We will consider 4 models of HRM…

The Michigan Model

The Harvard Model
The New York Model

The Warwick Model

….other models are available

The Michigan Model

Developed by Formbrum and colleagues in 1984

Key focus

1. Inter-related nature of organizational components

2. Need to achieve internal coherence from the linking of components

Four key constituent components:






Offers a simple heuristic of HRM

Highlights the importance of ‘internal coherence’

Focuses attention on matching internal strategies to external requirements

Highlights a key tension in HRM practice


Model tends to prescription

Model is focused upon market ‘needs’ and consequent organizational ‘needs’…so…

Model says very little about stakeholders and their interests

Status of model is unclear – statement of the real and existing nature of the world or overly-simplified managerialist heuristic for teaching?

The Harvard Model

Developed by Beer and colleagues in 1984

Key features:

1. Inter-related nature of components

2. Need for coherence

3. Need to balance interests that transcend organization

Model composed of 6 basic components

1. Situational Factors
Societal values, workforce characteristics said to impact upon choice of HR strategy

2. Stakeholder interests
Stakeholder interests oblige managers to seek trade-offs

3. HRM policy choices
HRM is the outcome of situated choice-making – this absent from Michigan model

4. HR outcomes-These assumed to be high commitment and productivity - it is assumed that policy will/ should tap under-utilized resources

5. LR policy outcomes
1. Individual well-being
2. Orgn Effectiveness
3. Societal well-being

6. Feedback loop connecting outputs to organization and stakeholders


Managers portrayed as situated choice-making actors

Importance of stakeholders in wider society...