Is HRM

Is HRM catching on? catching on?

John Storey
Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough, UK

Introduction 3
The nature, and extent, of change in the way people are managed at work
continues to provoke much controversy. How new are the initiatives which are
being launched? What kind of “transformation” are they capable of bringing
about? Is the human resource management (HRM) phenomenon only a
conceptual game played by academics or is there evidence of actual change of
this kind in real places of work and involving real people? These are the kinds
of questions which are addressed in this article. In order to furnish practical
answers, evidence is called forth from two extensive programmes of research.
The first of these was conducted in the late 1980s at the University of Warwick
(Storey, 1992) and the second, covering the period 1992-94, has just been
completed at the University of Loughborough (Grant Report, 1995; Storey and
Bacon, 1993).
This article has three sections. In the first, a summary of the Warwick study
is made. In the second, the findings are brought up to date with a report on the
Loughborough study. Third and finally, some concluding observations are
made about the trends suggested by these two studies.

The Warwick study

In this major research programme some 15 organizations were studied in the
late 1980s using 350 in-depth interviews. Respondents ranged from senior
executives to shopfloor employees. A notable feature of the research was that
most of the attention was directed at key line managers who were identified as
devising, driving and delivering change, rather than the more usual personnel
manager spokespersons.
For the purposes of this summary article we can concentrate on one key
aspect of the research. This concerns the overall pattern of take-up of human
resource management practices in organizations which had previously been
regarded as “pragmatic” and “procedure-based” rather than innovative in their
employment policies and practices.
Until very recently debate about HRM had largely been conducted with, at
best, very flimsy evidence (Blyton and Turnbull, 1992; Salaman, 1992; Storey,
1989; 1995; Towers, 1993). The point of the research studies reported in this
article is to present some reliable data based on extensive field research. The

Both studies reported here were made possible by grant funding from the Economic and Social International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 16 No. 4, 1995, pp. 3-10.
Research Council. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Industrial Relations © MCB University Press,
Conference, St Edmund’s Hall, University of Oxford. 0143-7720
International criteria against which developments were measured in the Warwick research
Journal of are shown in Table I.
Manpower The variables are derived from the literature and from paying close regard to
what practitioners were themselves saying and doing. Using the 27 key HRM
16,4 variables as the checklist of critical aspects, it became possible to “measure” the

4
Dimension Personnel and IR HRM

Beliefs and assumptions

1 Contract Careful delineation of written Aim to go “beyond contract”
contracts
2 Rules Importance of devising clear “Can-do” outlook; impatience with
rules/mutuality “rule”
3 Guide to Procedures “Business need”
management action
4 Behaviour referent Norms/custom and practice Values/mission
5 Managerial task Monitoring Nurturing
vis-à-vis labour
6 Nature of relations Pluralist Unitarist
7 Conflict Institutionalized De-emphasized
Strategic aspects
8 Key relations Labour management Customer
9 Initiatives Piecemeal Integrated
10 Corporate plan Marginal to Central to
11 Speed of decision Slow Fast
Line management
12 Management role Transactional Transformational leadership
13 Key managers Personnel/IR specialists General/business/line managers
14 Communication Indirect Direct
15 Standardization High (e.g. “parity” an issue) Low (e.g. “parity” not seen as
relevant)
16 Prized management Negotiation Facilitation
skills
Key levers
17 Selection Separate, marginal task Integrated, key task
18 Pay Job evaluation (fixed grades) Performance-related
19 Conditions Separately negotiated Harmonization
20 Labour management Collective bargaining contracts Towards individual contracts
21 Thrust of relations Regularized through facilities Marginalized (with exception of
with stewards and training some bargaining for change models)
22 Job categories and Many Few
grades
23 Communication Restricted flow Increased flow
24 Job design Division of labour Teamwork
25 Conflict handling Reach temporary truces Manage climate and culture
26 Training and Controlled access to courses Learning companies
development
Table I. 27 Focuses of attention Personnel procedures Wide-ranging cultural, structural
A comparison of for interventions and personnel strategies
personnel and HRM
degree of movement from one approach to the other in the mainstream case Is HRM
organizations. Figure 1 reveals the pattern of results. catching on?
The way in which the data were derived is of crucial significance here. The
ticks and crosses and question marks are not simply the usual record of
respondents’ replies to a survey. They are the researcher’s judgements based on
multiple sources of information from all levels within these organizations. Two
particular problems in devising Figure 1 should, however, be noted. The first is 5
the problem of continuity. In many of these cases there would be a particular
period of time when one or more of the 27 features was clearly being given
paramount attention. A year later the emphasis might well have shifted to a
new initiative. For the purposes of the figures, a tick is recorded where the
criterion in question was, at some point during the research, being given clear
emphasis. It does not mean that the particular item persisted necessarily for
more than a few months as a key feature of the organization’s employment
management approach.
The second difficulty in constructing such a simple summary of complex
findings is the way in which, in practice, initiatives may be directed at only one
part of the workforce and not another. This was in fact found to be a quite
normal state of affairs. Certain levels or certain divisions might be included or
excluded for all sorts of different reasons. How then to record a score in such
circumstances? In these cases a question mark is used to signal an “in part”
score.
Figure 1 can be read both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally one gets a
picture of the take-up or neglect of the key HR dimensions. Reading vertically,
Figure 1 reveals those organizations which had adopted, or experimented with,
HRM style practices with most alacrity.

The dimensions
The overall pattern in itself reveals some fascinating results. Notable first of all
is the extensive take-up of HRM-style approaches in the British mainstream
organizations. Two-thirds of the companies recorded a definite tick scoring on
at least 11 of the dimensions. The level of managerial activity is indicated even
more forcefully if one takes into account the “in parts” scoring device as well as
the full-blown tick. Such has been the apparent level of engagement with these
new sets of beliefs, values and practices that the evidence points to a wholesale
shift away from the proceduralist recipe in our major employing organizations.

Prevailing beliefs and assumptions

The first section of Table I covers prevailing beliefs and assumptions. “Business
need” as a guide to action was the norm. Associated with this was the view that
procedures, rules and contractual arrangements were impediments to effective
performance. Notably, despite the emphasis given to the “nurturing” orientation
in the idealized portraits of HRM, none of the cases was judged to have
embraced this unambiguously.
International The 15 case organizations
Journal of
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Manpower
Aim to go “beyond contract” ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ? ? ✓
16,4
Impatience with rules ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ✓ ? ? ✓

6 Prime guide to action: “business need” ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Values/mission ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ✓

Nurturing orientation ? ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Unitarist ? ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ? ? ✘ ? ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓
Conflict de-emphasized rather
than institutionalized ✓ ? ✓ ? ? ✓ ? ✘ ? ? ? ✓ ✘ ? ✓

Customer-orientation to fore ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Integrated initiatives ✓ ✘ ✓ ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ✓

Corporate plan central ✓ ? ✓ ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ✘ ? ✘ ? ? ✓

Speedy decision making ✓ ✘ ? ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ✘ ✘ ? ✘ ✘ ✓

Transformational leadership ✓ ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ? ?

General/business/line managers to fore ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Direct communication ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Standardization/parity not emphasized ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✘ ? ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓

Facilitative management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ? ? ? ✘ ? ✓

Selection integrated ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ? ✘ ✓

Performance-related pay ✓ ? ? ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ✘ ? ?

Harmonization ✓ ? ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ? ? ✘ ✘ ?

Towards individual contracts ? ✓ ? ✘ ✘ ✘ ? ? ? ? ? ✓ ? ✘ ✓

Marginalization of stewards ✓ ? ? ? ✘ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ✓

Fewer job categories ? ? ? ? ✓ ✓ ? ? ✓ ✘ ? ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓

Increased flow of communication ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Teamworking ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓
? ? ✓
Conflict reduction through
culture change ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ? ? ✓
Learning companies/heavy
emphasis on training ✓ ? ✓ ✘ ? ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ? ✓ ? ?
Wide ranging cultural, structural ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ? ✓
and personnel strategies

Key : ✓ = yes (existed or were significant moves towards)

Figure 1. ✘ = no
The pattern of results ? = in parts
HRM is said to be fundamentally unitarist. This means that it supposedly has Is HRM
little tolerance for the multiple interest groups and the multiple expression of catching on?
interests which trade unions and the proceduralist traditions make manifest.
Yet the pattern of findings shown here reveals that, despite extensive
engagement with large parts of the HRM recipe, Britain’s large mainstream
organizations have placed little emphasis on disengagement from their pluralist
stance. The nation-wide survey work reported in the third Workplace Industrial 7
Relations Survey (Millward et al., 1992) subsequently underscored this finding.
As predicted by the case work, WIRS3 found that HRM initiatives were in fact
more likely to be found in unionized establishments rather than non-union ones.
What was found to be happening on the industrial relations and trade
union front was a duality of approach. Trade union recognition and the
appurtenances of union relations, such as collective bargaining, were being
maintained. But running quite separately from all of this were the new
initiatives shown in the figures. In some of the cases this dual dealing was
even conducted by separate departments or units and the communication
between them was rudimentary and even hostile. To this extent, what can be
said to have been revealed in British industrial relations is the coexistence of
two traditions. Whether this dualism can survive long into the 1990s is an
issue of some significance.

Strategic aspects
The second part of Table I covers strategic aspects. Interestingly, apart from an
insistence on a customer-orientation, most cases failed to show much in the way
of an integrated approach to employment practices management, and still less
was there evidence of strategic integration with the corporate plan.
This finding lends some support to the view that the HRM model is itself not
a coherent, integrated phenomenon. Many of the initiatives recorded in the case
research, and indicated in summary from here, arose for diverse reasons, and in
practice they shared little in common. The fragmentary application of the model
could of course be attributed simply to imperfections in take-up and
implementation.
Alternatively, the “pick-and-mix” way in which these organizations were
operating might indicate the true nature of the HRM phenomenon – i.e. that it
is, in reality, a symbolic label behind which lurk multifarious practices, many of
which are not mutually dependent on one another. If this is so, it would further
explain how these largely pragmatic and opportunistic organizations have
found it so relatively easy to pick up diverse elements of these “new” initiatives.

Line management
The third part of the Table shows how the case studies uniformly revealed the
impressive emergence of general “business managers” and line managers as
key players on employment issues. In all 15 cases there was evidence of these
managers devising, driving and delivering new initiatives. The discussion in
this journal and elsewhere as to whether personnel specialists should “give
International human resource management away” will need to be reconsidered in the light of
Journal of this finding. Are personnel managers in a position to make such a decision?
Manpower
16,4 Key levers
The scoring with regard to “key levers” produced other surprises. All of the
8 initiatives on the list had been extensively talked about by the mid- to late 1980s
in Britain. However, as Figure 1 reveals, there was wide disparity in actual take-
up and implementation of these contemporary ideas.
Harmonization and performance-related pay in particular are shown to have
been only fractionally introduced at this time. Continuing contact with most of
these organizations up to the present time leads me to the view, however, that,
while harmonization continues to make extraordinarily slow progress,
performance-related pay would record a much higher scoring today.
Perhaps less surprisingly, the emphasis given to direct communication with
the workforce and the increased flow of this form of communication was
observed in all cases. Rather more notable, arguably, was the extent to which
line managers as well as personnel directors were intent on stressing their
engagement with “culture change” activities. Ten years ago this would have
been an extraordinary state of affairs; now it is almost de rigueur.
Reading Figure 1 vertically, the take-up of these initiatives on a company-by-
company basis is revealed. It is not part of the intent of this article to go into
detail on the company comparisons. However, what is notable is the variation in
the range of summary scores. Whitbread and Rover score highest on this
measure. Smith and Nephew scores lowest. Ironically, the latter, despite (or
could it be because of?) its conservative stance on these issues, has consistently
been a top-performing company in financial terms.
Perhaps more surprising than the lack of close association between financial
performance and the sheer number of HR initiatives taken is the similar low
correlation between such a score and the quality of working life in these
organizations.
Employee commitment, trust and satisfaction in the case of organizations
were not found to be closely associated with scores on this checklist. Part of the
answer to this is perhaps that HRM has “hard” and “soft” dimensions. While an
emphasis on the former might lead to a more calculative approach to the
handling of the labour resource, the latter might be expected to lead to a stress
on the development of employees.
The crude scores also say a little about the degree of coherence in each
company’s take-up of these initiatives. Whitbread recorded a high score, and the
sense of coherence between the initiatives was also high among the different
sites and the levels of the company. Conversely, while Rover and Massey
Ferguson also scored high on the sheer number of initiatives undertaken, the
perceived relationship between the various initiatives and the persistence in
their application was found to be much lower.
The Loughborough study Is HRM
This second study continued where the first left off. Its rationale stems from a catching on?
number of conclusions and questions arising from the earlier study. By 1990 it
was clear that there had been an extensive take-up of new initiatives but, for
many, this simply meant that the “easy bit” had been done. Total quality
programmes had been “launched” in the sense that management consultants
had been in to undertake training programmes. New terminology and 9
procedures had been left behind but how successful would these organizations
be in sustaining the new ways? Second, how far could organizations of this kind
go in pursuing the essentially individualizing tendencies of the new initiatives?
What did the future hold for industrial relations? Could companies of this type
pursue their relations with trade unions separately from the HRM initiatives or
would IR and HR eventually have to be brought into alignment if genuine deep-
seated progress was to be made? If trade unions were to be included what would
the new package look like?
These and related questions form the starting-point of the Loughborough
study. This is being conducted in close co-operation with ten major employers
and the ten largest trade unions. The former case studies include The Royal
Mail, Unilever, Ford, and a number of NHS Trusts. The trade unions include
GMB and UCW. The central thrust of the research is a dynamic observation and
analysis of the interplay between “individualism” and “collectivism”.
The findings suggest that Britain’s major companies are continuing to roll
out programmes which have close affinity with the HRM model. To this extent,
HRM has proved to be a fairly resilient phenomenon so far. It has certainly not
been the brief transient “fad” which some early critics were quick to allege.
Given that some of the cases in the current study are the same as those in the
previous one, it has been possible to track the nature of change. In the main, the
pattern described above has continued – indeed, some of these companies have
even adopted the checklist shown in Table I and Figure 1 as a means to
benchmark their progress! In these instances senior managers have proceeded
to add further ticks to the chart.
A further finding relates to the trade unions. While initiatives which tend to
“individualize” the employment relationship have continued, there have been
extremely interesting attempts to deal with the trade unions in a new way.
Many of the cases have negotiated wide-ranging “new framework agreements”.
These seek to reassure trade unions that they will continue to have a place in
the future plans of these organizations, while at the same time securing from the
unions agreement to certain important principles. These include acceptance of
various types of flexible working, team working, and other changes which
“meet the needs of the business”. The overall finding concerning trade unions
and industrial relations in these companies is that there has not been an
inexorable tendency simply to marginalize the unions. On the other hand, the
extent to which the unions have been brought into the new ways of managing
have been limited. There have been extensive discussions with trade unions but
International the new deals have certainly not been allowed to hamper the continuing thrust
Journal of of change of the type described earlier.
Manpower
Conclusions
16,4 The findings from the first study were that Britain’s mainstream companies had
picked up and run with many of the elements of HRM to a far greater extent
10 than most commentators had realized. The subsequent publication of the third
Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (Millward et al., 1992) has confirmed the
tenor of this point. The main initiatives have been found not, as was
conventionally expected, in the non-union sector, but in unionized firms.
The Warwick study also found, however, that there was a lack of coherence
between the initiatives. Doubts were raised about whether a strategic approach
had been adopted and about whether the changes were sustainable. In
particular, the “dualism” of separate HR and IR activity was seen as a source of
instability. The subsequent Loughborough study has shed some new light on
these points. We have been impressed by the extent to which, by 1993/4, the
case companies had begun to take a strategic view of human resource
management. Further, it has become clear that, in the main, these companies
have decided to bring the unions into the frame rather than operate a policy of
exclusion in the wake of the third Conservative general election victory. Having
said that, the extent to which a “new role” for trade unions has been
conceptualized (either by managers or by trade union representatives
themselves) is seemingly rather limited so far. Is HRM catching on? Well yes, to
a considerable degree many elements of the package are now in place. What is
still in the balance is what progress can be made in combining HRM and IR into
a coherent employment management approach. This is now clearer than it was
at the end of the 1980s, but not clear enough to allow a prediction about whether
HRM, having “caught on” to the extent that it has, will be able to make a
difference in terms of economic performance.

References
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds) (1992), Re-assessing Human Resource Management, Sage,
London.
Grant Report for the Economic and Social Research Council, 1995.
Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W.R. (1992), Workplace Industrial Relations in
Transition, Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot.
Salaman, G. (Ed.) (1992), Human Resource Strategies, Sage, London.
Storey, J. (Ed.) (1989), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resource: An Analytical Review,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Storey, J. (Ed.) (1995), Human Resource Management: Critical Text, Routledge, London.
Storey, J. and Bacon, N. (1993), “Individualism and collectivism: into the 1990s”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 665-84.
Towers, B. (Ed.) (1993), Handbook of Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.