‘management and employees. It is concemed with the loyment, development and reward of people in organizations and the act oF relationships between management and the workforce. It ves all line managers and team, Jers (Artrong, 199) > themes could be exacted fom tis bundle that (human resources lis shouldbe integrated with stategc business planning and wed wo Bierce an appropiste (or change an inappropriate) erganiationa! Hr, tat human resources ae valuable and source of eongetive Wag, tat they may be tpped most effectively by mutually ite policies that promote commitment and which, as a esuene, foster a wlingress in employees to act flexibly in the sof the ‘adoptive organization's pursuit of excellence’ (Karen 195.66) rstancling ofthe new thought and giving ita wider scope as wel. The Tesult is four famous models which could be grouped under two Perspectives: the American perspective (The Michigan and the Harvard Models) and the British perspective (Guest and Warwick Models) Wis worth mentioning that although the models are — to some extent — containing similar elements, yet they represent differen aspects of the major comers of HRM. They represent three categories that can be Inbeted as: + strategic models + descriptive models + normative models/12.1Strateglc Models : (Warwick Model) atogic models are primarily concemed with he relationship between @ external factors and HRM policy snd practice, An fetanding work in this area has been developed BY Hendry and sigrew (1990) form UK and its tiled the Warwick ‘Model in the HRM «classify key environmental nge of possible erature. Their concern was 10 identify an encies on HRM. This, undoubtedly is one ofthe strongest points of is model fendry and Petigre ount not only of HRM practices and business SMGEY 2% they have ca period of tim but takes into acount 120 the external sy described theie model as a farework: which takes volved ov sad internal context in which this has taken plas teen brought about, inchuding the and is sensitive to the ycocesses by which such change has rterations among he context and content of ange FEN 1». Frne mdel adopts the set of HRM activities which appeared in the tiara Model and idenifies the preconditions BOVE © firm's employment system: economic (nchaden elo STUNTS and strategy), and socio-political, However, with consideration of such, ondtions they succeeded to produce a specification FoF what an analysis of FIRM in the firm should cover she economic preconditions cover: technical, = ownership and control, organization size and structure, 1's growth path (orstagein the life eyele), and ‘ organization «fe srctre ofthe indastry and its makes thc samponets ne intend: “The ow pal and INS? ircie define the competitive condiions profitability. Along with the form of ors ‘the firm faces and its these will influence its EySocio-economic Cute) Paced Taskicchnig act wart Hey and etc Revard system Employee relations Hendry aud Petigrey, 1999pectives and its strategy. But strategy will also be influenced by size structure”, (Hendry and Pettigrew 1990:30), jendry and Pettigrew argued that tracing the impact of changing fechnology on skill requirements and the way these are met, on work organization and practices, and how such changes are managed ‘employee/industral relations terms, is obvioysly a central interest ‘They argued further that the socio-political context in which strategic activity takes place should be considered thoroughly and much attention should be given to national education and training systems which support insirm taining, Moreover they anslyzed the total impact of these contextual factors: “The impact of these factors on the HR system of the firm ~ on recruitment and selection, on appraisal, on career planning, on the training and development of people, on pay, on employee relations, fon work organization ~ is mediated, at times, by the personneVHR function, at times, by tine managers. The precise role of the personnel function in this is influenced by its record of successes and failures, is orientation, its vision and capacity to enact a ‘strategic’ HRM, and its ‘organization, Similarly, business strategy evolves in response to success and failure, and is the work of people acting in rational-analytial, politcal, ancl emotional ways through organizational structures. Insofar as HRM is responsive to business strategy, itis perforce ‘emergent’. The caiteria of coherence and appropriations are therefore only ever provisionally attained”. (Hendry and Pettigrew 1990-31), The final part of the model turned to explain the strategy and its implications for the content and conduct of HIRM. They argued that this model provides “better descriptions of structures and strategy-making in complex organizations and of frameworks for understanding them which tre essential underpinning for analyzing HRM. 30Of course the implication is that those organizations achieving en alignment between the external and internal context will experience superior performance” (Bratton and Jeffrey 1999). But Hendry and Pettigrew failed 10 specify the process whereby HRM is linked to Performance (an area renisined under research tll this time) which set an account of weakness of the model 2.2.2.2Descriptive Models (Harvard Model) ‘This type of Models describe the field of HRM in a comprehensive way. ‘The two best known are those presented by Beer and his colleagues from Harvard (1985) ad by Kochan, Katz and Mekeersie (1986). In both cases, ‘there is an attempt to capture the broad field and to address some of the interteltionships, Both, also, are descriptive, mapping the feld and classifying inputs and outcomes (Figure 2.2) Beer and his colleagues maintained that HRM policies are directly influenced by two considerable elements : situational factors and stikelolder interests. The situational factors as they conceived ~ include Juve and societal values, labour market conditions, unions, workforce characteristics, business strategies, management philosophy, and task ‘echnology which have an impact on the fimm's external and internal ‘environment. “These factors can act as constraints on the formation of IRM policies and ean also be influenced by HRM policies. HRM policies are and indeed should be influenced by the interests of various stakeholiers = shareholders, management, employees, unions, community, and goveinment. Unless these policies are influenced by all stakeholders, the enterprise will fail to meet the needs of these stakeholders in the long run and it will fa as an institution”. (Beer 1985115). 3‘The Harvard Model proposes that my labour relations activici GR) categories Many of the diverse personnel and can be dealt with under four human resource employee influence, human 1 resource flow, reward ‘nd work systems. These systems, are general issues that managers must tend (© regardless of whether the organiza tion is unionized or not, net ‘ianington and Edwards 2000). Beer and his colleagues further argued that immediate organizational whatever management style is applied, and w it is a growing or Aectining business (Pi HRM policies aifect certain outcomes and consequences. The policy that man, affect the overall cop have certain long-term agers choose as a set of guiding lights of employees, the commitment of cmployeesithe degre of congruence or compatibility of interests and Beals between management and groups of employees, and the overall eost OfIRM practice. They advice further that “these four Cy Netive ofthe criteria that HRM policy makers may find useful tating the effectiveness of human resource m {re reasonably comprehensive”, (Beer 1985-16) Im the tong run, effectiveness are not exha in evalu management, but they the wtimate net result isthe welfie ofthe employee ‘hich leads to organizational effectiveness (i.e. the responsiveness and ‘depttion of the organization tits environment), and society well-being at the end (i.e. broa nde consequences rater than narrower consequence) Not only tis the Four Cs in tum affect he situational tactone and the Staksholders, For example protests by mistreated and insecure ‘employees in the society can lead to goverment legislation regarding fair GnPloyment practice. Strikes, aswell, afet the society negatively and Sin influence changes in Labour Legislation, Nevertheless, the losses and Poor profits attained by the organization, and sometimes resorted to employees’ Performance, will affect the shareholders interests and ‘efiitely wil have its election in HRM policy changes: such as wages 2ae, te, Source: Beer erat, 199 a‘and training, to name few. “The central point is that the long-term consequences of HRM policies for individual well-being, organizational effectiveness and societal well-being will affect those policies and the context within which they are formulated”. (Beer 1985:17), “An organization putting this model into practice would therefore aim to ensure that its employees were involved in their work*and able to Participate in decision making. HRM policies would be developed and implemented to meet employees’ needs for influence, but within the limitation of having to be consistent with the overall business strategy and management philosophy”. (Pinnigion & Edwards 2000-9), “A srength of the Harvard Model is the classification of inputs and -omes at both organization and societal level, erating the basis for critique of comparative HRM. A weakness ofthe model isthe sbsence of 4 coherent theoretical basis for measuring the relationship between HRM inputs, outcomes and performance”. (Bratton and Gold 1999:20) 2.2.2,3Normative Models (Guest Model) ‘This type of models is more prescriptive in its approach, reflecting the view either that a sufficient knowledge exists to provide a good ground for prescribed ideal practice or that a set of norms and standards indicates best practice. In most of the time the two perspectives are combined and nited. The ‘vo best known examples ofthis approach ate Walton's work ‘on control and commitment (1985) and Guest (1987). David Guest has attempted to capture some of the spirit of this approach by seeking to present it within a coherent framework, specifying some of the Links so that the resulting model can at least be tested. “The central hypothesis is that if an integrated set of HRM practices is applied with a view to achieving the normative goals of high commitment to the organization plus high quality and flexibility, then higher worker 3performance will result. Unlike other approaches, this normative Perspective argues that specific practices and specific HRM goals will always be superior”. (Guest 1997). Guest's has identified six components:~ 1. an HRM strategy a set of HRM policies 3. aset of HRM outeomes 4. behavioural outcomes 5. anumber of performance outcomes 6. financial outcomes. ‘The model sees three categories of strategy : differentiation, focus, and cost (Figure 2.3). The central hypothesis is that HRM practices should be designed to lead to a set of HRM outcomes of high employee ‘commitment, high quality employees, and highly flexible employees. The right hand side of the model (performance outcomes) focuses on the link between HRM and performance. According to the model, only when all three HRM outcomes — commitment, quality, flexibility ~ are achieved can we expect behaviour change and superior performance outcomes, Again, as Guest (1987 and 1997) emphasizes, these HRM goals are a a financial outcomes depicted on the right-hand side of the model. He argues that ; “only when a coherent strategy, directed towards these four and cach is necessary to ensure superior performance and policy gouls, flly integrated into business strategy and fully sponsored by line management at all levels is applied will the high productivity and related outcomes sought by industry be achieved” (Guest 1990:378) According to Guest, HRM policies are concerned with more than “good” selection or training: “they are intended to achieve the human resource ‘management policy goals” Guest 1989:49). A key issue here is the distinctiveness of IRM practices: “itis not the presence of selection or MFigure 2.3. The Guest model of HRM IRN Siategy | IRM | —TIRM [Behaviour [ Patomnance | Financ rmictices | outcomes | outcomes | outcomes | eutomes | seeaton Toa High | Pros Differentiation rotivation | Productivity Gnnovation) | Taining | Commitment Quality Imovation oom | Appraisal Cooperation vat Rewards | Quality Low: | ROL Cost InvoWernent | - Absence (Cost | sob design ‘Labour reduction Conte Involvement | Festitity. | Organization | (Customer [complains citizenship | EH. =e Status and Security | (est 197 38training but a distinctive approach to selection or training that matters. It is the use of high performance or high commitment HRM practices” (Guest 1997:273). “A strength in the Guest model is that it clesrly maps out the field of HRM and classifies the inputs and outcomes. The model is useful for examining the key goals usually associated with the normative models of HIRM : strategic integration, commitment, flexibility and quality. Guest's constructed set of theoretical proposition can also improve our understanding of the precise nature of HRM and the nature of the link between HRM and performance and can be empirically tested by survey- based and case-study based research”, (Bratton and Gold 1999.23), “Guest's model has been criticized for presenting an ideal and for assuming unrealistic conditions for practicing HRM. Guest himself | reported ten years later, in 1997, that whilst considerably more research data on HRM in organizations had been gathered, the link between the adoption of HRM policies and high performance remains somewhat elusive”. (Pinnington and Edwards 2000:10). Each of the three categories (approaches) (strategic models, descriptive ‘models, and normative models) has some sort of theoretical basis in either contingency (business) strategy, system theory or organization behaviour theory’ ‘Most HRM models, whether British or American, assert that employees are valued assets and, with the emphasis on commitment, adaptability and ‘employees as a source of competitive advantage, the image might equally be presented as ‘resourceful’ humans (Karen Legge, 1989). But as Tyson ‘and Fell (1986:135) point out, human resource’ may be understood in a ‘completely different sense as a factor of production, along with land and Capital, and an ‘expense of doing business’ rather than ‘the only resource ‘capable of turning inanimate factors of production into wealth’, 36