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:
Selection
Appraisal
Development
Rewards
Strengths
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
Weaknesses
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
Strengths
Managers portrayed as situated choice-making actors
Importance of stakeholders in wider society...