); "Corporate wide Transformations in Human Resource Management" in Human Resource Management. In Trends and Challenges ed. by R.E. Walton and P.R. Lawrence (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA,) Boxall, P. (1996); ‘The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm',. Human Resource Management Journal 6(3): 59-75. Dowling, P. and Fisher, C (1997); The Australian HR professional: A 1995 profile. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 35(1), pp. 1-20. Goodall, K., & Warner, M., (1997), "Human resources in Sino-foreign joint ventures: selected case studies in Shanghai, compared with Beijing", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 8, Number 5, Routledge, pp 569 - 594. Greenwood, M.R. (2000); Questioning Ethical HRM. Retrieved April 2005 209, from ww.businessandlaw.vu.edu.au/cicgr/Refereed%2520Papers/Greenwood_ref.doc. Guest, D. (1987); 'Human resource management and industrial relations', Journal of Management Studies, 24 (5):pp 503-21 Hendry Chris (1994); Human resource strategies for international growth, London; New York : Routledge Hendry, C. (1994); 'Developing a human resource strategy: a case study in organizational process', paper presented at the Strategic Direction of Human Resource Management Conference, Nottingham Trent University, pp14-15 Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. London: Macmillan Business pp 62-95 Marginson, P., Edwards, P., Martin, R., Purcell, J. and Sisson, K. (1988); Beyond the Workplace: Managing Industrial Relations in the Multi-establishment Enterprise, Blackwell Price A. (1997); Human resource management in a business context. International. Thomson Business Press, London p184 Stone, E F, (1990); Moderator variables in research: A review and analysis of conceptual and methodological issues, in G R, Ferris & K M, Rowland, eds: Theoretical and methodological issues in human resources management (pp. 161-199). London: JAI Press p 32 Stone, R. S. (1995); Human Resource Management. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons p4 Storey, J. (1992); Developments in the management of human resources. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Storey, J. (1995) Human resource management: a critical text.1st ed. London: International Thomson Business Press Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997); "Soft and hard models of human resource management: a reappraisal." Journal of Management Studies, 34(1)pp 53-73 Ulrich, D., (1997); "Measuring human resources: An overview of practice and a prescription for results", Human Resource Management, New York, Vol. 36, Iss.3, pg.303-320 Read More