Pecularities of Human Resource Management

Published: 2021-09-13 22:10:10
essay essay

Category: Human resources, Strategy

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
The Strategic Human Resource Management
Although the specific Human Resource practices included in high-performance Human Resource techniques have changed across studies, a similarity across practices in any high-performance approach was a focus on promoting workforce ability, motivation, and opportunity (see Applebaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Combs et al., 2006) ) to direct behaviors consistent with organizational goals.
Human Resources practices studied in previous research in this area, we constructed total of 15 Human Resource practices reflecting a high-performance HR approach for this study. In particular, Researcher added to enhance ability in management , including formal selection tests, structured interviews, hiring selectivity, high pay, and training opportunities; motivation-enhancement practices, such as rewards based on individual and group performance outcomes, formal performance evaluation mechanisms, and merit-based promotion systems; and opportunity-enhancing practices, such as formal participation processes, Kehoe, Wright / Impact of High-Performance Human Resource Practices 369 regular communication and information-sharing efforts, and autonomy in work-related decision making. (e.g., Combs et al., 2006; Delery & Shaw, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Sun et al., 2007; Way, 2002).Dyer and Reeves (1995) theorized four successive levels of impact of HR practices—HR (or employee), organizational, financial, and market—suggesting that HR practices are likely to work outward (and upward) through these levels and hence, most instantaneously, through their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. Similarly, Becker, Huselid, Pinckus, and Spratt (1997) suggested that HR practices influence the behaviors of employees, which then affect operational, financial, and share price performance outcomes. Thus, both sets of authors suggested that a thorough understanding of the relationships between HR practices and employee outcomes is critical to our ability to draw logical conclusions concerning the HR– performance causal chain as a whole. We seek to make our primary contribution in this area.
In particular, as noted above, employees’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to an HR system depend on the HR practices that employees take in to exist in their work context (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). For the last decade or so, management scholars, especially in the Anglophone countries, have declared the arrival of a new conceptual approach to the ways in which certain employee management practices impact positively on the `bottom line’. They have argued that effective human resource policies offer organizations their best avenue for establishing robust competitive advantages (e.g. Barney 1995). From this has emerged the notion of a `high road’ approach to management, in which organizations choose to compete primarily on quality, and rely especially on human resource development and employee contributions to succeed in this.
Two key issues emerge from existing studies of HPWS. The first concerns the extent to which management practices work together as systems or bundles. Huselid (1995) is emphatic about the systemic links between practices. Although his factor analysis identified two dimensions among his high-performance practices, one of which included employee skills and what he called `organizational structures’ and the other employee motivation, he concluded from his subsequent analysis (Huselid and Becker 1996) that these could safely be combined into a single measure. Numerous other studies have explored the presence in some companies of an effective `bundle’ of HPWS practices (Arthur 1992; Kalleberg and Moody 1994; MacDuffie502 British Journal of Industrial Relations# Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics 2000.1995; Ichniowski et al. 1997; Pil and MacDuffie 1996; Becker and Huselid 1998; Delaney and Huselid 1996; Becker et al. 1997).
One difference has been between those who have argued for a contingency approach, in which the specific bundles would vary by sector and business strategy (Arthur 1994; MacDuffie 1995; Youndt et al. 1996; Appelbaum et al. 2000), and the universalist, one-style-fits-all view, towards which Huselid was drawn by his results. The latter view appears to have gained the ascendancy, though with the modification that a combination of broad types of practice in an overall `architecture’ of policies provides room for different detailed implementation in different settings (Becker and Huselid 1998: 87±91). Wood and de Menezes (1998: 506), meanwhile, argued against the package view, instead treating `high-commitment management’ as a matter of degree.
The second key issue is that there is a consensus among those researchers who have reported a link between HPWS and organizational performance measures (see Huselid and Becker 1996; Cutcher-Gershenfeld 1991; Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi 1997; Arthur 1994; Youndt et al. 1996; Appelbaum et al. 2000; MacDuffie 1995) that the associations reflect a causal link which flows from practices through people to performance. Explanations of how and why this link should work rely on theories of employee motivation in response to the types of practice described by HPWS theory and have become so embedded, especially in US management research, as to be taken largely for granted. In brief, the implicit argument is that HPWS practices may be taken at face value, as employee-centred and empowering.
Employees, in turn, find that their needs are met by the opportunities and benefits these practices provide, and respond by taking initiatives without instruction and showing loyalty and enthusiasm for their employer. These arguments have tended to focus on the efficacy of a range of employee involvement initiatives,2 but the HPWS approach takes things further by proposing a far wider portfolio of efficacious innovations. Huselid summarizes the argument for the effect of these succinctly: In common with the HPWS account, the LP interpretation posits a positive association between HPWS-style practices and employee discretion. This association is conceptualized as an enhancement of discretion arising from management’s need to gain employee compliance and creative capability.
Empowered employees are typically described as self-motivated and committed individuals who feel responsibleto perform at high level of effort (Thoman& Velthouse, 1990). Nykodym et al., (1994) found that empowered employees are able to reduce conflict and ambiguity because they are more capable and more in control (to a certain extent) at their workplace. Neuman (1989) found that employees develop and perform better if managers control and motivate their employees with participative forms of rewards. Most scales of job satisfaction (Hackman, Oldham, 1975; Herzberg, 1987; Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969; Spector, 1997) include such facets as the nature of work, promotion opportunities, and social relations. In the 1991 survey of American workers that investigated 16 aspects of work, respondents reported more satisfaction with such facets as being able to work independently, having interesting work, and enjoying an opportunity to learn new skills (Spector, 1997).
High performance Human resource practices have gained great interest in recent years as the source of competitive advantage in complex environment of today’s word (e.g. Peffer, 1998). The aim of high performance human resource management is to increase corporate performance by the help of its employees (Armstrong, 2001). According Bamberger and Meshoulam (2000) high performance human resource practices consist of three main parts: (1) people flow, including selective staffing, training (such as more extensive, general skills training), employee mobility (for example, broad career paths, promotion within the firm) and guarantee of job security; (2) appraisal and rewards, including performance appraisal (specifically long– term ,results- orientated appraisal), compensation and other benefits, such as extensive, open- ended rewards; (3) employment relations, including job design (such as broad job descriptions, flexible job assignments) and encouragement of participation.
The main argument of High performance human resource management practices is that firms can attain superior flexibility, higher product quality, and superior performance although remaining cost competitive by encouraging employees to work harder and using the skills and information of their employees more effectively through moving decision authorities closer to those who have the relevant information. Moreover, It has been assumed that High performance human resource management practices are “win-win”.affectively committed employees under a high-performance HR system are likely to hold deep bonds with the organization and feel both eager and obliged to contribute to organizational goals (Blau, 1983; Cohen, 2003)

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read