PERSONNEL AND HRM: THE DIFFERENCES
...ditional components of personnel activity which are assumed to stimulate human resource outcomes of improved commitment, flexibility, quality and organizational performance. This implicit input-output theory is derived from the work of Beer et al.[7] and was detailed previously in Guest[8]. Noon[9] has suggested that Guest[1,4] has generalized Beer et al [7] into a theory which ascribes the original work into something which its authors never claimed it could be. Noon[9] argues that the Harvard model of HRM, as formulated by Beer et al.[7], sought to "develop a framework for thinking and managing human resources which general managers might find useful"; nothing more. The position and standing of theory in relation to the study of job regulation in the UK has always been precarious. The orthodox empirical approach is to study, visualize and comment on observed findings. It is at this stage that conceptual analysis is brought in to play to visualize further any descriptive findings in terms of wider frames of reference. So, why is there so much concern with theory in relation to HRM and, relatedly, what role does any theory have? In relation to the first question, it appears to be motivated by an almost omnipresent need to understand HRM and be able to distinguish it from personnel management. The second question remained largely unanswered until Storey[10]. Storey suggests that theoretical models of HRM can be used in three ways: (1) prescriptively; (2) descriptively; or (3) conceptually. Prescriptive models suggest what practitioners should be doing, whereas descriptive models comment on what is happening. In contrast, conceptual models contain no suggestion or description but might relate the theoretical inferences behind the definition of HRM to the wider processes of job regulation, organization restructuring and the management of change. Storey[10] goes on to define HRM by distinguishing its features from those of personnel management, under four headings: (1) beliefs and assumptions, summarized as "can do", and "need to go the extra mile"; (2) strategic aspects which are market-oriented; (3) the role of line managers which is central to the facilitation of HRM goals; and (4) "key levers", such as fewer job descriptions, greater teamwork and improved communication, which are designed to break up the bureaucracy of traditional personnel management. It would appear that Storey's model versions of HRM are in fact derived from the theoretical prescription of Guest[1,8]; alternatively, a series of theoretical inferences can be drawn from a prescribed definition of HRM. Sisson[11] defines HRM as being: Primarily concerned with the deployment and provision of human resources, thus, it concerns the policies, procedures and processes in the management of work organizations. Two theoretical inferences can be drawn immediately from this definition. First, the central concern of HRM is management oriented. The management process is concerned essentially with the controlled and efficient use of resources. Second, and relatedly, there is an inference that HRM can improve the deployment and provision of human resources. In summary, the use of theory in HRM is partial. "Models" of HRM, whether they are used in prescriptive, descriptive or conceptual modes, are not always clearly defined or related to theory which, in the case of Guest [1], is designed to stimulate improved organizational performance. Noon[9] suggests that improved organizational performance through the application of HRM, is an ascribed benefit rather than something which is derived in theory and empirically proven. The application and use of theory has had more success in relation to the concept of strategic HRM: it is this area which is reviewed now. STRATEGIC HRM An organization's strategy and the strategy of any functional area within it, is a market oriented concept. Thus, strategy is concerned primarily with competitive advantage in the product or service market where the organization competes. Therefore, strategic HRM implies that HRM policies have a defined end; the prescribed result of which has been considered and conceptualized. If this is the case, strategic HRM is concerned with the promotion of efficiency and profitability. Theory in HRM, as described in the previous section, appears to suggest that models of strategic HRM can be evaluated prescriptively, descriptively and conceptually. The two main models, of strategic HRM have been delineated in an extremely useful piece by Boxall[12]. The major utility of Boxall is not only his delineation of the models, but his attempt to locate the debate on HRM in the UK within them. Boxall[12] distinguishes between the "Matching" and "Harvard" schools of HRM. The former, centres on the work of Fombrun[13]. This version highlights the importance of determining a tight fit between HRM and the organization's business strategy, with the latter acting as an independent variable. Thus, in this model HRM is reactive. The various components of personnel activity are locked into the organization's market needs so as to determine strategic HRM. Thus, at the workplace, the objective is to generate consistent behaviour vis-a-vis preselected business objectives. This becomes the basis for integrating HRM activities, therefore making them strategic. The Matching model is unitarist in framework, where HRM is visualized as something which is done to labour. This rationale can be contrasted with that of the Harvard model[7]. The central theme in this model of strategic HRM, concerns the crucial significance of getting general or line managers involved in the dissemination of the organization's central mission, or philosophy on its use and deployment of human resources. Without this, HRM cannot be strategic and will remain as a set of independent activities. Thus, in this model, HRM is proactive. Boxall identifies two Harvard camp followers in the UK. First, the Guest [1,4,8] line, which evaluates strategic HRM prescriptively. This interpretation of Guest contrasts with that of Keenoy[14], which argues that what Guest is suggesting is a form of universalistic practice. The second group of Harvard followers in the UK is Hendry and Pettigrew[15,16]. The approach of Hendry and Pettigrew is to concentrate on the analytical side of the Harvard model. The assertion behind their research is that a more comprehensive understanding of strategy within complex structures will provide a better framework in which to analyse HRM. Thus, Hendy and Pettigrew seek to evaluate the decision-making process within organizations in order to examine how strategy is determined. From this they evaluate the prescription behind HRM in two ways; first, descriptively, that is, "what is happening"; second, conceptually, how the practice of HRM "measures up" to its conception. DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH: HRM DISTINGUISHED This section examines the distinctive character of HRM, prescriptively, descriptively and conceptually in relation to the three themes laid down by Guest[1]. HRM AS PERSONNEL RETITLED Many organizations have changed their functional labels from personnel to human resource managers/specialists, without there being any discernible difference in activities undertaken. In others there may have been a devolution of some personnel activities to line areas, for example, recruitment, selection, appraisals and renumeration decisions. In some organizations the latter may have always been the case, with the personnel department servicing such activity. With the renewed onset of recession and redundancy, personnel activity is likely to involve less palatable activities such as organizational downsizing, peripheralization and casualization of employment. So, at the general level of discussion, HRM may have become the politically or professionally correct term to use when describing current components of personnel activity, without such activity being centrally located in a theory of HRM or being strategic in nature. Beaumont[17] makes two useful observations in this respect. First, HRM is just a generic term for handling employee relations at individual workplaces. Second, the standards being set to test and evaluate the theories of HRM at strategic and operational levels are unrealistically stringent. This latter point is not without significance. There is general acceptance of the view that the prescriptive model of personnel management does not always measure up to the reality of personnel management. Indeed, this position is central to Sisson[18] where it is highlighted that the professional aspirations of personnel practitioners may lead them to exaggerate their executive standing and effectiveness within an organization. Why should the executive standing and effectiveness of human resource managers, generically defined, be a different? This appears to be the p position of Guest[4], where it is simultaneously argued that HRM has become the new orthodoxy in the management of industrial relations, while at the same time the assertion is put forward that HRM is not happening because human resource activities are not integrated into business strategy, thereby remaining a a set of independent activities. At the operational level there may be no difference between what constitutes HRM and personnel. HRM may have become the new orthodoxy in the management of industrial relations but only at the level of rhetoric. The position of theory in HRM can now be viewed in this light. THEORY IN HRM In the section "Approaches and Definitions: HRM in 1993", it was established that theory in HRM is prescriptive, whereas the models of HRM derived from any prescriptive theory can be used prescriptively, descriptively or conceptually. This line of analysis is applicable equally to theory in personnel management. The central difference between prescriptive theory in HRM and personnel management concerns the aims and objectives of prescription. Within HRM the aims, objectives and values are defined managerially and concern the deployment and utilization of human resources in an effort to maintain or improve competitive performance. This is in contrast to the prescription behind theory in personnel management, which for Torrington and Hall[2] takes a more philosophical position. Personnel management is defined as a series of activities which enable working people and their employer to agree about the nature and objectives of their working relationship. In terms of Guest[4] this definition implies that personnel management is more concerned with the performance of predefined professional practices, rather than the performance of the organization. So, at the level of prescriptive theory there is some difference. The models of HRM derived from prescriptive theory also can be used to consider orthodox practice in the management of personnel or human resources. Storey[10] uses prescriptive theory and a descriptive model to examine the part played by personnel and non-personnel specialists in the management of change at the workplace in two ways. First, to discuss the HRM phenomenon descriptively and conceptually and, second, to describe the management of change in 15 named organizations. Storey made several significant observations. First, the considerable changes in the methods used to manage labour over the past ten years are varied in scope, De sustainability and organizational source. In short, the management of change is not necessarily related to a prescribed theory in HRM. Second, the change process has been most active in the organizational areas of devolution and downsizing referred to above. These are responses to more competitive economic conditions in relation to the deteriorating economic performance of the UK. While Storey puts forward a model and theory of HRM based on its distinctive qualities, the prescription behind this ideal type does not measure up to his empirical findings. The title of the book, New Developments in the Management of Human Resources[10], indicates the likelihood of a descriptive approach as distinct from that of prescription and, therefore, do...