A Free Essay about HRM
06-11, 2012
小编导读：本文由本站代写essay中心HRM Essay代写专栏整理提供，本文主要论述了人力资源管理的相关理论阐述及其分析。更多的留学生essay代写相关服务，可与本站客服进行咨询与联系。
The soft-hard dichotomy in HRM exists primarily within normative, or prescriptive, models of human resource management, rather than in what Legge ( 1995 b ) terms the descriptive-functional or critical-evaluative traditions. The earliest examples where this terminology is used are in the work of Guest ( 1987) and Storey ( 1987; 1992). Guest ( 1987), in seeking to define HRM, identifies two dimensions, soft-hard and loose-tight. Similarly, Storey ( 1992) plots existing interpretations of HRM along the two dimensions of soft-hard and weakstrong. Although these two commentators draw heavily on the work of American HRM academics in drawing a distinction between the two forms-the Harvard model for the soft version ( Beer et al, 1985) and the Michigan model for the hard version ( Fombrun et al. 1984)--the terms 'soft' and 'hard' have not been used in the American literature, and the debates surrounding them have taken place exclusively in a British context ( Hendry and Pettigrew 1990).
Guest ( 1987) and Storey ( 1992) in their definitions of soft and hard models of HRM view the key distinction as being whether the emphasis is placed on the human or the resource. Soft HRM is associated with the human relations movement, the utilization of individual talents, and McGregor's ( 1960) Theory Y perspective on individuals (developmental humanism). This has been equated with the concept of a 'high commitment work system' ( Walton 1985b), 'which is aimed at eliciting a commitment so that behaviour is primarily self-regulated rather than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual and relations within the organization are based on high levels of trust' ( Wood 1996: 41). Soft HRM is also associated with the goals of flexibility and adaptability (which themselves are problematic concepts, as we shall see in more detail later), and implies that communication plays a central role in management ( Storey and Sisson 1993).
Hard HRM, on the other hand, stresses 'the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing the "headcount resource" in as "rational" a way as for any other factor of production', as associated with a utilitarian-instrumentalist approach ( Storey 1992: 29; http://www.ukthesis.org/Thesis_Writing/HRM/ see also Legge 1995 b ). Hard HRM focuses on the importance of 'strategic fit', where human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategic objectives of the organization (external fit), and are coherent among themselves (internal fit) ( Baird and Meshoulam 1988; Hendry and Pettigrew 1986), with the ultimate aim being increased competitive advantage ( Alpander and Botter 1981; Devanna et al. 1984; Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1990; Miles and Snow 1984; Storey and Sisson 1993; Tichy et al. 1982; Tyson and Fell 1986).#p#分页标题#e#
These two perspectives on human resource management are viewed as opposing: 'what is striking is that the same term [HRM] is thus capable of signalling diametrically opposite sets of assumptions' ( Storey 1992: 26). However, both Guest and Storey, whilst explicitly acknowledging this dichotomy, incorporate both perspectives when constructing their own human resource management 'models' or 'theories'.
For example, in his 1987 paper, Guest draws on both hard and soft dimensions in constructing his theory of human resource management which contains reference to four HRM 'policy goals', including 'strategic integration', which is clearly associated with his interpretation of the hard model, and 'commitment', which is associated with his view of the soft model. Thus, Guest acknowledges a difference between the concepts and assumptions of soft and hard HRM, but abandons the distinction when embarking upon theorybuilding. Similarly, Storey ( 1992) identifies his four key features of an HRM approach as incorporating both soft elements such as commitment, and hard elements such as strategic direction.
The incorporation of both soft and hard elements within one theory or model is highly problematic because each rests on a different set of assumptions in the two key areas of human nature and managerial control strategies. Many of these assumptions can, in fact, be traced back to the work of McGregor ( 1960), who even used the terminology 'hard' and 'soft' to characterize forms of managerial control. McGregor was concerned with how to foster an organizational environment conducive to innovation. He concluded that most managerial control strategies were based on views of human nature contained in Theory X (such as, that people dislike work), leading to tight managerial control through close direction. This has overtones of the emphasis within the hard model on strategic direction, integration, and the use of performance management techniques such as appraisal.
本文由本站代写essay中心HRM Essay代写专栏整理提供，更多的留学生dissertation代写服务，欢迎关注本站。
The soft-hard dichotomy in HRM exists primarily within normative, or prescriptive, models of human resource management, rather than in what Legge ( 1995 b ) terms the descriptive-functional or critical-evaluative traditions. The earliest examples where this terminology is used are in the work of Guest ( 1987) and Storey ( 1987; 1992). Guest ( 1987), in seeking to define HRM, identifies two dimensions, soft-hard and loose-tight. Similarly, Storey ( 1992) plots existing interpretations of HRM along the two dimensions of soft-hard and weakstrong. Although these two commentators draw heavily on the work of American HRM academics in drawing a distinction between the two forms-the Harvard model for the soft version ( Beer et al, 1985) and the Michigan model for the hard version ( Fombrun et al. 1984)--the terms 'soft' and 'hard' have not been used in the American literature, and the debates surrounding them have taken place exclusively in a British context ( Hendry and Pettigrew 1990).
Guest ( 1987) and Storey ( 1992) in their definitions of soft and hard models of HRM view the key distinction as being whether the emphasis is placed on the human or the resource. Soft HRM is associated with the human relations movement, the utilization of individual talents, and McGregor's ( 1960) Theory Y perspective on individuals (developmental humanism). This has been equated with the concept of a 'high commitment work system' ( Walton 1985b), 'which is aimed at eliciting a commitment so that behaviour is primarily self-regulated rather than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual and relations within the organization are based on high levels of trust' ( Wood 1996: 41). Soft HRM is also associated with the goals of flexibility and adaptability (which themselves are problematic concepts, as we shall see in more detail later), and implies that communication plays a central role in management ( Storey and Sisson 1993).
Hard HRM, on the other hand, stresses 'the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing the "headcount resource" in as "rational" a way as for any other factor of production', as associated with a utilitarian-instrumentalist approach ( Storey 1992: 29; http://www.ukthesis.org/Thesis_Writing/HRM/ see also Legge 1995 b ). Hard HRM focuses on the importance of 'strategic fit', where human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategic objectives of the organization (external fit), and are coherent among themselves (internal fit) ( Baird and Meshoulam 1988; Hendry and Pettigrew 1986), with the ultimate aim being increased competitive advantage ( Alpander and Botter 1981; Devanna et al. 1984; Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1990; Miles and Snow 1984; Storey and Sisson 1993; Tichy et al. 1982; Tyson and Fell 1986).#p#分页标题#e#
These two perspectives on human resource management are viewed as opposing: 'what is striking is that the same term [HRM] is thus capable of signalling diametrically opposite sets of assumptions' ( Storey 1992: 26). However, both Guest and Storey, whilst explicitly acknowledging this dichotomy, incorporate both perspectives when constructing their own human resource management 'models' or 'theories'.
For example, in his 1987 paper, Guest draws on both hard and soft dimensions in constructing his theory of human resource management which contains reference to four HRM 'policy goals', including 'strategic integration', which is clearly associated with his interpretation of the hard model, and 'commitment', which is associated with his view of the soft model. Thus, Guest acknowledges a difference between the concepts and assumptions of soft and hard HRM, but abandons the distinction when embarking upon theorybuilding. Similarly, Storey ( 1992) identifies his four key features of an HRM approach as incorporating both soft elements such as commitment, and hard elements such as strategic direction.
The incorporation of both soft and hard elements within one theory or model is highly problematic because each rests on a different set of assumptions in the two key areas of human nature and managerial control strategies. Many of these assumptions can, in fact, be traced back to the work of McGregor ( 1960), who even used the terminology 'hard' and 'soft' to characterize forms of managerial control. McGregor was concerned with how to foster an organizational environment conducive to innovation. He concluded that most managerial control strategies were based on views of human nature contained in Theory X (such as, that people dislike work), leading to tight managerial control through close direction. This has overtones of the emphasis within the hard model on strategic direction, integration, and the use of performance management techniques such as appraisal.
本文由本站代写essay中心HRM Essay代写专栏整理提供，更多的留学生dissertation代写服务，欢迎关注本站。
Get expert help on all your writing
立即预定