hard and soft sides of hrm
HRM: Beyond Soft and Hard Dichotomy, towards a new HRM model
Document Actions
Print this page
One of the ‘real puzzles’ confronting HRM writers today is the problem of ‘evidence’ gap (otherwise known as the ‘Rhetoric- Reality’ problem of HRM). On one side of the spectrum, there is the claim of the strong ‘marching on’ of HRM as well as the rich people management rhetoric of the ‘soft’ HRM model (e.g., it is people that make the difference; the workforce is the most vital asset; human resources are the sole, real, sustainable, competitive advantage or edge.) On the other side, there is, the [‘hard’] reality -- the slow diffusion of ‘soft’ HRM practices and the emphasis on the centrality of bottom line business value, as well as the absence of strategic integration with the corporate plan (the ‘hard’ HRM model). The two primary objectives of my thesis are (1) to find out why the rhetoric- reality problem exists, and (2) to develop an alternative HRM model to analyze this paradox gap.
By Hoang Ho, MSc in International Management
Introduction
According to Storey (1995), human resource management (HRM) has been and remains highly controversial (p. 4), a position that has recently been reconfirmed by Keenoy (1999) in his description of the ‘current state’ of HRM (i.e., the problem HRM academics are encountering today). ‘The theory of HRM has been a continuing source of controversy, confusion and misapprehension. At the central of this unfolding obfuscation lies an infuriating but curious paradox: despite mounting evidence of conceptual fragmentation, theoretical vacuity, and empirical incoherence, HRM-ism has gone from strength to strength. In short, the more researchers have undermined the normative, prescriptive, and descriptive integrity of HRM-ism, the stronger it gets (p. 1)’.
Central to Keenoy’s (1999) account of the ‘current state’ lies the problem of ‘disconnection’ between the promise and the practice, also described as the problem of
Document Actions
Print this page
One of the ‘real puzzles’ confronting HRM writers today is the problem of ‘evidence’ gap (otherwise known as the ‘Rhetoric- Reality’ problem of HRM). On one side of the spectrum, there is the claim of the strong ‘marching on’ of HRM as well as the rich people management rhetoric of the ‘soft’ HRM model (e.g., it is people that make the difference; the workforce is the most vital asset; human resources are the sole, real, sustainable, competitive advantage or edge.) On the other side, there is, the [‘hard’] reality -- the slow diffusion of ‘soft’ HRM practices and the emphasis on the centrality of bottom line business value, as well as the absence of strategic integration with the corporate plan (the ‘hard’ HRM model). The two primary objectives of my thesis are (1) to find out why the rhetoric- reality problem exists, and (2) to develop an alternative HRM model to analyze this paradox gap.
By Hoang Ho, MSc in International Management
Introduction
According to Storey (1995), human resource management (HRM) has been and remains highly controversial (p. 4), a position that has recently been reconfirmed by Keenoy (1999) in his description of the ‘current state’ of HRM (i.e., the problem HRM academics are encountering today). ‘The theory of HRM has been a continuing source of controversy, confusion and misapprehension. At the central of this unfolding obfuscation lies an infuriating but curious paradox: despite mounting evidence of conceptual fragmentation, theoretical vacuity, and empirical incoherence, HRM-ism has gone from strength to strength. In short, the more researchers have undermined the normative, prescriptive, and descriptive integrity of HRM-ism, the stronger it gets (p. 1)’.
Central to Keenoy’s (1999) account of the ‘current state’ lies the problem of ‘disconnection’ between the promise and the practice, also described as the problem of