About facts, fiction and forces in Human Resource Management

Abstract

When building competitive advantage the actions of successful firms influence and actually change market demands. This complex interaction between firms and markets leads to an evolutionary process, during which companies – by a process of organizational learning – pass through evolutionary phases of efficiency, quality, flexibility and innovativeness, in that order. Just as technology is the driving force in the evolution, customers are the deciding force and, last but not least, employees are the decisive force. Fundamental strategic changes, effecting structure as well as culture of organizations, and which have taken place at practically all major organizations, are characteristic of the evolutionary process. This paper shows that the disappointing results of many such strategic changes must be sought in insufficient involvement of, and insufficient changes in Human Resource Management. Also, the challenges posed to both top-management and HRM to remedy such failures are described.

HRM Practices in a Process of Organisational Change: A Contextualist Perspective

“…When the organisation team adopts a differentiation strategy ( prospector ), Delery and Doty (1996) prove that, from a questionnaire‐based inquiry among 216 North American bank human resource managers, the financial performance superiority of an HRM model in which evaluation is based on personal achievement, mobility is defined in terms of career plans, competencies are developed, union participation is low, etc., we are not far from what we call the individualising model. The prescriptive analysis of Bolwijn and Kumpe (1996) goes in the same direction. The company that they describe as innovative, centered on differentiation strategies, tends to emphasise such dimensions as listening, creativity, sense of responsibility, open communication, information sharing, participation, individual merit rewards, etc.…”

“…Wage policy—the subject of many debates—establishes a subtle balance between effective wage scales, “bonus for special merits”, and authorisation to perform paid activities on the outside; most strategic orientations are also subject to confrontational debate, etc. ; The individualising model (Delery & Doty, 1996; Bolwijn & Kumpe, 1996) is based on a personalisation of social relations; criteria are then negotiated, in the context of interpersonal agreements between the hierarchical line and the operators (usually skilled), in which the peculiarities of each collaborator are taken into consideration; such policies easily adapt to a variety of statuses, “custom‐made” career plans based on the achievement of personal goals and specific skills, to variable wage policies (merit‐related), to flexible working hours, etc. ; they also favor the principle of direct expression, as opposed to union representation.…”

“…On this subject, Bolwijn and Kumpe (1996) use the term efficient company , as opposed to the innovating company model which privileges detailed job descriptions, specialised and functional training programs, impersonal controls, a logic of union/employer opposition, etc.…”

Innovation and HRM: Towards an Integrated Framework

“…t first sight, innovation and human resource management (HRM) seem to be closely connected. In most literature on innovation and its management, there is considerable attention given to HRM issues, such as the development of a skilful and creative workforce, building high performance engineering teams, the management of creative professionals, the role of diversity in innovation, leadership roles in innovation processes, dual ladders in R&D and rewards for technical employees (see Angle, 2000;Bolwijn & Kumpe, 1996;den Hertog et al, 1991;Katz, 1997;Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt, 1997). Until recently, less attention was given to innovation in HRM literature, but the interest now seems to be growing fast.…”

Pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines et stratégies d’innovation en France : les apports de l’enquête REPONSE 2011

“…De nombreux auteurs (Youndt et al, 1996 ;Delery et Doty, 1996;Bolwijn et Kumpe, 1996) se sont penchés sur le lien entre la stratégie de l'entreprise et les pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines en lien avec la performance, qu'elle soit économique, sociale ou environnementale.…”