Business partner model represents a paradigm shift from traditional HRM

Introduction

Company’s Strategies should be formulated by considering the human

resource aspects and the human resources should be managed based on the
company’s strategies. In fact, the consequences of liberalizations,
privatization and globalization viz., competition, Quality, low cost, high
speed in delivery, customization and customer relationship, made the CEOs
of Various companies to include the human resource aspects in the strategic
management process and manage the human resources based on the
companies strategies. As such, strategic human resource management
gained its significance in the post liberalization period. Now, human
resource manager, in most of the companies, is a member of strategic
management team. The aim of this ongoing essay is to examine how the
business partner model represents a paradigm shift from traditional HRM

Definition of key terms

Human resource management (HRM) is defined as a system of activities

and strategies that focus on successfully managing employees at all levels of
an organisation to archive organisational goals (Byars & Rue, 2006). John
Storey (1989) believes that HRM can be regarded as a ‘set of interrelated
policies with an ideological and philosophical underpinning’.

Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) by a strategic approach

to HRM, we are referring to a managerial process requiring human resource
(HR) policies and practices to be linked with the strategic objectives of the
organization. Just as the term ‘human resource management’ has been
contested, so too has the notion of SHRM. One aspect for debate is the lack
of conceptual clarity (Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000).

Paradigm shift is total change of doing things. Kuhn (1962) defined

paradigm shift as a fundamental change in the basic concepts to adopt new
and different aspects.

Discussion
The business partner model is a model poised by Ulrich (1998). The model
says that the HR department should not be defined by what it does but by
what delivers. Ulrich (1998) believed that for HR to deliver it should be (1)
Business Partner (2) Administrative expert (3) Employee champion (4)
Change agent.

Human resource management is a strategic approach to the management of

employees. It mainly deals with the recruitment, compensation etc. There
are no specific rules for HRM whereas in Strategic HRM, there are specific
rules specified for specialized fields. SHRM mainly focuses on programs with
long term objectives. Unlike the traditional HRM, Strategic management
uses many strategic methods and systematic tools for increasing employee
motivation and productivity. The strategic HRM represents the latest shift
that explains how the continuing training and development of employees
can directly contribute to wider performance and function of the firm.
(Delery and shaw, 2001; Mathis and Jackson, 1999). Armstrong (2006)
explains the above notion in a brief summary by stating that: “The
Fundamental aim of strategic HRM is to enhance resource capability in
accordance with the belief that the human capital of an organization is a
major source of competitive advantage. It is therefore about ensuring that
the right quality people are available to meet present and future needs. This
is achieved by producing a coherent and comprehensive framework for
developing people.” Whereas HRM realizes the important contribution
employees make to the life of the corporation but does not make a direct
impact to its performance. SHRM argues how an organization where
employees realize new opportunities of growth and where they are able to
utilize new potential represents an interrelated link with the working of the
organization and its performance. SHRM argues that the role of the
employees should be managed and aligned to the wider corporate objective
of its management. Therefore shading the light of employee champion as
postulated by the model by Ulrich (1998).

To add on the above SHRM uses performance appraisal to evaluate the

performance of their employees. Performance appraisal is a process of
assessing the performance of an Employee compared to the standard/pre-
determined level set by the organization according to its objectives.
Performance appraisal indicates the level of desired performance by the
employer, actual performance of the employee and the gap between these
two. Performance appraisal is useful for deciding upon employee promotion,
salary determination etc. but recent developments in the human resources
management indicate that performance appraisal is the basis for employee
development. The basic objective of Performance appraisal is to take a
measurable account of its employees with positive or negative performance
so that the organization is able to have a better control over its operations
and accordingly forecast work. Performance appraisal can be of benefit if it
is exercised in a positive way, even though measuring of performance is a
positive way in detecting strengths and weaknesses of an employee such
kind of exercises can be perceived as intimidating by the employees leading
to issues like demotivation and lack of enthusiasm at work. According to
Wiese and Buckley (1998) some of the advantages of a performance
appraisal system are that “it facilitates organizational decisions such as
rewards and recognitions, promotion/demotions, layoffs/recall and
transfers. It may also assist managers in developing employees”. The
exercise of PA systems play a very important role in organizations that seeks
to integrate HRM with its strategy because of the belief that managing and
accessing the performance of each employee has a direct relation with the
performance of the corporation as a whole. Hence leading to one to say that
the model presents paradigm shift as performance appraisal can be linked
to the aspect of employee champion.

The study of SHRM focuses on high performance work practices (HPWP)

because it can lead to higher level of performance when implemented. De
Waal (2007) argues that high performance organizations (HPO) share some
certain characteristics like “strong financial results, satisfied customers and
employees, high levels of individual initiative, productivity and innovation,
aligned performance measurement and reward systems, and strong
leadership”. There is not much difference between HPWP and HRM, In fact
HPWP aims at strengthening specific set of relationship within HRM
practices. Huselid (2002) argues that certain criteria must exist if human
resources are to be a source of competitive advantage: first, the individual
performance significantly affects the organizations productivity; second, that
the skills must be rare, and finally that the human capital is difficult to
imitate”. This then linked to the business patner aspect of Ulrich’s model
which says that HR department should become a partner with senior and
line managers in strategy execution, helping to improve planning from the
conference room to the marketplace.

Furthermore strategic HRM at the Organizational Level Strategic HRM

comparing with traditional HRM put more attention on the organizational
level within a firm to achieve organizational goals. It not only 13 embraces
the traditional approaches of HRM, but also, more important, covers the
perspective to long-term organizational development. Besides individual and
job orientation, as a core conception of traditional HRM, the extra but
essential requirement of strategic HRM concentrates on systematic
construction/reconstruction of an organizational structure and nurturing
for both human resources and organizational culture to follow firm‘s
strategy implementation and formulation. Many of researchers like Bowen
and Ostroff (2004) and Dickmann, Müller-Camen and Kelliher (2009)
indicate that a firm should understand how HRM systems would contribute
to its strategic implementation for the achievement of competitive
advantages. HRM activities have been regarded as an implicit factor for a
firm to pursue its competitive advantages (Soderlund & Bredin, 2006). On
the other hand, Festing and Eidems (2011) argue HRM processes should be
improved by development, adaption and renewal. Wright and Boswell (2002)
suggest a systematic way to construct a HRM system rather than separated
HRM activities. Arthur and Boyles (2007) identify five components of HRM
system structure composed by principles, policies, programs and practices,
and climates. Likewise, the findings of Colbert (2004) and Kepes and Delery
(2006) suggest HRM systems should be constructed by multi-level
components. In this case described by five components, HRM principles and
policies work as a guidance role consistent with the implementation of
organizational strategies to concrete programs and practices (Becker &
Gerhart, 1996).

Performance Management system is associated with measuring the

employees performance against the criteria introduced by the management
or from the discussion with the employee. Organizations operating in the
service sector (e.g. Call Centre) often want to measure whether the employee
initiated proper contact with the customer, whether all questions asked by
the customer was answered in a professional manner resembling the values
and principles of the organization. Authors argue that PM should not only
point out the different targets to be met by the employee but also provide the
necessary learning structures so employees are able to develop the right
competencies to meet them. Kirkpatrick, (2006) also argues that “In an
extensive study on performance reviews, researches at general electric came
to the following conclusion: Implicit in performance appraisal programs are
now structured and include two distinct objectives: 1) letting a person know
where he or she stands via ratings and salary actions, and 2) Motivating him
or her to improve” The learning or change management is about introducing
employees to new or different knowledge areas that needs to be developed in
order for them to meet their targets. Armstrong (2006b) rightly argues how:
“Discussions takes place on ways in which the individual’s role could be
developed so that it becomes more challenging from the view point not only
of new tasks to be accomplished but also need to acquire or extend
knowledge and skills to carry out those tasks”. The issue of being a change
agent suggested by the model of Ulrich (1998) is brought to light.

Through the process of strategy implementation, some of functions tend to

be necessary to be eliminated or even obsolete. In this case, the functions
would be obliged to be revaluated and then adjusted if necessary to strategic
achievement (Flamholtz & Randle, 2007). At an individual level, each role in
a function unit should be changed in response to function changes.
However, for achieving strategic goals, the improvement of individual roles is
not only about this aspect. A specific and detailed guidance forming micro
objectives contributing to strategic achievements is necessary to be a big
part of role description (Flamholtz & Randle, 2007). Thus, job descriptions
should be continuously changed to follow strategy formulation and
implementation. In other words, the role of an individual in the functional
unit of an organizational structure would be as well changed.

Dynamic capabilities are defined by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) as firms

‘processes to utilize, integrate, reconfigure and gain related resources to
meet the need of organizational goals. Furthermore, the values of dynamic
capabilities which would create competitive advantages for a firm stem from
resource exploration and exploitation (ibid). Typical dynamic capabilities are
manifested in the activities of retraining and appropriate firing which reply
on the demands of strategy implementation. Thereby, dynamic capabilities
are as well supposed to reconfigure or re-exploit human resources within a
firm. This brings the aspect of administrative by human partner model.

Conclusion.

The aim of this assignment has been to examine how the business partner
model represents a paradigm shift from traditional HRM. The presentation
have greatly shown that the model is of great value when it comes to
presenting paradigm shift. This essay argued that the changing role of HRM
is an indication of the development of Strategic HRM as compromising a
much more critical role than it did in the past. This essay identified four
areas which are critical for developing a strategic approach to HRM and also
provided a literature review on them. All of the above practices aim at
providing a more explicitly measured as well as managed role and
performance of the employees. The improvement of the corporation as a
whole is believed to be a result of training and development of the
employees.
 REFERENCE

Andersson and A. Soderholm (Eds.), Beyond project management: new

perspectives on the temporary - permanent dilemma, pp. 59-80.
Copenhagen Business School Press.

Festing, M., & Eidems, J. (2011). A process perspective on transnational

HRM systems A dynamic capability-based analysis. Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 162-173.

Fombrum, C. J., & Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1984). Strategic human
resource management. New York:

John Wiley & Sons. Flamholtz, E. G., & Aksehirli, Z. (2000). Organizational
Success and Failure: An Empirical Test of a Holistic Model. European
Management Journal, Vol. 18 (5), pp. 488-498. Flamholtz,

E. G, & Hua, W. (2002). Strategic Organizational Development, Growing

Pains and Corporate Financial Performance: An Empirical Test. European
Management Journal, Vol. 20 (5), pp. 527-536. Flamholtz,

E. G., & Randle, Y. (2007). Growing Pains: Transitioning from an

Entrepreneurship to a Professionally Managed Firm. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Freeman, J., & Hannan, M.T. (1983). Niche width and the dynamics of
organizational populations. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 88, pp.
1116-1145.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996b). Competing in the new economy:

Managing out of bounds. Strategic Management. Journal, Vol. 17 (3), pp.
237-242.

Katz, H.C., Kochan, T.A., & Keefe, J.H. (1983). Industrial Relations and
Productivity in the U.S. Automobile Industry. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution