Project Management

Human resource management (HRM) as a theory

Noon (1992) considers that Human Resource Management (HRM) as a theory has serious shortcomings:

“Human resource management is built on ideas and assumptions, but the changes and hypotheses associated with it are not obvious.

HRM is quite comprehensive … As a “theory” of HRM, much more can be desired in terms of the ability to describe and predict.” Reference: “Implementation of Human Resources Management (HRM)“,

Human resource management: simplified

Fowler (1987) argues that “HRM ideas aimed at senior managers tend to be attractively simplistic. They seem to be saying, “Don’t worry too much about the content or methodology of personnel management. All it takes is to be managed through context. Reference: “Evolution of the concept of Human Resources Management (HRM)“,

Don’t stay at work, go and talk to people without paying attention to the hierarchy. Only in this way will you be able to release the huge labor potential and direct it to increase efficiency.

Human resource management as terminology

Human Resource Management (HRM) terminology presents the model as the only true process that is ideal for any company, despite the evidence that different organizational conditions require different approaches. This creates a gap between terminology and reality, which has often been pointed out by Gratton et al. (Gratton et al, 1999) Reference: “Development of the Human Resources Management (HRM) concept“,

HRM: too ambitious and impractical

One of the accusations against HRM is that it promises more than it can give. According to Mabey et al (1998), “virtually all marked results without exception (HRM) are unrealistic and inflated.

The authors suggest that managers either go to consultants who offer quick solutions to patch holes or engage in reasoning influenced by “super-organizational values” such as excellence, flexibility, quality, and customer attention. Reference: “Objectives of Human Resources Management (HRM)“,

The realization of the concept of Human Resources Management in practice is achieved through strategic integration, development of a comprehensive and consistent personnel policy, and maximization of employee loyalty.

This requires managers at every level a high degree of determination and competence, as well as the presence of a professional and effective HR department, whose employees are focused on achieving the company’s goals.

Meeting these requirements is not an easy task, especially in cases where the introduced HRM culture contradicts the existing corporate culture and the traditional orientation in the behavior of managers.

Some researchers are convinced that in companies that do not have a clear overall strategy, developing integrated HR strategies (a key feature of HRM) is difficult, if at all possible.

In those companies where organizational strategies are still formulated, they are, as a rule, subordinated to the goals of the commodity market, which inevitably contributes to the development of products and systems.

In these situations, the priority, for obvious reasons, is to receive financial support and resources to strengthen the financial base. The human resources aspects in these cases are poorly taken into account.


Fowler (1987) writes:

“Central to the concept is the full identification of employees with the goals and values ​​of the company, ie the involvement of employees in the process of its conditions. Under this system, power remains in the hands of the employer.

How can we talk about full reciprocity if, in the end, the employer can, at its discretion, close or sell the company? ”



Legge (1989) argues that the concept of HRM contains the following internal contradictions:

Complementarity and consistency of the policy of “reciprocity”, aimed at the formation of attachment, flexibility, qualities, etc.

Problems of attachment, are expressed in the question of Guest (Guest, 1987) “Attachment to what?”

The concept of HRM is torn between its principles of individualism (focusing on the individual) and collectivism (teamwork, etc.).

There is a potential contradiction between the development of a strong corporate culture and the ability of employees to react flexibly and adaptively.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *