Models of Human Resource Management - Essay Example

Models of Human Resource Management themes can be traced since nineteen seventies. However, the contemporary perspective of human resource management was first embraced in nineteen eighty one when, at the same time, the Harvard Business School introduced the concept in its Masters in Business Administration study. Additionally, other models that include the New York and Michigan Schools’ strategic matching theories as well as the Warwick School’s change and political process theory were developed. In this dissertation, the Harvard human resource management model will be compared and contrasted with the Michigan Business School model. Ultimately, an analysis will be made into the model best suited to prepare an organization for managing stress basing on the article, “the de-stress call” (www.peoplemanagement.co.uk). Storey (1989) has differentiated between soft and hard forms of human resource management such that they are illustrated by the Harvard and Michigan models respectively. The hard approach of human resource management stresses on the resource part of human resources. Moreover, it lays emphasis on costs in terms of headcounts and puts control tightly in the managers’ hands. Therefore, their function is to effectively manage numbers while keeping the employees intimately matched with needs in terms of both behaviour and bodies. On the other hand, the Soft human resource management approach emphasis the human aspects of human resource management. It is mostly concerned with motivation and communication. Thus people are led instead of being managed. Furthermore, they are engaged in realizing and determining strategic objectives. The Harvard model of Human Resource Management Harvard model or map of human resource management is perhaps the most influential map of human resource management. Harvard looks at the workforce as resources. Nonetheless, the employees are perceived to be basically different from other resources and that how they are managed differently from other resources; this model emphasis that people are human resources. The Harvard approach identifies a component of mutuality in all organizations. Therefore, employees are important stakeholders in any enterprise. Moreover, they have their own concerns and needs along with other organization’s stakeholders such as customers and shareholders. The Harvard model or map outlines the following four areas of human resource policy: Human resource streams such as selection, recruitment, promotion, placement, promotion, appraisal and assessment, termination, etcetera. Employee influence that entails responsibility, delegated ranks of authority, power, etcetera. Reward systems like motivation, pay systems, etcetera. Work systems that include people alignment and design/definition of work. Additionally, the managers should apply the human resource policies or the four C's in tackling human resource issues. These policies include commitment, competence, congruence and cost effectiveness. Commitment is significant in human resource policies. The policies should address the enhancement of employees’ commitment to their organization and work as well as to what extent. Enhanced commitment can lead to increased loyalty and improved performance for an organization. Moreover, it can advantage the individual through improved dignity, self-worth, identity, and psychological involvement. Furthermore, these psychological advantages lead to a societal spin-off. The competency is evaluated in terms of whether the human resource policies function to attract, develop, or keep employees with valuable knowledge and skills; both at present and in the future. When knowledge and skills are available when needed, then an organization benefits with its employees experiencing a sense of economic wellbeing as well as self-worth. On the other hand, the cost effectiveness of specific human resource management policies can be assessed in terms of benefits, absenteeism, wages, turnover, strikes, and so on. The consequences can be reviewed for individuals, organizations, and society in entirety. The issue of congruence level in human resource management is considered between, for instance, the following: employees and management, various employee groups, the community and the organization, workers and their families, as well as within individuals. The four Cs offer a framework and a focus for contemplating the real-life human resources management (Beer et al, 1985). Nevertheless, these policies fail give the tools for or assessing or measuring how an enterprise’s human resource management policies truly affect that organization. Indeed, it is substantial to argue that, at this position, the Harvard model becomes markedly blurred (Beer et al, 1985). Furthermore, methods are multiple as well as different due to options in the analysis level, and competencies are evaluated by both external and internal assessors. Consequently, where data are considered in entirety, and specifically when an organization attempts to determine the available talent for succession planning then an image of the depth in managerial or technical competence within the organization emerges. The Harvard model illustrates precisely employees’ commitment where it suggests that attitude surveys done via questionnaires and interviews can a source of data. These surveys can be carried out by human resource specialists who may be employees of the organization or external consultants. Otherwise, the following should be encouraged: open-door strategies and observations of group meetings where employees are allowed and encouraged to be air their opinions freely; Accounts of absenteeism, unpaid turnover, and grievances to offer indirect proof of unconstructive commitment. Beer et al (1985) asserts that considered together, these data may fail to provide managers with a supreme measure of congruence and commitment although they can offer a valuable overall image. The cost effectiveness might appear easier to gauge, but this ostensible simplicity might not be so. They depict a distinction between the evaluations of wages which is easy; long-term consequences of profit-sharing plan and cost-of-living changes which are more difficult due to future uncertainties; and employee recruitment and development costs which are very difficult. Congruence of goals is identified easily throughout their absence; for instance, in situation of open conflicts such as strikes. It is not easy to identify and evaluate more delicate conflicts. In effect, the effects of accumulated complaints on the performance of the organization are more difficult to evaluate (Beer et al, 1985). Measuring the costs of human resource policies on societal and employee well-being is, further, more difficult (Beer et al, 1985). In addition, stakeholders should participate in evaluating human resource management results for this to be realized as well as sketch some governance systems that would be vehicles for the same. Participation can be characterized by employee committees or task forces comprised of union-management staffs for organizations that are not unionized. Assessment of human resource management outcomes is, as well, not an easy to solve. Beer et al (1985) argues that tests in “human resource accounting systems” that attempted to treat people “as if they were in the same metric as financial resources” failed to work. It is worth noting that this judgment was based on the infrequent utilization of these methods. Additionally, attempting to give value to organizational culture as well as employee commitment is significantly more difficult. In this model, the proposal is that lasting consequences, which include both costs and benefits, of human resource strategies should be assessed at the individual, society, organizational, level. At the individual level, the argument lays emphasis on the welfare of employees which must be considered distinctly and separately from the wellbeing of the organization. The human resource management policies can affect employees physically, economically, or psychologically. Nevertheless, managers have varying values which dictate their differing weighting of these consequences. That is, some managers regard employees as possessing genuine claims to reasonable treatment whereas others compromise workers to centre on the organization. Obviously, at the organizational level human resource strategies are assessed in terms of their input to organizational goals and survival. In particular, human resource management policies can enhance an organization's service performance, adaptability, efficiency, short-term results, price performance, and long-term results. Human resource actions can have broad consequences at the societal level. As such, Beer et al (1985) argues that "alienated and laid-off workers” can build up both physical and psychological health problems which would burden the community organizations financed by the state, local, or federal government. At present time, many of the employers management practices consequences are passed on to the society. The Michigan Business School model A different view on human resource management is linked to the Michigan Business School (Tichy, Fombrun and Devanna, 1984). This model provides a less humanistic and harder edge prosing that employees should be viewed as resources that are similar to other organization resource. Therefore, they must meet the following criteria: obtained in the cheapest way possible sparingly used developed as well as exploited at maximum In this regard, therefore, people or humans - rather than just employees – should to be managed in a manner that is goes along with the broad organizational need like efficiency and quality. Thus, organization structures and personnel policies should to be managed in a manner that is consistent with the organizational policies and that organizational effectiveness relies on there being no gap between business and human resource strategies. Moreover, human resource management policies are all concern with making the business policies work. In that, stress is put on the best way to develop and match suitable human resource management systems. The Michigan model highlights the following aspects as being the most vital human resource matters so as to obtain the aforementioned match (Tichy et, 1984): choice of the best appropriate individuals to meet organization requirements, Performance motivated by pursuit of organization objectives, Appraisal and monitoring performance as well as giving feedback to both the employees and the organization, Rewards for proper performance in the organization, Development of knowledge and skills needed to achieve the objectives of the organization. The Michigan strategy is also referred to as the best-fit approach or the matching model of human resource management. Essentially, it calls for human resource policies to be tight-fit to the entire organizations policies. As such, it restricts the functions of human resource to a reactive, organizational role and under-emphasises the significance of external factors. Schuler and Jackson (1987), outlined innovation, quality enhancement, and cost reduction or leadership as strategies that define generic competitiveness in an organization. Human resource management can be viewed as a menu of strategic choices for human resource executives to make with the intention of promoting the most effective and suitable role behaviours which are congruent with the business strategy as well as in alignment with each other. Schuler and Jackson (1987) lists these choices as, for instance, planning choices to include informal and formal; implicit and explicit job analysis; short-term and long-term; low and high employee engagement; job simplification and enrichment. Additionally, other choices are included compensating, appraising, staffing, and training and development. The best-fit approach is it controversies. Conceptually, it is viewed as depending on a reasonable, mechanical system of organizational decision-making. And in actuality, strategies are usually operationalized and determined on a more political, intuitive and subjective level. Definitely, the decision-making process is far more complicated than the model provides. Moreover, it is both normative and prescriptive, depicting that the fit to organization strategies should determine human resource strategies. A more complicated version of the Michigan model takes into account the importance and broader factors like organizational size and structure, industry sector and unionization, and technology. The Harvard model and Michigan models in managing stress The Harvard model is the best suited to manage stress. This model of human resource management looks at the employees as very significant stakeholders in an organization. It recognizes that employees have their own needs and concerns. As opposed to the matching model which classifies employees together with other organizations resources, the Harvard interpretation of human resources management gives a distinction for both. Fundamentally, people cannot be similar to non human resources such as financial resources. Political, social and economic aspects determine the wellbeing of people or employees. These are aspects that mangers should not overlook to manage an organization successfully. Importantly, the Harvard model looks at human resource at individual, organizational and societal level. According to CIPD (2007) stress in an organization can be managed through the following strategies: auditing policies, systems and procedures to make sure that the organization provides a functional atmosphere that safeguards the well-being of its employees as well as identify troublesome workforces implementing a problem-solving strategy where the cause of problems are identified and solutions sort focusing on workers well-being through identification of strategies that create a appropriate work environment Managing employees at the individual level by supporting and educating them so that they can tackle problems at workplace. The Harvard model of human resource management incorporates the above strategies thereby providing a platform for stress management. Conclusion The Harvard model of human resource management is more applicable in today’s organizations. Managers have realized that it is vital for an organization to consider the employees wellbeing. As such, organizations are inclined to planning with employees concerns and needs being considered. Moreover, motivational and incentive programs have focused on the wellbeing of employees. The Harvard model is also more advantageous in terms of managing stress. The fact that it views employees’ wellbeing as vital gives the employees the chance to address the issues that might be the cause of stress. References Beer, M., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, D.Q., and Walton, R.E. Managing human assets. Free Press, 1984 Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Ills, D. Q., and Walton, R. E., (1985). ‘Human resource management: A General Manager’s Perspective’. New York: Free Press. Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices, Academy of Management Executive, 1987 Sparrow, P. and Hiltrop J.-M. European Human Resource Management in Transition, Prentice Hall, 1994 Storey, J. New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge, Lonndon, 1989 The de-stress call. Retrieved on 4th January 2008 from www.peoplemanagement.co.uk Tichy, N.M., Fombrun, C.J. and Devanna, M.A. Strategic human resource management, Sloan Management Review, 1984. CIPD factsheet. Stress at work. 2007 Read More