The Guest Model

David Guest's (1989, 1997) model of HRM has 6 dimensions of analysis:

HRM strategy

HRM practices

HRM outcomes

Behaviour outcomes

Performance outcomes

Financial outcomes

The model is prescriptive in the sense that it is based on the assumption that HRM is
distinctively different from traditional personnel management (rooted in strategic
management, etc.).
It is idealistic, implicitly embodying the belief that fundamental elements of the HRM
approach (essentially those of the Harvard map) such as commitment have a direct
relationship with valued business consequences.
However, Guest has acknowledged that the concept of commitment is 'messy' and that the
relationship between commitment and high performance is (or, perhaps, was - given the age
of this material) difficult to establish. It also employs a 'flow' approach, seeing strategy
underpinning practice, leading to a variety of desired outcomes.
Like its American predecessors, this UK model is unitarist (tying employee behaviour and
commitment into the goals of strategic management) and lukewarm on the value of trade
unions. The employee relationship is viewed as one between the individual and the
organization.

Harvard Model
The Harvard map of HRM
A large part of this section in Human Resource Management in a Business Contextis devoted
to the Harvard 'map' of HRM. This is probably the most seminal model of HRM and has had
a major influence on academic debate on the subject.
'We noted that the Harvard Business School generated one of the most influential models of
HRM. The Harvard interpretation sees employees as resources. However, they are viewed as
being fundamentally different from other resources - they cannot be managed in the same
way. The stress is on people as human resources. The Harvard approach recognizes an
element of mutuality in all businesses, a concept with parallels in Japanese people
management, as we observed earlier. Employees are significant stakeholders in an
organization. They have their own needs and concerns along with other groups such as
shareholders and customers.'
The Harvard Map or model outlines four HR policy areas:
1. Human resource flows - recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal and
assessment, promtion, termination, etc.
2. Reward systems - pay systems, motivation, etc.
3. Employee influence - delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power
4. Work systems - definition/design of work and alignment of people.
Which in turn lead to the 'four C's' or HR policies that have to be achieved:

Commitment

Congruence

Competence

Cost effectiveness

See Human Resource Management in a Business Context for more.

Point to consider

* Beer et al themselves did not consider that the four 'Cs' represented all necessary criteria.
Why not? What else could be considered?

HRM policies and their consequences

Beer et al (1984) proposed that long-term consequences (both benefits and costs of human
resource policies should be evaluated at three levels: individual, organizational and societal.
These in turn should be analyzed using the four Cs.
See Human Resource Management in a Business Context for more.

Point to consider
* Although central to the Harvard Map, 'stakeholder theory' has a much wider scope than
HRM and has largely been developed outside the HR literature. At first sight, it is a simple
notion - those parties or groups that have an interest in the firm. But more critical attention
reveals a concept that is not easy to define and that is also exposed to a number of political,
ethical and other agendas. How would right- and left-wing politicians regard stakeholders?
Similarly, senior managers and trade unionists, etc.

Warwick Model

Harvard vs Warwick
Noon, (cited in Poole, 1999) and Beardwell and Claydon (2007) observe that the Harvard
model of HRM (Beer et al, 1984) is both prescriptive and analytical. This is echoed by
Torrington and Hall (1995: 54) who note that that the outcomes described in the model are
seen as desirable and that the process for achieving them is prescriptive. Pilbeam and
Corbridge (2002) assert that, in contrast, Hendry and Pettigrew's (1990) model of HRM
views HR strategy as less prescriptive and more conceptual. Clearly, this is an important
distinction as prescriptive models of strategy can operate from a narrow viewpoint and seem
somewhat simplistic. Strategic decisions are based on myriad and complex variables
(Bazerman and Watkins, 2004) and prescriptive elements can ignore underlying issues such
as employee motivation, workplace conflict, labour negotiations. Moreover, the applicability
of prescribed outcomes can vary significantly according to the organisational setting. The
Harvard model seems to assume a "one size fits all" method of what HRM strategy should
contain, whereas Hendry and Pettigrew (1990) offer a model of how strategy works.

The situational factors and stakeholder interests described in the Harvard model guide
strategic HRM policy which Beer et al seem to suggest leads to certain outcomes commitment, competence, congruence and cost-effectiveness. The model further assumes
that these outcomes yield long-term consequences such as individual well-being,
organisational effectiveness and societal well-being. Although these consequences would
seem laudable, the relevance to organisational strategy could be questioned. Further, it may
be suggested that, rather than being a consequence of commitment and competence,
individual well-being actually leads to these outcomes and should appear earlier in the
strategic chain. The competence element stated in the outcomes of the Harvard Model could
be a precursor to Prahalad and Hamel's (1990) core-competencies in terms of management of
the human resource as a competence. These core competencies should lead to a competitive
advantage (Porter, 2004). Therefore, it could be argued that sustainable competitive
advantage, a key strategic aim, is a desired long term consequence which has been omitted in
the Beer et al's "map". This casts further doubt on the validity of the outcomes in terms of
strategic relevance and illustrates how, in contrast to Hendy and Pettigrew's model, the
Harvard model's prescriptive nature overlooks key strategic aims.

Tyson (2006) and Maund (2001) note that Hendry and Pettigrew's (1990) model

acknowledges the direct influence of business strategy on HRM policy content and also
illustrates the reciprocal relationships of HRM policy with the micro and macro business
environment and organisational strategy. This is closer to a resource based or "hard"
(Beardwell and Claydon, 2007) view of strategy which sees Human Resources as both a
driver and implementer of business and operational strategy. Maund (2001:76) further notes
that Hendry and Pettigrew's (1990) model "recognises emergent strategy". Both the Beer et al
(1984) and Hendry and Pettigrew (1990) models acknowledge the role of stakeholders in
strategic HRM. Beer et al (ibid) explicitly state employee groups and unions, for example, as
affecting HRM policy choices - it guides strategy. In contrast, Hendry and Pettigrew (1990)
view employee relations as not simply guiding strategy but also as being part of the content it is a part of the strategy and acknowledges that dealing with these issues is a part of
organisational life. This may have an effect on the culture of an organisation and is
representative of a resource based approach to HRM as it sees people as vital to the company
objectives. Beardwell and Claydon (2007:9) comment that Hendry and Pettigrew (1990)
criticise Beer et al's (1984) model as being "too unitarist" and not acknowledging the reality
of organisational conflict. This is important as conflict in an organisation can lead to
improvements in working practices if managed effectively, through employee relations for
example and, if ignored, can lead to a dichotomy in the actual and perceived culture.
However, it should be noted that "congruence", a HR outcome in Beer et al's (1984) model,
underpins modern strategic management and although company mission statements, visions
and professed culture often differ from tacit and actual culture, the notion of a unitary
organisation is often associated with the most effective organisations. However, in contrast to
the Harvard Model, the pluralist approach of Hendry and Pettigrew's model acknowledges
conflict. The employee relations element suggests that the HRM function can manage the
conflict that arises from the gap between organisational objectives and the needs of other
stakeholders such as employees and unions.