171x Filetype PPTX File size 0.12 MB Source: www.su.se
Is HR in trouble? ‘After over two decades of extensive research, we are still unable to answer core questions about the relationship between human resource management and performance’ (Guest 2011: 3) ‘The human resource management profession faces a crisis of trust and a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of its major stakeholders. The two-decade effort to develop a new “strategic human resource management” (HR) role in organizations has failed to realize its promised potential of greater status, influence, and achievement’. (Kochan 2006) Ripe for critique, but on what basis? Delbridge: HRM research can address ‘its conservatism and its irrelevance’...’through engagement more directly and productively with proximate social science disciplines and, in particular, critical management studies’ (2010) Critical Management Studies and HRM: the culture burden Legge: Most HRM models emphasise the organisation’s culture as the central activity for senior management – with HR departments as primary agents of change HRM is treated as a cultural construction seeking to refine the meaning of work relations between employees and the organisation: ‘a medium for manufacturing meaning in the process of culture management’ (Keenoy and Anthony 1992: 237) Alvesson and Karreman – a cultural-symbolic perspective HRM works not because it is technically efficient, but as a rationality surrogate that creates ascription of positive meaning and suspension of disbelief ‘From the mid-1980s onwards, the increasing emphasis on culturally-based forms or organizational control – in which symbolically-mediated bodies of regulation, monitoring and disciplining at work became the major concern…’ (Reed 2010) The Foucauldian twist Soft HRM and corporate culture were linked to the shaping of employee subjectivity and production of various ‘designer’ (Casey, 1995); ‘engineered’ (Kunda, 1992) or ‘enterprising’ selves (du Gay 1996) Emphasis on new disciplinary regimes ‘founded on the internalization of self-regulation, calculation and control in which externally imposed authority and discipline becomes much less significant’ (Grant et al, 1998: 202). Townley and HRM as a power-knowledge discourse: ‘HRM’s role in providing a nexus of disciplinary practices aimed at making emplyees’ behaviour and perfromance predicatble and cacluable..’ (1993: 538) Moving on from culture change, but the cultural techniques associated with soft HRM continue to be associated with the supposedly successful regulation of employee identity ‘Identity regulation encompasses the more or less intentional effects of social practices upon processes of identity construction and reconstruction. Notably, induction, training and promotion procedures are developed in ways that have implications for the shaping and direction of identity’ (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002: 621). What’s wrong with this critique? HRM does have a symbolic dimension, e.g. adoption or promotion of ‘best practices’ or being a ‘good employer’ can have an effect on share price (Palmer and Hardy 42) Assumes that the functioning of HRM can be found in its discourse, and those discourses and technologies are largely disconnected from context – as a will to knowledge : the ‘re-reading of HRM’ (Townley 537) is largely new languages for old practices One result – a complete lack of interest in the actual effectiveness of the ‘tools’ of HRM or the ‘truth or falsity of discourse’ and therefore with ‘mainstream HRM’ Limited engagement does not mean absence of connection to mainstream HRM The terms of trade: HRM and the commitment model ‘Soft HRM’ and mutuality models, where commitment and investment in human capital is seen as central to competitive advantage (Appelbaum et al, 2001; Pfeffer 1994, 1998) Universalistic, best practice models - commitment model the defining feature of HRM. It replaces the control or compliance model: ‘’create the conditions for employees to display internally self-driven initiative and take more responsibility for monitoring their own behaviour’ (Wood 1995: 216). Culture declines, branding emerges; geared primarily towards corporate reputation, but employees encouraged to ‘live the brand’ ‘The identity of the firm as an employer. It encompasses the firm’s value system, policies and behaviours toward the objectives of attracting, motivating, and retaining the firm’s current and potential employees’ (Ainspan and Dell, 2001: 3).
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.