Hr Systems Comparison: System Thinking , Best Practice, Best Fit

Topics: Human resource management, Soft systems methodology, Systems theory Pages: 14 (4698 words) Published: April 17, 2013
Managing human capital|


Table of Contents
3.System and Ecological Thinking4
3. Best Practice5
4.Best Fit6
5.1.‘Systems Thinking’7
6.Summary and Conclusion10

1. Abstract
This assignment will assess three main schools of thought that apply to Human Resources Management (HRM). With regards to contemporary HRM concepts it is evident that a consideration of the ‘larger picture’ is necessary to be able to effectively push an organisation towards its ideals goals. A consideration of ‘system thinking’, ‘best practice’ and ‘ best fit’ systems of HRM lead to balanced conclusion that it is necessary for an HR Manager to have a sensitivity to the individual needs of the workforce as well as the ultimate mission of the company. Each system discussed here does this differently here does this differently with each focussing on alternate viewpoints of what is most important; be it the intricacies of the system, the commitment applied to the overreaching goals of the organisation.

This study finds that our of the three areas studied is viable and arguable that best practice system offers the most well rounded set of principles for general HRM. However, to assess the appropriate HR System for a more specific organisation either local or international, it is essential to consider a conglomerates system, which takes into consideration the specific aims of the company the needs of the staff to create an efficiency and enhanced performance that is still systematic and easily applicative.

Key words: System Thinking, Best Practice, Best Fit, Human Resource Management

2. Introduction
Human Resource Management was influenced from the changing look of the employment management relationship that occurred after the First and Second World War. It starts with the First World War; it can be classified in terms of a changed attitude of managers towards labour, changed labour management practices, the development of personnel techniques, and development of the personnel profession. During WW1 the demand for workers significantly increased, as a result of this, the need for monitoring workers, and finding qualified workers to manage the group of people similarly increased. “These new values became incorporated in what was emerging as a distinctive body of management thought, practice and ideology, upon which later theory and practice are founded.” WW1’s impact on HRM grew rapidly during WW2, with an increase in new theories and ideas. In addition to this, labourers created their industrial unions which enhanced the monitoring of the people and also allowed a development in training. During WW2 developments opened vast fields for HRM. Significant impacts occurred after the war, when the idea was introduced that “quality adds to costs”. Subsequently, “western organisations have since come to emulate the philosophy and practises of quality that proved so successful”. The concept of HR can thus find their beginnings rooted in the aftermath of the two world wars This essay will consider three main systems of HR namely; ‘systems thinking’, ‘best practice’ and ‘best fit’. Within these topics there will be an assessment of what each of these systems involves with regards to HR and occasionally the International HR Manager. The ‘best-fit’ system can be subdivided into three models which shall be discussed also. These are the ‘life-cycle model’, the ‘competitive model’ and finally the ‘configurational model’. Furthermore there will be consideration of the benefits and limitations of each of these practices, culminating in an assessment of which of these systems could offer the advantageous and beneficial HRM for the Director.

3. System and Ecological Thinking
By definition, the context of HRM is complex because the nature of HR is that...

Bibliography: 1. Midgley, G., Systemic Intervention: A Critical Systemic Perspective, in Systems Thinking, Government Policy and Decision Making, Bergvall-Karweborn, B. (Ed.), ISSS, Louisville, Kentucky(1995).
4. Checkland. P.B., “Are Organizations Machines?” Futures, 12:421(1980).
5. Miles, Raymond E. and Snow, Charles C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co
7. Bennis, W. and B., Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row(1985).
8. . R.S. Schuler / Journal of International Management 6 (2000)
10. Armstrong, M., Managing People, A Practical Guide for Managers, Kogan Page, London(1998).
11. Beer, S., The Heart of the Enterprise, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester(1979).
12. Beer, S., The Brain of the Firm, J. Wiley, Chichester(1981).
13. Bratton, J. and J., Gold, Human Resource Management-Theory and Practice, MacMillan Business, London(1999).
14. Belbin, E., Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heineman, London(1981).
15. Burrell, G. and G., Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Arena, England(1994).
17. Combs, W.V., Manpower Planning: Operational Research and Personnel Research, American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, (1965).
18. Flood, R.L., Solving Problem Solving, J. Wiley, Chichester(1995).
19. Flood, R.L. and M.C., Jackson, Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems Intervention, J. Wiley, Chichester(1991).
20. Flood, R.L. and N.R.A., Romm, Diversity Management, J. Wiley, Chichester(1996).
21. Foot, M. and C., Hook, Introducing Human Resource Management, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., Essex(1999).
22. Habermas, J., Knowledge and Interest, in Sociological Theory and Philosophical analysis, D. Emmet and A. MacIntyre (Eds.) MacMillan, London, (1970).
23. Habermas, J., Theory and Practice, Heinneman, London(1974).
24. Handy, C., Understanding Organizations, Penquin Books(1993).
25. Jackson, M.C., Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, Plenum, New York(1991).
26. Rice, A.K, Productivity and Social Organization, Tavistock, London(1958).
27. Ryan, T.A., Intentional Behavior, Ronald Press, New York(1970).
28. Tyson, S., and A., York, Personnel Management Made Simple, Heineman, London, (1982).
29. Weightman, J., Managing Human Resources, Institute of Personnel Management(1993).
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Best Fit vs Best Practice Essay
  • Hrm- Best Fit and Best Practice Essay
  • best fit and best practice in HRM Essay
  • Best Fit vs Best Practice Essay
  • Best Practice Essay
  • Current Best Practices in HR Essay
  • Essay about Best fit vs best practice and nsms
  • Best Practice Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free