op fen (Ge ee ee (Source: Adapted from Human Resource Management by Christopher Mabey, et. al., Blackwell Business, p. 31). IRM MODELS Till now our discussion centered around the nature of HRM, its function, its policies and principles, | It is time that we understand the theoretical perspectives on HRM—its defining features, popularity | called models. Five major models have been identified and all these serve four purposes.!? _XX They provide an analytical framework for studying HRM (for example, situational factors, | stakeholders, strategic choice levels, competence). 2. They legitimise certain HRM practices; a key issue here being the distinctiveness of HRM practices: “It is not the presence of selection or training but a distinctive approach to selection or training that matters”. They provide a characterisation of HRM that establishes variables and relationship to be re- searched. ¥ They serve as a heuristic device—something to help us discover and understand the world for / explaining the nature and significance of key HR practices. | The five HR models are: (i) The Fombrun, (ii) The Harvard, (iii) The Guest, (iv) The Warwick, and (v) Dave Ulrich. The Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna Model Being the first model (dates back to 1984), fhis emphasises just four functions and their interrelatedness. The four functions are: selection, appraisal, development and rewards. These four constituent com- ponents of HRM and are expected to contribute to organisational effectiveness as shown in Fig. 1.10.aa Undentanng he Narre and Soe of Human Resource Maarement 29) Human resource ‘development sensi tra Sema Ly owarde | Fig. 1.10 The Fombnin Model of HRM ‘The Fombrun model is incomplete as it focuses on only four functions of HRM and ignores all environmental and contingency factors that impact HR functions} Nevertheless, the model deserves ‘ppreciation for being the frst and has set stage for other Uncories fo emerge, It is also a simple model that serves as a heuristic framework for explaining the nature and significance of the key HR activities ‘The model also deserves appreciation for emphasising interrelationship among the four activities and their collective impact on organisational effectiveness.» The Harvard Model (Bee Harvard mode claims tobe comprehensive in as much as it secks to comprise sit etal com onen!s of HRM. The dimensions included inthe model are: stakeholders interest, situational factors, HRM policy choices, HR outcomes, long-term consequences and a feedback loop through which the ‘upus flow directly into the organisation and the stakeholder (Se. Fig. 1.11). Rasetcaa) [mcoeeoni| [ares emer | [toon mae | [feces | | Seen eerie | [ecomes |_| Beams fcmreenc™ + emer + Sen = een (| estas aan — ope eae | L a : Fao cor = Task Wchnclogy ‘Laws and societal values Fig. 1.11 The Hamaxd Model of Human Retouce ManagementBO Homan Bovnes Manageme ‘he Salelders iscress rere the sgemse owners wih thone 8 onplryvcs. Trade offs svn ei ace ullngs AWW meas ie oF tie nocd ty baleen be ‘he situational facture infisence mansperses’ Tae comtingect fi, Iinduded nthe moked include workmen characteristic, managements pone. bon marker = technolomy, and lao and wxial value, Theve situational factors do inftenee HR Seay and ge inclusion in the model i» weleomne thing f IRM poliey choices errphasive the management's decisions aad actions i terms of HRM be fully appreciated only if i is rexrgrived tat ther rewh from an ieeraction between and choices. The model Sopits management 2 2 22] actor. capable of making 2 Kees some dem of unique contribution within environmental and orzansiational paramecers end of inisencig te paramncters themselves overtime. Organisations] commitment, employes competcice, congracace od cost effectiveness const HRM outcomes. The assumption here i that employees Fave talents which are rarely exploit i onapoivational prvi and that they axe ailing wo grow with the organisation if a participa onsnent is available, The longterm consequences incluse socal well-being, organisational effeciveness, 2nd i Vidual welfare. These is obvious linkage attomg the three. Employee cis leads to orgsaisetons Mectiveness snd efficacy ofall organisations contributes to social well-being. ‘he feedback loop is the sith component of the Harvard model. As was Sted above, situations factors influence HRM policy and choices, and are influenced by long-term consequences. Sims, akcholders interests influence HRM policy choices, and in turn, are impacted by long-term outcoms (See Fig. 1M) The Guest Model Yet another HRM model was developed by Dayid Guest in 1997 and claims to be much superior to ‘other models. The details will justify me claim! This model claims that the HR manager has specii< strategies wo begin with, which demand certain practices and when executed, will result in outcomes. ‘These outcomes include behavioural performance related and financial rewards (See Fig. 1.12), Fig. 142 The Guest Model of HRM 1 et ee rte ae = ‘ing inversely, financial results depend on employee performance, which in tum is the result of ‘on oriented employee behaviours. Behavioural outcomes are the result of employee commitment,[eRe inthe Nand So Haman Hounne Managemen fl l iy whch, mate nocd hy ets. 1 prton ne ea te sca meg end hap or Poses 4, with TIR strategies which are invarinbly aligned | more details) {The clin of the Ginest mod tht it tapi eters is patty ti inthe ene tha it clearly maps out the field of HRM and dfinehtes the inp axl ouicaney. How 1IRM ean contsibute {o ergansational effectiveness clnrly shown in ihe mexel But the dynamics oF people management are s0 complex that no model (including the Guest mel) ean capture them comprehensively. ‘The Warwick Model This model was developed by two researchers, Henly ae Petlignan. of University of Warwick (hence the name Warwick model), Like other models, the Warwick proposition eentres around five elements: (8 also Fig, 1.13): Seclo-oconomic “osmiea! Poileatioga! Compative > Inner context cuturo Structure Palliesfondership Tasketochnology | Busnes outs Business strategy content Freese), Objectves Pole Proce market Detiniton ‘Strategy and Organisation tacts HR outputs HAM contont HA Hows Work systems Foward systems Employoe relations Fig. 1.13 The Warwick Model of Huonam Resource Manayement (Sous: Fgues 1.111 1.13 ae based on Hunn Resource Managoment by Jahn Bration and Joey ols)82_Huran Rese Management : = a Outer context (macro environmental forces) 2 omar context (fim specific or micto environmental forces) aos ene RM context content theexteral and intemal context (unlike the Guest model) in which these activities take plac, | the process by which such changes take place, including interactions between changes in both con tnd content. The strength ofthe model is that it identifies and classifies important environmental gg! nee on HRM. Itmaps the connection betwecn the external and environmental factors and expig, How HRM adapts to changes in the context." Obviously, those organisations achieving an aligny. benween the extemal and intemal contexts will achieve performance and grow'l , Pause and Ponder \ Looking atthe four models described in this section, what similarities and dissimilarities 40 you notice among them? What assumptions do they make? What lessons do they carry to practising HR managers and students of HRM? The Ulrich Model Inhis epic book Human Resource Champions, Dave Ulrich proposes a contemporary Hi : ich propos rary HR model vii lifts HR function from mete transactional to transformational role. Being one of the most poplg ‘models in the industry today, Ubich identifies four distinct roles that HR team should deliver-stratege administration, champion, and change harbinger (see Fig 1.14), Future/Stategic Focul ‘Strategie Parior Change Champion Process, —— = People Day-to-day | Operational Focus } } Fla, 1-14 A MulileRole Moe for Human Reources Manager Braregic Par Being a st : "8 strategic partner is about the alignment of HR actiUnderstanding the Nature and Scope of Human Returce Management 33 Do! Oe Cae eet Cre ee ea men Senet tt ema Cha Cees See a aa eae er cn ts ee j Rea a La Le ere uae CoB a ane a Reg eu en) a paar i) a) eo eer a) ny RL a re) (Change Agent:|The role of change agent involves initiating three categories of responses to meet business goals: First refers othe intotive changes, These focus on implementing new programmes, projects or procedures, Such initiatives (cg. implementing a new organisational structure, customer: Serves agenda, qualty-improvement effort, of cost reduction programme) oceur annually in most onganisations, Through strategic planing, initiatives are identified as necessary and are implemented as part of an evolving management improvement process. Second refer o process changes which focus on the way in which work gets done in frm, Companies firs identify core processes and then try 10 impos hem toh wor snplcon, vlad ttc, Se engering eos Finally, the cultural changes, occu within an organisation when the fundamental ways of doing busi- ness are reconceptualised. The identity of the fim is transformed both for employees and customers. ‘As an bdninisiatve pert) HR manager is responsible for offering HR deliverables atthe lowest cost. A HR professional acs at two levels as an expert. Fits, he of she may help a fim go through the reengineering of business proceses. As orgeisatons identify and improve core processes, the HR. head may actively work onthe improvement teams working towards greater simplicity, efficieney and effectiveness. For too long, business reengineering has been driven by technologists working mechani- cally with ite input from HR professionals sensitive tothe human issues related to change. Lack of FR inputs many times leads to failure of reengineering initiatives. Second, HR professional must aply his/her administrative expetise to HR processes even if not Paticipting in process reengineering, he or she should demonstrate one's ability to deliver HR services efficiently by reengineering own processes as needed. By doing so, HR professional not only improves his or her fir’s infrastructure but eams credibility for participation in subsequent business change a Lit Chamat protons vo wok san plore hanio, oes on Saige it bales Been demands ind sous Hersh hap lotion eee eh nae dst demands by Iaing sc odor a of employees an aie crenve nays eves ress so tt employee donee ere a fe oT them. The champion oe donde HR pesto seed et ree siete ‘as steele; Usish odes he le formational ones. The four roles modelled by comets of HRM from mere transactional to that of trans- y Ulrich reflect the new age realities and requirements34 _Human Reswne Management ~ Table 1.8 Linking Ulrich’s Roles to Deliverables Metaphor Role Activity Deliverable Strategic Partner ‘Management of strate. Aligning HR with Executing strategy gic resources business strategy ‘Administrative Expert Management of firm's Re-engineering Building an efficient infrastructure process infrastructure Employee Champion Management of Listening to Increasing employee ‘employee contribution employees commitment and ca. pability Change Agent Management of trans- Managing chang- Creating a renewed formation and change ing environment infrastructure | Consider the following realities: | ‘* Globalisation has opened doors for new markets, new products, new mindset and new ways of thinking ebout business. HR function needs attaining global agility, effectiveness and competitiveness, + I's imperative onthe part of ergaistions to become cstomer-centric in oder to gain evn pettiveness, This requites innovation, faster decision-making, affordable price, and effect 's, new competencie| to create new ways and means fe linkages with vendors and suppliers to build value chain for eusors considerably in building the value chain, ‘ss. Employee attitude couns Changing and remaining agile is «business reality. Ths reality ne ened, and reinforced by the HR team, "y needs to be facilitated, strengt «Technology remains the comer stone of business ef redefining work in such a way that the organisation leveraging information for business goals ‘New age business realities expect the HR team to act tion expert and employee champion, ffectiven. is is ahead of; 22 is responsible {0 * information curve and i 5 strategi OPO Senge sae administ ‘A Model for this Book