Managing People

Dr Upul Lekamge
February 12, 2019

Using key HRM models critically discuss how the concept of ‘HRM’ has
changed, if at all, management approaches to People Management?

The gradual evolution of economy from production based to knowledge based has
resulted in major changes on how organizations are managed across the world. Employees of
a company are no longer considered as just another “pair of hands”, instead they are
regarded as the company’s most valuable assets, making the responsibilities of HRM more
vital than ever. Employee performance and attitude can result in the success and failure of
the company which makes “People Management” a daunting yet crucial task. The role of
HRM managers have expanded beyond just hiring and firing to a broad range of tasks which
includes leading, motivating, training, inspiring, encouraging, disciplining and evaluating the
workforce. Given the complicated nature of modern HRM, various scholars from all over the
world have developed a good number of models to describe the concept of HRM.
Innovations in management is closely related to social relationships and inter relationships
within the society. Therefore the developments in HRM models over the years are due to
changes in markets, social movement and political policies. This essay is a critical analysis on
how these models have changed over the years to accommodate new requirements related to
people management.
The first model of this type, Michigan Model (1984) , is a hard HRM model with a less
humanistic edge in which employees are considered as resources. This means people were
managed in a similar way to raw materials and other production supplies. This model
demands that human resources should be matched with the jobs in the organization and the
business strategy takes the organizational spotlight. The key weaknesses of this model is it
highlights that to gain high profits, labour must be obtained cheaply. It also promotes
structural re-organization, Performance Related Pay and downsizing which are all further
downfalls of the model. In my opinion, this model can have long-term negative impacts on
the company and the employees. Employees tend to quit due to low pay scales, job insecurity
and job dissatisfaction and regardless of the model, company will face market failure as the

REEMA RIFKHAN "1

model ignores the external environment and intra-group conflicts within employees can result
in poor organizational performance.
Harvard model (1984), on the other hand, is a soft HRM model which emphasizes that
employees are a group of company’s stakeholders and that they can influence organizational
outcomes. This model states that interests of various stakeholders should be considered and
fused to create the business strategies. Harvard model promotes growth of employees through
efficient work systems, human resource flows (recruitment, selection, placement, promotion,
appraisal and assessment) and employee influence (delegated levels of authority, responsibility,
power). The final outcome of these principles: the commitment, congruence, competence and
cost effectiveness of the employee workforce contributes to the overall organizational growth.
This is because monetarily and emotionally satisfied employees tend to work more efficiently.
Finally, the Storey Model (1989), is a completely different, more humane approach
where John Storey attempted to reconstruct an “ideal type” model based on various
interrelated policies social ideologies. He believed that human capabilities is what
differentiates organizations and emphasized more on commitment, rather than compliance.
The model was based on four components: beliefs, strategic qualities, role of line mangers
and key levers. These aspects stresses on how organizational success depends on commitment
of employees, HRM managers should be top managers and senior executives since HRM is
strategic in nature and that line managers should practice people management. This means
that authority and responsibility are delegated to the employees for improving the processes
which are under their control without first having to obtain permission from management
before making changes.  It also states that culture is more important than procedures and
systems and proper culture management will increase unity and understanding within
employees.
In conclusion, HRM models have shifted from hard to progressively softer models and
organization strategies are now employee-centered. And corporations put a lot of effort and
energy into managing people because as numerous research points out, they are the driving
force of companies.

REEMA RIFKHAN "2