Hard and Soft Human Resource Management - Term Paper Example

Human Resource Theory and Practice Name: Professor Institution Course: Date: Human Resource Theory and Practice Introduction In order to understand fully the theory and practice of Human Resource Management, it is important to know what Human Resource Management (HRM) is. According to (Heathfield 2010), HRM is the utility within an organization that focuses on the recruitment, management and provision of direction for the people who work in that organization. Also, Human Resource Management can be defined as the organizational function that deals with issues connected to employees such as compensation, recruitment, organization development, safety, performance management, wellness, employee motivation, benefits, communication, training and administration. Therefore Human Resource Theory and Practice cane be described as the practical application of the laid down Human Resource Management guidelines that have been studied and developed over time since its inception. Over time, many organizations have taken on a style of Human Resource Management that values employees as assets to the organization rather that just mere employees. This practice has been studied, advanced and laid down in scholarly resources for use by organizations and other interested parties. Prior to this approach, another model of Human Resource Management existed that insisted on a sort of authoritarian style of management where employees were treated with little regard to their human nature but rather as implementation tools. Studies have recently revealed that many organizations that purport to employ the soft approach of HRM are in reality using the hard approach with the soft approach remaining only a matter of rhetoric (Barney 1991). This paper will endeavour to understand why and how this is so. Starting with highlighting succinctly what soft and hard HRM is and then the problem on the ground. Then the paper will expound on hard and soft HRM and also the problem at hand which will then help in making conclusions and recommendations. Highlights It is believed that the theory and concept of hard and soft HRM has its origins in the United States but has been most studied in the British Literature since the advance of a normative model of HRM in the mid 1980s. What is Soft HRM? Soft HRM It is an approach that insists on the need to treat employees as assets which must be cared for, taught and developed in order to obtain the best out of them. This advancement emphasizes the importance of getting organizational commitment from employees (Bolton 2007). What is Hard HRM? As a contrast to soft HRM, hard HRM views employees as factors of production which, similarly to other assets, can be treated unemotionally in line with business requirements (Bolton 2007). Thus, hard HRM implores on two important concepts which are flexibility and performance. Problem The main problem which is the subject of this paper is the fact that the HRM theories advanced on paper are actually not the ones practiced on the ground. For example the theory about soft HRM is merely practiced on paper or among scholarly circles but the reality on the ground is different. What is actually happening on the ground is hard HRM. The gap between rhetoric and reality According to a study by Gill (1999) "even the most basic organization has issued its declaration of 'mission'; has declared dedication to direct communication with its supposedly most valued asset, its employees; has made trials with quality circles; has considered performance related pay; brushed down its evaluation structure; reconsidered its selection processes and affirmed its commitment to training". However, she further asserts, the principles of HRM fall short of reality; Organizational behaviour and surveys of practice are not equivalent to HRM rhetoric (Gill 1999). Gill (1999), in her study, quotes Kochran et al. who based on their research in the United States made the following proposition, quoting directly: "We do not, in fact, believe that participative management styles and sophisticated human resource management policies are the dominant pattern, we believe aggressive resistance to unions and harsh personnel policies are also part of the story, we are convinced that progressive personnel practices have not diffused broadly across employment settings" (Gill 1999). Also, many other researchers have been contemptuous in their appraisal of the gap between HRM speechifying and reality. For example Gill (1999) also quotes Skinner in her paper who observed that: "Human resources management seems to be mostly good intentions and whistling in the dark" and that HRM is "Big Hat, No Cattle". She also talks about one Vaughan who suggested that: "HRM rhetoric communicates an attractive image of people trusting each other, sharing risks and rewards, and united by a strong feeling of identity, but it gives little sense of the impersonal economic rationalism that characterizes management thinking in the real world"(Gill 1999). Other proponents of the same argument according to Gill (1999) are Argyris who was of the view that employee empowerment can be compared to the famous story about emperor's new clothes, meaning that it is lauded in public, but in private one asks themselves why they cannot see it. To provide the synopsis, one Armstrong says HRM is like a situation of a wolf in sheep's clothing which, signifies that HRM is manipulative and not mainstream as purported in public (Gill 1999). An illustration of this interesting phenomenon would come from a study by Truss and others which involved eight in depth case studies. Truss and his fellows started with the premise that connecting people management to business objectives is investigative of the hard model because of the prominence in this model on strategic direction, integration and performance managing techniques, such as appraisal. In probing use of the soft model of HRM, they center on the assumption that dedication is generated when human resources are trained and developed and permitted to have control over their work. Their findings suggested that there were no uncontaminated examples of soft or hard HRM in rhetoric neither in reality, the language adopted by the companies often incorporated the character of the soft, commitment based model, while the reality experienced by employees was more inclined towards strategic control that is similar to the hard model. They found that even when the soft adaptation was embraced at the rhetorical level, the fundamental principle was invariably constrained to improvement of bottom-line performance" with the objective interests of the organization outshining over the individual. Illustrations and Reasons To give a clear picture of the subject at hand, it would be prudent to provide a personal illustration which will then help highlight the reasons underlying the phenomenon. I used to work with an organization that ventured mainly in the production and exportation of horticultural products. As a positive measure, the firm had purchased several tracks of farming land and developed several processing plants on each of the farms. This meant that the organization mainly required manual workers and few logistical workers. The company structure included a C. E. O who is the top leader and several managers leading each of the farms and processing plants. There were also supervisors to handle the manual workers and finally the manual workers themselves. My position was that of manager in one of the plants. The organization had taken on the soft approach to human resource management so that employees were deemed to be the centre of attention of the organization. Meetings were carried out regularly to evaluate employee management progress which resulted in clear cut ideas that insisted on soft HRM approach. It was stipulated that for example the manual workers would be provided with all the required work materials and apparatus. For example the provision of gloves and aprons, masks, and head covers. This was to cushion them from such things as harm from the chemicals used in farming horticulture products. To help ease their work they would be given proper functioning tools and the old ones replaced immediately. Logistically, they would be given a loan scheme with extremely low interest’s rates to match their wages and they would also benefit from a pension scheme. On paper, the company would build schools and medical facilities for their families and children and each worker would be entitled to a one month leave every year. The managers and supervisors were to treat the employees as humans’ first then workers second, meaning that autocratic leadership was discouraged. Workers were to get a coffee, lunch and 4pm break and any disputes were to be solved diplomatically meaning that even punishments were to be considerate to the employee. All the above factors were embedded in the company’s constitution. This was however not the situation on the ground. A reality check would indicate the absolute contrast. First of all, the managers and supervisors were extremely stringent in their leadership styles. For example employees would be punished for coming in late and the coffee and 4pm break never existed. What was interesting is that this was a direct trickle down from the top since the top managers insisted on result oriented management. The supposed pension scheme never existed in reality and upon retirement an employee would be given their lump some pay and that would be it. There were neither schools nor health schemes for the workers and the workers lives in dilapidated quarters. Every worker was paid according to the work done per day instead of a consistent monthly pay, this was supposedly meant to burst production. Therefore several reasons become apparent upon analyzing the factors surrounding this leadership style. We can realize first of all that most if not all organizations are business oriented. This means that they aim at making maximum profits at the cheapest costs. Therefore an employee becomes one avenue for getting cheap labour and obtaining maximum profits (Boxall and Purcell 2003). Since treating employees passionately turns out to be a sort of costly affair say through training and development programmes, an organization would rather use a hard approach. A measure of cutting costs (Boxall and Purcell 2003). Also, another factor was the prevailing economic situation such as extreme unemployment rates. This meant that employees become dependant on the organization as a source of livelihood instead of the vice versa where the organization depends on the employees. This gives the organization an opening to mistreat the employees since they will have no choice. Also another apparent reason was the lack of or the existence of weak employee bodies such as unions which are not assertive (Boxall and Purcell 2003). As a result, employees are left voiceless at the mercy of the organization which can mistreat them as they like. Conclusion The world is quickly becoming a modern global village. It is imperative that at one point, an organization must run in tandem with the rest of the world. The days of authoritarian leadership are long gone and the world is becoming more knowledgeable and aware of their rights. Organizations that thrive on rhetoric and contrast implementation are no longer popular but are in fact an extinct idea. The advent of Human Resource Management in the modern world insists on employee oriented leadership in contrast to objective oriented leadership. This means that employees become the primary reason for the existence of an organization. This calls upon the organization to treat them passionately as the most valuable asset to the organization. Soft HRM is therefore the best if not the only option that is left for use in organizations. Recommendations Perhaps the only probable recommendation would be that an organization should carry out an environmental analysis so that it is equipped with skills for handling employees under any circumstance. This means that some circumstances may call for a hard approach of HRM while others may call for a soft approach of HRM. For example in situations where employees have become lax and are disobedient to the management forces, a hard approach to HRM would be considered as an appropriate measure to correct that situation. In another situation where employees are loyal to the organization, it would be prudent to employ a soft approach since employees are adhering to the company constitution without coercion. Therefore creating a method of intertwining the two systems would be an appropriate way of dispelling the disadvantages associated with each model. References Barney, G. (1991) ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’. Journal of Management, 17:11, 99120. Bolton, S. C. and Houlihan, M. (2007). Searching for the Human in Human Resource Management, London: Palgrave. Boxall, P and Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management, London: Palgrave. Gill, C. (1999). Use of hard and soft models of HRM to illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality in workforce management. Melbourne: RMIT Business. Heathfield, M. S. (2010). What Is Human Resource Management? Retrieved from http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryh/f/hr_management.htm Read More