The Trouble with HRM, Thompson (2011)
Kochan(2007) – summarises by saying that HR faces a crisis of trust and a loss of legitimacy in the
eyes of its major stakeholders. Delbridge(2010),agrees with this point and adds to its irrelevance due
to the absence of interaction with critical HRM.
CMS and HRM: The Cultural Burden
- Keenoy & Anthony(1992), treated as a cultural construct concerned with the management
of the meaning of work relations.
- Legge(2005), HR models were concerned with cultural change as the central activity for HR
coining the term ‘cultural artefact’(more info from Edgar Schein’s Model – Artifacts are
visible symbols such as clothing).
- Wilmotts(1993), soft HRM and employee commitment through different managerial
discourses. One being making employee’s behaviour and performance predictable and
calculable through appraisals.
- HRM has a symbolic dimension – advantages of best practice and being a good employer
can have an effect on reputation and share price.
‘Best Practices’ – defined by Pfeffer(1994)
1. Employment security
2. Selective hiring
3. Self-managed teams
4. High compensation contingent on performance
5. Training to provide a skilled and motivated workforce
6. Reduction of status differentials
7. Sharing information
Counter argument by contemporary post- structuralist;
- Focus on employee identity and promoting it through induction, training and promotion
procedures.
- However, appraisals sometimes bear no consequences.
- There is a limited engagement with mainstream HR research (Keenoy,2009)
HRM and the Commitment Model:
- Organisation behaviour-influenced contributions
- Wood & Albanese (1995), focus on creating conditions in which employees display internal
self – driven initiative and take responsibility of their own behaviour. Thus, increasing
autonomy and flexibility – through teamwork, communication and reduction in hierarchy.
- Effort is key and is internal rather than due to sanctions of external pressure.
- Creating a corporate brand which values, engages employees and makes them happy to
promote to others is critical.
- E.g. Cushen(2009), emphasised brand essence and being communicative with employees.
However, employees were sceptical and never experienced any rewards and felt work
insecurity. Study reinforces that employees are not susceptible and that it is hard to sustain
optimistic HR narratives especially when downsizing.
Kochan(2007) – summarises by saying that HR faces a crisis of trust and a loss of legitimacy in the
eyes of its major stakeholders. Delbridge(2010),agrees with this point and adds to its irrelevance due
to the absence of interaction with critical HRM.
CMS and HRM: The Cultural Burden
- Keenoy & Anthony(1992), treated as a cultural construct concerned with the management
of the meaning of work relations.
- Legge(2005), HR models were concerned with cultural change as the central activity for HR
coining the term ‘cultural artefact’(more info from Edgar Schein’s Model – Artifacts are
visible symbols such as clothing).
- Wilmotts(1993), soft HRM and employee commitment through different managerial
discourses. One being making employee’s behaviour and performance predictable and
calculable through appraisals.
- HRM has a symbolic dimension – advantages of best practice and being a good employer
can have an effect on reputation and share price.
‘Best Practices’ – defined by Pfeffer(1994)
1. Employment security
2. Selective hiring
3. Self-managed teams
4. High compensation contingent on performance
5. Training to provide a skilled and motivated workforce
6. Reduction of status differentials
7. Sharing information
Counter argument by contemporary post- structuralist;
- Focus on employee identity and promoting it through induction, training and promotion
procedures.
- However, appraisals sometimes bear no consequences.
- There is a limited engagement with mainstream HR research (Keenoy,2009)
HRM and the Commitment Model:
- Organisation behaviour-influenced contributions
- Wood & Albanese (1995), focus on creating conditions in which employees display internal
self – driven initiative and take responsibility of their own behaviour. Thus, increasing
autonomy and flexibility – through teamwork, communication and reduction in hierarchy.
- Effort is key and is internal rather than due to sanctions of external pressure.
- Creating a corporate brand which values, engages employees and makes them happy to
promote to others is critical.
- E.g. Cushen(2009), emphasised brand essence and being communicative with employees.
However, employees were sceptical and never experienced any rewards and felt work
insecurity. Study reinforces that employees are not susceptible and that it is hard to sustain
optimistic HR narratives especially when downsizing.
