The Harvard map of HRM
This guide is based on Human Resource Management in a Business Context,
and includes links to extra articles, notes, tips and exercises.
The Harvard map of HRM
A large part of this section is devoted to the Harvard 'map' of HRM. This is
probably the most seminal model of HRM and has had a major influence on academic debate on the
subject.
'We noted that the Harvard Business School generated one of the most influential models
of HRM. The Harvard interpretation sees employees as resources. However, they are
viewed as being fundamentally different from other resources - they cannot be managed
in the same way. The stress is on people as human resources. The Harvard approach recognizes
an element of mutuality in all businesses, a concept with parallels in Japanese
people management, as we observed earlier. Employees are significant stakeholders in an
organization. They have their own needs and concerns along with other groups such as
shareholders and customers.'
The or model outlines four HR policy areas:
1 Human resource flows - recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal
and assessment, promtion, termination, etc.
2 Reward systems - pay systems, motivation, etc.
3 Employee influence - delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power
4 Work systems - definition/design of work and alignment of people.
Which in turn lead to the 'four C's' or HR policies that have to be achieved:
- Commitment
- Congruence
- Competence
- Cost effectiveness
See pages 41-42 for more.
Activity 2:5 Beer
et al themselves did not consider that the four 'Cs' represented all necessary
criteria. Why not? What else could be considered?
HRM policies and their consequences
Beer et al (1984) proposed that long-term consequences (both
benefits and costs of human resource policies should be evaluated at three levels:
individual, organizational and societal. These in turn should be analyzed using the four Cs.
See pages 42-43 for more
Tips for students using the book
Activity 2:6 Although central to the
Harvard Map, 'stakeholder theory' has a much wider scope than HRM and has largely been
developed outside the HR literature. At first sight, it is a simple notion - those parties
or groups that have an interest in the firm. But more critical attention reveals a concept
that is not easy to define and that is also exposed to a number of political, ethical and
other agendas. How would right- and left-wing politicians regard stakeholders? Similarly,
senior managers and trade unionists, etc.
More articles in this section
|
Human Resources
