Human_Resource_Management

1. There were many points addressed by John Storey, David Guest, John Goddard and Barbara Townley about the concepts underpinning the “new” HRM Paradigm. All authors have different concepts of HRM, but all surround the same controversies of not having a definite HRM definition. John Storey addressed the highly controversial perception of HRM. He talked about the nature, domain, characteristics, reach, antecedents and outcomes and impact of HRM. He speaks about how the early HRM was in crisis and that as time progressed, the “new” HRM was viewed as more stabilized. The information surrounding HRM has only become more prevalent in the last decade. It helps give shape, direction and meaning to a complex world. Even though the meaning and practice may vary from organization to organization, the idea is worthy of thought. Storey speaks to the key elements of HRM which is an amalgamation of description, prescription and logical deduction. It describes the assumptions of leading edge practitioners. All elements providing a recipe to the best practices in HRM – A persuasive narrative which gives shape, direction and meaning to a complex world. David Guest speaks of HRM being the American dream. The growing popularity of HRM depends solely on the involvement of line managers and their involvement in HRM issues. For HRM to have an impact, the techniques should fit into a rational scheme. The fact that HRM provides “chic” responses to sets of problems makes the HRM model attractive to organizations. The “American dream” of HRM changes as times changes. With different leaders and different organizations, there is not one set of HRM practices that may fit into once context. The dream shifts with organizations, but the overall goal is to find a streamline to help solve often difficult problems. The idea of being a land of opportunity draws on the fact that all employees can achieve great things and that we can all work together to achieve a goal. The “repository” of HRM is good intentions. The dream of everyone constituting the same values and to prescribe a certain set of behaviours within an organization. Organizations must decide if HRM is an appropriate strategy given the considerations of a social democratic HRM. Guest speaks of 5 assumptions of HRM model: integration of HRM into management, behaviour commitment to organizational goals, perspective is unitary, works better in organization with organic culture, and emphasis on a full and positive utilization of human resources. John Godard speaks to the 3 parts of the “progressive paradigm”: First, a critique of the assumptions underlying this paradigm with are inherently limited due to the underlying nature of labour-management relations, and the extent to how it is adopted in the various systems. Second, draws upon a comprehensive set of survey data collected in 1980-81 from unionized Canadian firms to explore the effectiveness of and structural variation in, progressive managerial practices. Third, the implications of the analysis that suggest that the conditions under which practices are implemented largely reflect structural considerations associated with rational pursuit of profit rather than managerial “values”. While progressive practices do appear to be associated with lower conflict on a number of dimensions, these associations are weak. There is a need to enable workers and their representatives to confront employers as true equals thereby helping to reduce the resentment and mistrust arising out of the asymmetrical nature of contemporary employment relations. Barbara Townley speaks to the problems associated with HRM. First of all what subjects should be covered academically and second, how can the academic study help people at work. She speaks of the flow between power and knowledge and how they are separate concepts of the same social relations. She speaks to the Foucauldian Analysis of HRM. The HRM analysis has been blurred by the dominance of an economic paradigm and the reification of the market and administration. Storeys two controversies are: The meaning of HRM and the practice of HRM The meaning of HRM has varied amongst many researchers over the years. It has been said to not have a definite meaning or no one approach. It is a set of responses to many ideas. Storey speaks to the key elements of HRM which include: Beliefs and Assumptions – values goals and employees should “fit” the organization. Strategic Qualities – Senior Management “buy in” to organizations business strategy. Critical Role of Managers – again, “buy in from all stakeholders, line managers – senior managers alike. Key Levers – culture of organization maintain by all stakeholders, policies, job design, and goals. The practice of HRM – in early HRM years there was little evidence on the effectiveness of HRM practices. Now there is evidence on two kinds of findings: extent of use of practices and the impact of practices on organizations from the implementation of these practices. Research has shown that the HRM practices were found in unionized settings and that firms were pursuing a dualist approach. There have also been studies to determine the impact of HRM practices. Studies testing universalistic thesis have been the most popular and well supported. Also, there has been a study on the contingency/best fit thesis that has found some support. Most studies have been completed around the universal practice model of HRM which have become more consistent and positive. All these approaches should arguably work simultaneously. Storey says that all research can in fact be cumulative. Guest explains the popularity of the HRM model among academics and managers alike in his paper on Human Resources Management and the American Dream paper. To managers, it seemed to offer an attractive alternative to the jaded image of personnel management and the dated rhetoric traditional industrial relations. Many academics welcomed it with equal enthusiasm establishing new university chairs and courses in HRM and writing textbooks on the subject. Indeed, among academics, it offered new hope for those who had begun to despair the long-term potential of industrial relations and personnel management as important academics. It was the manifestation of the American Dream. The appeal of HRM lies not only in this new, if challenging integrative model but in its timeliness. The tone of much of Harvard writing is to emphasize the importance of HRM rather than to claim it currently practiced to any great extent. Managers and academics alike took a hold of the new recipe for success in the business world and gaining a competitive advantage. During some times when new challenges of technology changed and times were getting harder, both academics and managers grabbed on to the “American Dream” of the new HRM approach. The new approach gives light to new responsibilities and new importance between managers and line workers alike. Godard’s assertion that the progressive paradigm of HRM is at best over-simplified. Not only do underlying sources of conflict endemic to the employment relation limit the effectiveness of progressive practices, the conditions under which these practices are implemented largely reflect structural considerations associated with the rational pursuit of profit rather than managerial values per se. It has also reported empirical findings which, though by no means providing an unequivocal “test” of the progressive paradigm, are consistent with theses arguments. While progressive practices do appear to be associated with lower conflict on a number of dimensions, these associations are weak. moreover, as expected under the assumptions of profit rationality, progressive practices are more likely to be adopted by large employers with large, technologically advance establishments and operating in concentrated markets. This paradigm is fraught with difficulties as an overarching paradigm form the practice of Industrial Relations. The relationship between HRM practices and knowledge, order and workplace governance is it produces a technology of power. It is not the organization, but the organizations ability to organize. It is the will to knowledge or the desire to know. To “know” something is to create a new power relation. Power is associated with practices, techniques and procedures. One cannot exist without the other. All these dimensions must be articulated before they are managed. Personnel help to bridge the gap between promise and performance between labour power and labour and organize labour into productive forces or power. In terms of values, to what extent is HRM different from orthodox personnel management' Personnel management traditionally is aimed largely at non-managers, where as HRM treats management development as an equally important issue. Traditionally personnel management viewed organizational culture and leadership as issues concerned with organizational development, where as HRM highlights responsibility for managing organization culture and leadership issues. HRM concerns with setting consistent HR policies which reflect and communicate “core values” of the company. It is through building culture and sharing common values among people that companies are trying to ensure that their acts and decision are based on best interest of the company rather than stressing on conventional rules and procedures. When the concept of HRM emerged the attractiveness of the theory of managing personnel led to an increase of HRM language. Therefore, HRM is simply “old wine in a new bottle”. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen if there is more to HRM than only a new and shining appearance. A number of authors stress the difficulties of identifying clear differences between personnel management and HRM, and maintain that the most obvious change is a “re-labelling process”. A “change of label” is obvious, though one cannot be sure that the content differentiates to any extent. However, the new terminology may at least rid personnel management from its unfavourable welfare image and other negative connotations and thus, save the ill function of managing personnel from marginalisation. New labels on old bottles may have their uses, even if it is only for marketing purposes. Furthermore, a valuable contribution of HRM is to direct the attention to regarding people as the key resource of organisations and lending the management of personnel increased importance. The similarities and differences between personnel and HR management are analysed with regard to their theoretical approaches as well as their practical implementation. The HRM model communicates the core values and culture of the organization within the organizations policies and practices. It forces managers to define the organizational goals so that they can be understood and undertaken by the work force as a whole, and to provide the resources needed for them to successfully accomplish their jobs. HRM techniques clearly identify the goals and operating practices of the organization. It is the organizational function that deals with issues related to people such as compensation, hiring, performance management, organization development, safety, wellness, benefits, employee motivation, communication, administration, and training by using tools, policies, and procedures that incorporate the “values” of the organization. It is sometimes referred to as the “proactive” approach to management. In the health care setting I work in, there has been a major shift in how the organization is set up. The “reactive” approaches of practice were not providing the desired outcomes we needed to succeed as an organization. This has led to more usage of HRM “tools” to ensure that the corporate beliefs and values remain the same even with all the changes in all our practices and policies eliminating issues from issues before they could begin. Senior management has taken a key role trying to make the organization more proactive to demands and concerns before they arise. Some notable policies/practices include: Job Descriptions: A job description analysis within the organization has resulted in the need to add identical corporate “scopes” to each job description. Also, “corporate safety” standards have also been added. This was a direct mandate from our Senior Management team. This is an attempt to make everyone aware of the main values specific to the organization and emphasize that all jobs play a part in achieving and maintaining these values and goals. All managers and supervisors are required to complete job description analysis to accurately reflect what the employee is doing and to ensure that the corporate values/goals are accurately reflected. It is a strategy to ensure that the employees’ jobs match what they are actually doing and to ensure that employees have the tools necessary to complete the job, therefore eliminating the job dissatisfaction. Corresponding with the job description analysis has led to another policy that is emerging within our organization - the performance management policy. Performance Management Policy: The Performance Management policy includes yearly performance appraisals. In recent years, the performance appraisal was strictly related to each position and there was only a hope that an appraisal was completed on a yearly basis. Over the last few months, a performance appraisal template was created that is used for every employee in the organization. It is a more simplistic appraisal all employees are “appraised” the in the same way and that the core values are consistent within each department. It has also simplified the whole performance appraisal process to allow managers more simple approach to the process. It provides the Managers and employees with a chance to identify goals that reflect the corporate goals, i.e., succession planning. It gives managers and senior managers an idea of where the employees are at within their jobs and if they the employees feel they have to tools necessary to do the job. The new form allows employee to advise managers if they are satisfied or not in their job. The organization is ensuring that employees experience job satisfaction therefore less turn over. Succession Planning: Succession planning is being promoted within the organization to motivate employees to stay at the organization for longer periods of time. It provides them with the opportunity to work towards the management positions. This is a strategic effort to create longevity between the employee and employer. Employees are encouraged to express areas of interests within the organization and if the opportunity arises, they are given the opportunity to move towards that interest. Long Services Awards/Employee Appreciation Day: Our organization has always had long service awards; however recently they have incorporated the employee appreciation day as well to encompass all employees; regardless of length of service. This has become a day that all employees can sit down with management and external stakeholders and converse on all the things happening within the organization. It provides a means of promoting the employees and appreciating the work they do for the organization as a whole, not just within the department. It also gives the organization a chance to congratulate the long term employees. This helps motivate employees and gives the organization a chance to thank employees for their contributions. Recruitment & Selection: The Recruitment & Selection process has evolved to ensure that management plays a key role in the hiring process. Recently, we incorporated a staffing policy which is strictly tied to the organization goals and values and is designed to include management, not just the Human Resources department, in the hiring process. It gives the manager a chance to meet the candidates to get help get the right organization/employee fit. The policy mandates requirements for hires and provides a backbone to our process. In the past, hiring included the Human Resource department and an employee currently working in that role – now the process has to include a manager, human resources and if possible, another incumbent working in department. In considering all these activities/changes, I think the gap between management and the HRM model is getting smaller. I have seen considerable changes within the organization over the past couple years. As previously mentioned, this may partly the result of senior management change, but I feel that the organization is adopting the HRM model because they are recognizing the need to focus on the organization as a whole by communicating the organizational goals and values. They need to create a competitive advantage by standing out in this global market. I feel our organization is doing this by incorporating the updated job descriptions and encouraging succession planning and performance management. We are getting employees that better fit the values of the organization; therefore we are maintaining a constant, healthy organization culture.