Question

Can anyone write a research paper about human resource management? Atleast 1250 words if you can thanks

Answer 1

The impact of human resource management on performance has become the dominant research issue in the field. There has been a rash of studies demonstrating a positive association between human resource management (HRM) and performance, providing encouragement to those who have always advocated the case for a distinctive approach to the management of human resources. While these studies represent encouraging signs of progress, statistical sophistication appears to have been emphasized at the expense of theoretical rigour. As a result, the studies are non-additive, except in a very general way.

If we are to improve our understanding of the impact of HRM on performance, we need a theory about HRM, a theory about performance and a theory about how they are linked. The interest in HRM and performance partly re ects a view that the debates about theory in HRM had become rather introspective and boring. Perhaps it is only when the empirical data begin to emerge that we realize how important the theory is. I shall begin by brie y reviewing where we stand on theories of HRM, of performance and of the link between HRM and performance. I shall then review some of the recent literature within a simple framework. Finally, I shall outline the issues emerging from this review and highlight some of the developments that need to occur in theory and practice if we are to improve our understanding of HRM and performance.

Theory about human resource management

In any empirical study, we need to have a clear view about our independent variable. At present we seem to have only confusion. There appear to be three broad categories of general-level theory about HRM and a host of more speci c and concrete theories about particular areas of policy and practice, such as quality, commitment and performancerelated pay. The three categories of theory can be labelled strategic, descriptive and normative.

Strategic theories of HRM

These are primarily concerned with the relationship between a range of possible external contingencies and HRM policy and practice.

In the USA, attention has focused more on classifying types of HR strategy, often drawing on existing models of corporate strategy. One frequently cited example has been presented by Miles and Snow (1984), building on their earlier work on strategy and structure. They propose that each of their strategic types of firm will need to adopt a different set of HRM policies and they are reasonably precise about some of the variations. Again the hypothesis is that those firms that have a fit between business strategy, structure and HRM policy and practice will have superior performance.

There are several other writers whose work falls within this broad focus on strategy. They are helpful in identifying influences on strategic fit and sometimes in specifying types of fit. But they are often simplistic in characterizing HRM, usually identifying about four broad areas of activity such as selection, training and development, rewards and careers. While the implication is that those firms achieving fit between business strategy and HRM strategy will have superior performance, they are weak in specifying the process whereby HRM is linked to performance. Finally, they generally adopt a limited view of performance, defining it largely in financial terms.

Descriptive theories of HRM

By providing conceptual maps of the field, these models do provide a broad classification of the content of HRM and of a range of outcomes. Both are useful in adopting a stakeholder approach and in identifying a range of outcomes of interest to the various stakeholders. However, they are essentially employee relations models concerned with the managers’ role in balancing competing interests, in highlighting the scope for choice and in identifying some of the influences on the choices. Despite implicit preferences on the part of their authors, by specifying a range of choices and not recommending specific approaches, they are largely non-prescriptive. They therefore provide no clear focus for any test of the relationship between HRM and performance.

Normative theories of HRM

Models or theories of this type are more prescriptive in their approach, reflecting the view either that a sufficient body of knowledge exists to provide a basis for prescribed best practice or that a set of values indicates best practice. Often these two perspectives become conflated. One of the best known examples of this approach is Walton’s work on control and commitment (Walton, 1985). In presenting the contrast between the two approaches to the management of human resources, he follows McGregor (1960) some twenty-five years earlier in saying these are in one sense ideal types but in practice if you wish to flourish you have no choice. He is prescribing a commitment strategy as the distinctive basis for HRM.

There are a number of problems with this view of HRM. One is that it focuses predominantly on the internal characteristics of HRM at the expense of broader strategic issues. In doing so, and in advocating a best set of practices while ignoring the variety of pressures and consequent business strategies, it is taking a considerable risk in implying ‘one best way’.

Theory about performance

There is no general theory about performance per se. However, we have a number of approaches and models, often built on specific disciplinary perspectives, such as economics, psychology or production management, which help us to understand and classify aspects of performance. This is not an easy task. In the field of Organizational Behaviour, measurement of performance is often described as the criterion problem. We might be tempted to extend this to the study of HRM.

Theory about the link between HRM and performance

Neither the strategic nor the descriptive model provide much insight into how HRM policy and practice translates into high performance. They sensibly view HRM as only part of the explanation for high performance and suggest that, when the various sub- systems including the HRM sub-system are aligned and supporting each other, superior performance is likely. The right people will be in the right place doing the right things. It is a managerial model of organizing, particularly in the strategic version. The descriptive models, because of their employee relations roots, give more weight to the active role of employees, but mainly in negotiating order.

In contrast, the normative approach has its roots firmly in organizational psychology and is built on lower-range, more specific behavioural theories. The assumption is that ‘appropriate’ HRM practices tap the motivation and commitment of employees. The factors that constitute ‘appropriate’ practices are derived from the specific theories of organizational commitment, job design, goal setting and so on. The key features of this approach are that HRM provides a coherent integration of these behavioural theories and that they spell out the linkages between practices and performance.

Emerging issues for future research on HRM and performance

The first key issue is the lack of theory about the nature of HRM practices. It is the use of high performance or high commitment HRM practices. There is little consensus on what these are and little interest to date in developing theory about what they might be. As MacDuffe (1995) indicates, expectancy theory, or some variation of it, can also point to a range of configurations depending on preferred rewards and perhaps indicating when perform- ance-related pay can be considered a high performance practice. The alternative is to adopt a statistical approach and to see what emerges from factor analysis or some variation.

Only when we have made progress in measuring the independent and dependent variables can we begin to give full attention to the way in which they are linked. At present the studies report a promising association between HRM and outcomes, but we are not yet in a position to assert cause and effect. We need to develop theory which integrates aspects of strategy and strategic integration with something like expectancy theory to create specific hypotheses about linkages.