ARTICLES - Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych · long time now. They are core employees,...

ARTIC

LES

The objective of this paper is to present directions of further SHRM development in light of such circumstances as changes in employment structure, organizational changes, and changes to the organization’s surroundings. The importance of these changes varies due to their impact on human resources and business. They are also dependent on the degree of advancement of HRM in the organization. The first part of this paper presents circumstances for SHRM changes and the objectives of this study. The next relates to companies in which the personnel function has as yet not achieve legitimation and concentrates on directions of change prerequisite to its achieving, as postulated in literature. The successive section drafts changes in direction as expected in mature SHRM (that has already achieved legitimation). The summary considerations and conclusions stemming from them make up the final part of this paper.

Key words: Human resource management (HRM), strategic human resource management (SHRM), SHRM differentiation, HRM individualization, HRM legitimation, and employee well–being.

Introduction

HRM is subject to continuous evolutionary changes. Their rate is accelerating under the impact of various factors, primarily including:

Changes in employment and in work content itself: �Increased diversification in employment structure in terms of its forms and �

forms of work organization,Increased saturation of work with knowledge and growth in the share of knowl- �

edge workers in total employment,Demographic structure (more women, people aged 50+, and fewer young �

people),

Stanisława BorkowskaQuo Vadis HRM?

Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Każda reprodukcja lub adaptacja całości bądż części niniejszej publikacji wymaga pisemnej zgody Wydawcy

12 Stanisława Borkowska

A new psychological contract with a decreased sense of work security, the de- �velopment of flexible forms of employment and work organization, and an increase in employee independence as a consequence,

Increased employee mobility and the development of something akin to a no- �madic culture—lesser attachment to a single workplace not only within the confines of a single city, but even country in light of the intensification of international migra-tion, and the weakening of interpersonal ties outside the organization,

Increased employee responsibility for the development of their own profes- �sional careers,

Increased employee competency potential as well as the role of competencies, �including soft competencies (collaborative skills, on–going education, creativity, flexibility, openness to change, etc.), and increased employee multi–functionality, and

Increased expectations with respect to work, including in terms of potential �for development, influence over decision–making, autonomy, and better informa-tion and communications in matters concerning the company and tasks being per-formed.Changes involving the organization: �

Orientation aimed at the continuous gaining of competitive advantage, �Greater mobility of financial and material capital, �Changeability of organizational strategies and their differentiation, �Development of flexible, horizontal organizational structures, including net- �

work connections—heterarchy vs. hierarchy,Blossoming of team work based, to a great extent, on the changeability of �

teams and their personnel make–up, resulting in the growth of the phenomenon of individualism in collectivism (within the team),

Development of a culture with a high tolerance for risk, and �Development of multi–culturality and the nomadic culture. �

Turbulent company surroundings, mainly linked with a high dynamic of technologi- �cal change, especially the development of hi–tech.

This clearly shows that managing amidst chaos is gaining an increasingly strong posi-tion.

The combination of the specified group of change factors puts great challenges be-fore HRM. What should HRM be like in order to be effective?

The quest for this answer is underway. There is agreement as to the radical growth in the role of leadership and the coordinating–inspirational role of leaders with respect to employees. However, two streams of this search may be observed in light of the view of the HRM position within the organization:


Quo Vadis HRM? 13

One, which considers the position of HRM to be too weak and seeking ways for its �legitimation, and

A second, deeming HRM to be mature and, therefore, its legitimation is something �completed, which does not mean universal.

There is also a third stream of change in HRM involving the scope of management. These changes are a reaction to the appearance of new problems related to human labor, especially as stemming from the new psychological contract. An example of this is the matter of balance between work and non–professional life (W–LB), which means time management as well. Such changes may make their appearance in both HRM battling for its legitimation (even supporting it) and already holding it. To date, this stream, in contrast to the two previously mentioned ones, takes direct account of employee inter-ests and their balancing with company interests. Its importance will undoubtedly grow.

Other premises form the basis for the intensification of the development of talent management as an area of HRM. This is a reaction to the requirement to gain enduring competitive advantages and the development of innovativeness as leverage.

This paper primarily concentrates on the second of the predicted streams of SHRM development because it, to a greater extent than the first, relates to the future and may have the more radical character. Thus, the first part of the article presents directions of change in SHRM as postulated in topical literature that, in their assumptions, are pre-requisite to its legitimation. Subsequent parts are devoted to the presentation of further and, in my view, main directions of change in SHRM that has already achieved a strong position in companies and has no need to fight for legitimation. It is on the basis of these considerations that certain conclusions have been formulated, making up the conclusion of this paper.

Towards the Legitimation of HRM

The first stream is dominant in scientific literature and research. It is tied with HRM fighting for its legitimation (generally seen in connection with its impact on business outcomes). This signifies that in their bulk, such searching is directly targeted at ways to achieve this legitimation. There continues to be a lack of univocal views as to the deter-minant of success in this endeavor, however. Discussions are underway on the model of SHRM and principles forming the basis of its structure and implementation as well as the chain of its influence on the efficiency of the company. Thus, in opposition to SHRM based on practices (their bundles), what is proposed in strong HRM, for example.

J. J. Haggerty and P. M. Wright [2009], similarly to D. E. Bowen and C. Ostroff [2004], tend to see a greater opportunity for the legitimation of HRM in strong HRM (which is understood by them somewhat differently) rather than in its architecture,



where practices make up its basis. Bowen and Ostroff [2004] based strong HRM on a transparent system of information and communications (one of the HR practices) in the conviction that this will facilitate the understanding of the importance of HRM and will guarantee the receipt of transmitted signals in agreement with the intention of the mes-sage. This, in its turn, should guarantee the expected attitudes and behavior on the part of employees. For their part, Haggerty and Wright [2009] agree on the need to build strong HRM based not on practices, but on processes. According to them, processes make HRM more visible and understandable to employees, building greater trust among them. Moreover, they show that the placement of the HR head in the company manage-ment as well as remuneration on a level equal to the head of the financial section, for example, is a condition sine qua non for legitimation of the personnel function.

Proponents of both concepts of strong HRM agree in their view of organizational climate as a variable acting as an intermediary between HRM and organizational out-comes, at the same time indicating that the key role of HRM is assistance in its building and maintenance.

It may be assumed that the question of the architecture of SHRM, seen from the point of view of employers and business results, will loose importance with respect to challenges linked with changes, where it is the employees that lie at the focus.

SHRM Differentiation: Towards Individualization?

The importance of related principles grows with the development of SHRM. In the first decade of the 21st century, in addition to the principles of building the architecture of HRM (systematization, comprehensiveness, flexibility, adapting to company strategy, and the internal cohesiveness of HR practices), SHRM differentiation and implemen-tation, SHRM orientation on behavioral effects as well as on the building of the well–being of employees and social capital, HR individualization, and the decentralization of internal HR with the development of external HR started to take on importance.

Attention should be paid to the close proximity in time of the appearance of several concepts of differentiation, considering it to be the most important challenge with re-spect to SHRM. D. Guest published his concept as early as 2008, B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid [2009] came one year later, to be followed in 2010 by J. Strużyna. Although true that both the concept of D. Guest and J. Strużyna are aimed at employees, they are based on different premises. It is this, in opposition to a chronological approach, which speaks in favor of a separate presentation of the D. Guest concept in the next part of this paper.

The requirement of cohesiveness or fit between the HRM strategy and the overall company strategy meant the external differentiation of these strategies (among compa-


Quo Vadis HRM? 15

nies) due to differences in business strategies as well as because of the inevitability of change in strategy in time and space [Becker and Huselid, 1998; 2009]. HRM strategy must also be subject to internal differentiation in order to guarantee its cohesion with processes implemented in specific areas of company operations. It is through business processes that such a strategy is executed [Becker and Huselid, 2009] and their efficient implementation influences company outcomes. These authors also stress that differen-tiation of SHRM strategy should encompass strategic job positions.

HRM differentiation understood in such a way, though complex and making great demands with respect to HR professionals, fails to take into account both the diverse structure of employment and the well–being of employees, as well as of work organiza-tion and diverse employment structure.

Three circles in the employment structure of organizations have been identified for a long time now. They are core employees, specialists, and peripheral workers. This subdi-vision is overlapped by another one. Knowledge workers dominate the first two groups. The importance and share of what is known as talent—particularly talented individuals, regardless of profession and position occupied in the company—is also growing. At the same time, the importance of position in a traditionally understood hierarchy is falling in favor of competencies held and usefulness in undertaking changing and growing chal-lenges, which is tied with the development of “protean careers” [Bohdziewicz, 2010]. On the one hand, this is linked with the growing competencies of a significant part of employees, their expectations with respect to greater autonomy, and their influence on work and processes taking place in the company. On the other hand, it is coupled with the growing risk of job loss and/or the need to change professions and acquire new compe-tencies prerequisite to staying with the company or finding work in another one. This in-duces some employees to individual entrepreneurship and responsibility for disposing of personal human capital and its development [Strużyna, 2010]. As stressed by J. Strużyna, this isolation of individual human capital out of the company’s intellectual capital and treating it as an individual business is a quality of the fifth and final phase of SHRM evo-lution.1 This is a phase that is rooted in the present, but extending into the future, called by the author: “The breakthrough phase in strategic human resource management.”

Certain qualities of this phase link it with the perception of challenges with respect to HRM of B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid [2009].

1 These phases have been isolated by the author in strict correspondence with strategic management and the dynamics of change relating to the organizations themselves and human resources.



However, in spite of the similarity in perceiving the future of SHRM as to the main direction of its development, both concepts of differentiation are held apart by significant differences. The level of their development varies, which is not without impact on their understanding and difficulties in their comparison. The concept of differentiation devel-oped by J. Strużyna is more developed. Let us consider a systematic look at the qualities of the breakthrough phase of SHRM.2

According to J. Strużyna, this phase is characterized by:Merging the concept of human capital with that of intellectual capital tied to the �

company as a whole and its individualization;Growth in human capital in line with the intentions and actions of its owner—this �

also applies to the unit capital of HR specialists;The leverage of personal capital of its members by a company creating an environ- �

ment for their development;A change in the character of SHRM akin to network–based business targeting indi- �

vidualized investment in employees;Employee involvement and professional loyalty in exchange for individually adapted �

investment in employee development by the employer as the basis for the contract be-tween the employer and employee;

Employability as the main quality of unit human capital, whereby the employee �must take care to improve his or her value as assessed outside the organization, while, at the same time, it is in the interests of the company to guarantee for itself the total organizational capital prerequisite for the achieving of its strategic goals.

The above demonstrates that personnel strategy is on course for creating founda-tions for businesses created by employees and company partners on the basis of their unit human capital, where, in fact, HRM actually becomes a business through the uncov-ering of opportunities, even in their individual forms [Strużyna, 2010, p. 21].

Again, the individualization of SHRM as a direction of its further development com-bines the concept of Strużyna with that of Becker and Huselid, albeit these concepts are significantly different. Firstly, in as much as J. Strużyna accents the need for individual-ization of SHRM strategy due to employees, Becker and Huselid [2009] see the justifi-cation of individualization in position. Secondly, J. Strużyna does not directly stress the justification for differentiation in investment in employees, while Becker and Huselid point to the rationality of unequal investment in development, depending on the strate-gic importance of the position occupied by the employee. Thirdly, in line with the Becker

2 The term SHRM breakthrough phase shall also be defined in the approach to the challenges in the future of SHRM by Becker and Huselid for lack of a separate term from these authors.


Quo Vadis HRM? 17

and Huselid concept, the company invests in the development of employees occupy-ing strategic job positions. Strużyna’s concept of individualization of SHRM strategy is linked with investment in the development of unit human capital in line with the inten-tions and actions of its owner in exchange for involvement and loyalty with respect to the company, not due to their importance to the company. This implies the completely individual self–governing of employees, and therefore, the complete individualization of SHRM in the company. Fourthly, B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid, like J. Barney before them [2001], put great stress on the strategic importance of HRM strategy implementa-tion, treating the process as a separate strategic resource. The matter of implementation is not taken into account in the SHRM breakthrough phase in the J. Strużyna concept.

Let us consider the above differences.The postulate of differentiated investment by the company in employee develop-

ment as based on the importance of the employee’s position in the achievement of com-pany strategy is rational. Key positions in implementing strategy should be encompassed by employees with qualifications guaranteeing high effectiveness in their work. Thus, investment in employees occupying such positions is justified on a level guaranteeing work effectiveness as expected. The equal investment in all employees would be a waste of resources. On the other hand, keeping in mind the variability of company strategy as well as strategic positions, it is important to employ, for an undefined period of time, workers with significant development potential and a capacity for flexible switching. These are what are known as key employees. Then, it is possible to prepare employees capable of taking over those positions in advance in line with projected directions of change in strategy and its related strategic position through proper investment.

With respect to the discussed concept—something of a concept for today and the near future—it is important to call attention to the fact that the basis for investment differentiation, as well as differentiation in other HR processes, is not only the importance of the position occupied by the employee for executing business pro-cesses, but also the rarity and development potential of employees, employment forms, and work organization.

Rarity—difficulties in attracting a defined type of employee—is often tied with greater tendencies to employ them for an undefined period of time, investing in their development, and guaranteeing them even above–standard working conditions. A spe-cial case of such rarity encompasses what are known as “talents.” Their attraction is something of a weapon in the development of innovativeness and the achieving of com-petitive advantage.



Basically, a different approach to the concept of investment in the development of employees is presented by J. Strużyna. In line with his concept:

Investment is the result of an individual contract between the employee and em- �ployer,

The employee expects investment adapted to his or her intentions, �In exchange for such investment, the employee offers his or her involvement and �

loyalty.Thus, this is also differentiated investment, but not limited to any particular group

of positions or with respect to the level of investment and its substantive scope. More-over, it is not necessarily linked with work performed by the employee for the employer and therefore providing a positive impact on work effectiveness. The reward for such investment is also a matter of negotiations between the parties to the contract. This is undoubtedly a vision that its far bolder than that presented by Becker and Huselid. Although it is difficult to count on its dissemination in the near future, the distant future undoubtedly belongs to it.

However, the time horizon describing the probability of dissemination of the idea of complete SHRM individualization is not all that is involved. Another cause for concern lies in the premise that the basis for such individualization is unit human capital isolat-ed from intellectual capital. Pursuant to the concluded contract, the employee renders work for the company that invests in him or her. Thus, there is a trace left behind it in the company’s intellectual capital.

Conclusions stemming from the above show that:Differentiation in SHRM strategy is its main direction of development. Its HRM �

foundations and scope may vary or even co–exist in the same company, but be all the more different among companies. Differentiation may occur due to a need to adapt HR strategy to differentiated business processes and strategic positions, as well as due to the rarity and development potential of employees and forms of employment. The type and depth of differentiation depends on the type of organization and the character of the work. The discussed individualization is often already a fact in organizations where creative work is dominant—e.g. the theater, scientific–research institutions, etc. This is in spite of the fact that such work is often undertaken in teams, teams that are also changeable. However, such far–reaching differentiation is not possible in mass or serial production, where human effort is routine and repetitious in character. In such a case, HR individualization will apply to strategic positions, not to individual employees.

The progressing individualization of HRM aimed at employees, especially in the area �of career management (greater investment in the development of personal knowledge and multi–functionality, and personality training), will form an integral stream within the area of growth in the scale of differentiation. A significant factor bringing about the de-


Quo Vadis HRM? 19

velopment of this individualization is the new psychological contract, or more precisely, the absence of job security, which has an impact on growth in responsibility for one’s own fate as well as those who are close. Another factor is the growing level of employee qualifications and an increasing share of knowledge workers.

In the longer term, this shall bring about the transformation of HRM—as stressed �by J. Strużyna—into something of a business. This shall bring about a significant in-crease in the rank of HRM. Will this occur in the expected way?

Stronger Orientation of SHRM on Employee Well–Being, But of What Employees? The Problem of Horizontal Integration of Activities Involving Human Endeavor

The claim that HRM systems should be built with an eye to harmonizing the interests of the employer and employees would seem to be a truism. However, rare are studies and discussions on HRM conducted not from the perspective of employers and busi-ness outcomes, but ones where the focus is the employee in terms of well–being, various forms of employment and work organization, the parallel employment of the employee by several employers, as well as questions of qualification and demographic structure. These matters primarily seem to dominate HRM where it has already achieved legitima-tion, but they also will not be able to be ignored by companies (or their majority) that are continuing the fight for legitimation of the personnel function. Thus, they will be facing the need to come to grips with double challenges.

SHRM differentiation, or more precisely its employee–oriented individualization, is adapted to employee development potential, expectations, life situation, and, to a certain extent, well–being. It is an answer to the need for a more sustainable SHRM, harmonizing the interests and expectations of both employers and employees. It is a pre–condition for its appearance, but is it sufficient for its durability? In my opinion: No. The reason is that, firstly, well–being connected with the conclusion of an employment contract resulting from one’s own foresight and investment in one’s own intellectual and emotional development has no guarantees of durability as there are none in the contract itself. Although tied with all forms of employment, this problem grows significantly in parallel with the expansion of the scope of work in flexible forms of employment. In the case of peripheral workers with low qualifications encompassed by flexible forms of em-ployment, especially workers employed on the basis of civil law contracts, not only can improvements to their well–being not be expected, but can actually worsen as a result of the gradual degradation of their qualification in the face of a lack of investment in their development.



Secondly, adapting the type of work to employee competencies and expectations is not the only factor generating worker well–being. Among factors applying significant influence to its sensing are trust in the employer tied with observance by the employer of the psychological contract, organizational climate, work–life balance (W–LB), profes-sional satisfaction as well as satisfaction in personal (family) life, the sum of all external and internal rewards, physical and psychological health, work–related stress, and other soft factors [Guest, 2008]. The growing impact of these factors on well–being is re-flected in attitude towards work and the behavior of employees, which is subsequently seen in work outcomes.

The harmonizing of employer and employee interests means (in the case of the latter) the need to take into account their well–being. On the one hand, increasing employee expectations with respect to work is being accompanied by growth in the im-portance of employee well–being. On the other hand, the sense of well–being influences employee behavior [Guest, 2008, p. 135] and it is prerequisite to their involvement as a behavioral outcome, which provides leverage for growth in work efficiency trans-lated into economic outcomes for the company. Thus, it lies at the basis of the develop-ment of involvement–based management—High Involvement Work Systems (HIWS) [Borkowska, Editor, 2010]. Bearing this in mind, D. Guest applies key importance to the new psychological contract, deeming necessary its differentiation within the com-pany through its conclusion on local levels—i.e. directly by managers and the employees subject to them. The subject of such a contract would be the obligations of employees with respect to defined, desirable behavior and, on the other hand, the obligations of managers relating to working conditions. Thus, the decentralization and flexibility the psychological contract (what is known as the new psychological contract) lead to its dif-ferentiation in light of employee well–being, with the simultaneous taking into account of the specifics of business process and their related requirements. In contrast to the previously discussed concept:a) It combines the interests of the employer and the diverse interests (expectations) of

employees, making a fit of the specifics of the processes they execute, and also has greater possibilities for taking into account the interests of peripheral workers;

b) Significantly raises the meaning of direct managers and increases the flexibility of adapting variable goals/tasks to the conditions under which they shall be imple-mented;

c) Increases the enfranchisement of employees.As in the concepts of B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid as well as J. Strużyna, this

leads to changes in the role of HR. D. Guest, like Bowen and Ostroff [2004] as well as Haggerty and Wright [2009], and others, see it in the directing of HR actions to the


Quo Vadis HRM? 21

building of the desired organizational climate as the key variable mediating between SHRM and the economic outcomes of the company.

Thus, the taking into account and harmonization of employee well–being (tangible and intangible) with the goals and interests of employers as early as in the design phase of the overall strategy of SHRM as well as its differentiation / individualization, subsequently followed by the implementation and monitoring phase, makes up an important direction of HRM development.

This is strictly tied with the organizational culture, which defines basic values that determine employee behavior and company image. Cultural values may have a signifi-cant impact on the tack of the enfranchisement of highly–qualified workers, especially those involved in creative and innovative work [Oldham, 1996].

Organizational culture has an impact on the selection of HRM practices as well as on their perception by employees [Bowen and Ostroff, 2004, p. 205]. On the other hand, HRM influences the working climate and subsequently the organizational culture. This loop of connections indicates as much about the importance of organizational culture in HRM as on its complexity. In theory, culture is seen as one of the main determinants of HRM. However, in practice it is not as appreciated as the remaining determinants. The changeability of organizations and employment structures, which is tied with the growing level and changeability of employee competencies, the development team work and concertive work systems [Cordery and Parker, 2008, p. 199], the growing scope of e–work, and the development of transnational organizations leads to an increase in the rank of organizational culture as a unique mortar joining human resources and the foundations of SHRM. This brings about tendencies of acknowledging its integrity with SHRM [Boxall, Purcell, and Wright, 2008, p. 8]. This is a convincing postulate.

P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. M. Wright [2008, p. 8] go even farther and postulate the integration of HRM with organizational behavior, leadership, and work organiza-tion, immediately followed by an expansion of the definition of SHRM. This integration allows for a stronger accenting of the role of work and employment systems and their impact on the efficiency of business organizations and the national economy as well as on the quality of life of society.

Outcome Leverage: Growth in the Role of SHRM Aimed at Molding the Behavior of Employees

Does the long–standing discourse on the impact of HRM of an organization’s economic outcomes come to an end with the ligitimation of the personnel function?

Thankfully, times of researchers and practitioners—HR specialists—justifying the need for HRM development by proving the level of its impact on a company’s economic



results have passed. Asking about the return generated by HRM is a mistake. This was recently stressed by B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid [2010] who pointed to a lack of direct ties between HRM and a company’s financial results. The objects of HRM are its proper design, differentiation, and implementation. It should be added that, as in the case of the implementation of all and any solutions, the last phase of this process is and should be monitored for correctness of functioning and maintenance of operations, which means monitoring and adjusting any identified improprieties. Such HR activities are prerequisite to the molding of desirable employee attitudes and behavior, which pro-vide benefits to both sides—companies and employees.3 Far–reaching structural chang-es in employment and especially the roles of the knowledge factor and the demand for innovative employees who are capable of flexible switching while being independent and responsible for work performed, strengthens the role of soft SHRM. Such changes imply the need for aiming SHRM at the building of employee involvement as a stance with respect to work [Borkowska, 2010] leading to the development of High Involvement / Commitment Work Systems (HIWS). This involvement provides behavioral leverage in terms of the outcomes of individuals and teams that subsequently translates into company business outcomes. Type differentiation by type of company and employment structure is inevitable. With respect to key workers employed for an unspecified period of time, such involvement is integrated and encompasses organizational involvement and the performance of tasks. On the other hand, in the case of talents, the challenge facing the company is integration of professional success with organizational involve-ment as well as performance of assigned tasks. The first is their natural stance that may be in collision with other forms of involvement.

In the case of peripheral workers with low qualifications and no work security, it is involvement in task performance that shall be of most importance. In the case of free–lance professionals it shall tend to be involvement in the task and professional success as prerequisite for maintaining or strengthening their position on the market.

It has to be stressed that a significant factor for fruitful HIWP is its strong ties with HR orientation aimed at employee well–being, including their W–LB.

Though a significant degree of agreement of views as to the fact that SHRM influ-ences company achievements by shaping worker attitudes and behavior was achieved [Walton, 1985; Beer and Spector, 1985; Guest, 1997; Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prenushi, 1997; Ichniowski, et al., 2000; MacDuffie, 1995; MacDuffie, et al., 1996; Purcell and

3 However, some researchers continue to accent benefits for the company while being silent with respect to benefits for employees. Becker and Huselid [2010], for example, indicate that the above HR activities are helpful in implementing company strategy and generating wealth.


Quo Vadis HRM? 23

Wright, 2008; Guthrie, 2001, Guthrie, et al., 2008, and others], discussions centering on what are known as variables acting as intermediaries between company efficiency and HRM “products” continue. It is possible to assume that looking at SHRM both from the perspective of the employers and changes in the organizations themselves and in their environs, and changes in employment structure will simplify the clarification of the value chain for the company and employees and shall noticeably improve agreement of views in this matter.

The intermediary variables are considered in various ways. B. E. Becker and M. A. Huselid [2009] consider implementation to be the key intermediary variable between HR architecture and company results. Although true that they did not specify the be-havioral effects of SHRM in the value chain they constructed, but, as was demonstrated before, they cut themselves away from direct HRM influence on company outcomes. In his turn, D. Guest [2008] thinks the key intermediary variable of the HRM system is organizational climate molded under the impact of the new psychological contract, or more precisely, its perception by employers. It has an influence on employee attitudes with respect to work. It is prerequisite for employee trust in employers, and therefore also their involvement. For their part, J. Purcell and N. Kinnie [2008], D. E. Bowen and C. Ostroff [2004] as well as J. J. Haggerty and P. M. Wright [2009] underscore the special weight of the impact of organizational climate on employee attitudes and behavior. The specified intermediary variables make up a partial loop of influences on employee attitudes and behavior that do translate directly into work outcomes, which, in their turn, are converted into financial results. Thus, implementation has a direct impact on employee attitudes and behavior as well as an indirect one on organizational climate. Similarly, the psychological contract influences organizational climate. This is illustrated (Figure No. 1) by a simplified and modified diagram of the value chain in line with the Becker and Huselid [2009] concept:

Employee attitudes and behavior have been isolated out of the internal HR architec- �ture as it has been acknowledged that their shaping targeted at implementing company strategy is the direct objective and effect of its influence.

Employee behavior as a manifestation of their attitude with respect to work is, there- �fore, a separate link in the chain preceded by implementation, which has an undoubted impact on attitudes and behavior.

The value chain has been supplemented by additional variables influencing the be- �havior of workers (their development is captured by Figure No. 1). It is implementa-tion and the psychological contract that have direct influence on those attitudes [Guest, 2009]. Both factors also influence organizational climate, which is also shaped under the influence of other factors, such as interpersonal relations, for example. In line with the principles of feedback, organizational climate influences employee attitudes and behav-



ior, which is becoming the main intermediary variable. Thus, what emerges is something like a loop of factors influencing employee attitudes and behavior as an effect of the action of HRM (behavioral outcomes) that makes up the basis for creating the effects of employee work (performance outcomes), which, in their turn, translate into the com-pany’s financial results (financial results).

The Future of HR

Differences in advancement of the development of SHRM are inseparably tied with the differentiation of position and organization of HR services as well as their scope of activ-ity. Primarily, what should be expected is the legitimation of the HR function in organiza-tions where it is still absent. This necessitates the creation of strong HR departments and the strengthening of personnel heads in the company management.

The further development of these services is linked with the implementation and differentiation of HRM. Expected changes, both in their organizational and substantive aspects, may be considered as follows:

Implementation of HRM strategy in the organization through business processes �requires the decentralization of HR services so that personnel specialists can cooper-ate closely and on a running basis with line managers in accordance with the principle of integration of HRM entities. The role of HR specialists is the design of appropriate strategies and practices, participation in their implementation, and day–to–day support for line managers in managing human resources. This necessitates the monitoring of the correctness of functioning of approved solutions as well as the necessary adjustments and adaptation to changes in business processes, human resources, and the company’s environment.

Differentiation in HRM strategy is not only an adapting to changing strategic objec- �tives of business processes, but also strategic positions within the limits of those pro-cesses or teams or even individual employees, leading to an increase in responsibility of internal HR entities as well as setting them qualification requirements in the business sphere (with respect to HR specialists) and in the organizational behavior of employees (with respect to line managers). It also increases their workload in spite of the fact that internal HR services, by their very nature, will be concentrating their activities primarily on workers employed for an unspecified period of time as well as on high–class special-ists, regardless of form of employment, who are vital to the performance of company objectives.

Some employees, especially those who are highly qualified and/or who have rare �qualifications, as well as talents, may base their activities on self–employment (self–man-agement) and independently control their careers, which leads to the development of an


Quo Vadis HRM? 25Fi

gure

No.

1. V

aria

bles

Dire

ctly

Influ

enci

ng E

mpl

oyee

Beh

avio

r

Sour

ce: O

wn

rese

arch

.



individual HR business. They may find support in external specialized HR companies. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that, as exceptions, contracts may be concluded with the employer that guarantee their partial (rarely complete) encompassing with internal HR departments.

Both those employed in the company for an unspecified period of time as well as �self–managing specialists can work in variable teams as well as networks, enriching their competencies thanks to variety in composition and in the tasks themselves. Even in the case of teams grouping together specialists from various companies it is possible and relatively simple to achieve an understanding with respect to encompassing them with HR operations for the duration of the functioning of the teams.

The situation of peripheral employees lacking high qualifications is significantly �different. This difference shall grow deeper. The situation facing contract workers is particularly complex. Their formal employer is the agency and it is the agency that con-cludes contracts for the rendering of work services for the contracting companies. There are situations where people from various agencies work side–by–side, or where the same employees (as commissioned by “their” agency) perform part–time work in parallel for several contracting companies, which may be located on the same site (e.g. retail centers, airports, railroad stations). In such cases the working conditions of various workers may be different. In such an event what emerges is the problem of harmonization of the HR activity center. Although true that attempts are being made to solve this problem such as agreements among the contracting companies, the agencies, and those companies, etc., this does not solve it. It is against this backdrop that there is justification in the pos-tulate for developing social skills prerequisite to effective collaboration among various participants in the network [Marchington, et al., 2009]. In general, since the premise of their employment is low cost, peripheral workers, contract workers, and those encom-passed by various flexible forms of employment are more poorly paid and essentially do not have opportunities to develop their careers. They perform repetitious work and are very rarely encompassed by training [Marchington, et al., 2009]. Thus, differentiation or even individualization of HR actions will not tend to improve the well–being of low–skill peripheral workers. This particularly pertains to women, who are more often encom-passed by flexible forms of employment. Greater opportunities for taking into account the interests of peripheral workers may only be spied in SHRM concepts based on the decentralized—i.e. new—psychological contract.

In spite of the restricted scope of activities of internal HR services due to the partial �or complete exclusion from them of peripheral workers, differentiation of HRM strategy will require a radical increase in their competencies. It will also inevitably bring with it an increase in their responsibility for human resource management, additionally fortified by


Quo Vadis HRM? 27

integrated collaboration of HR professionals with line managers. HR itself will become a part of business.

Directions of change of SHRM lead to the development � HR business as a result of significant growth in the number and roles of external HR entities as well as professional and employment advisory agencies, etc. Such entities are specialized in terms of types of services rendered or groups of customers served, and therefore differentiated with respect to competency and responsibility levels.

In summery, differentiation in employment structures in combination with the de-velopment of information technology and changes in work organization, including the development of e–work, is leading to the limiting of the range and scope of operations of internal HR, where range is understood as a fall in the share of companies with HR services and scope is understood as the share of encompassed company employees. At the same time, this leads to growth in the role of internal HR services in organizations in terms of their competencies and responsibility. The growing competencies, importance, and responsibility of HR managers and professionals speaks in favor of them being en-compassed by certification, like other professional groups [Becker and Huselid, 2009].

These processes are accompanied by the intense development of external HR.

Summary and Conclusions

The intense development of HRM in the final decades of the 20th century and the initial ten years of the 21st is closely tied with the intensification of global competition and the development of hi–tech and the knowledge–based economy. This has accelerated the processes of far–reaching differentiation in organizational and employment structure as well as the increased role of strategic management.

In practice, in spite of a lack of universal legitimation of SHRM, its scope is clearly expanding if the following two indicators are taken into account:

The actual acknowledgement of line managers as being HR entities and their direct, �continuous collaboration with HR professionals (the line manager – HR professional tandem), and

The strengthening of the personnel head in the company management. �Nevertheless, in many companies there continue to be struggles with the legitima-

tion of HRM. Naturally, directions of change in HRM in companies battling for its le-gitimation and in those where this has been achieved must be different. For companies fighting for legitimation of the personnel function, the main objective shall be actions aimed at achieving it, which does not mean that they shall remain indifferent to other directions of change. Nevertheless, taking both into account shall be a major challenge for them.



Bearing in mind the previously mentioned main determinants of SHRM changes (the development of the personnel function in the practice of various companies and scientific achievement), further directions of its change in mature companies (where legitimation of the personnel function is a fact) may be described as follows:

Greater integration of HRM with business processes, where as a result SHRM is �perceived as a business partner;

Intensification of HRM differentiation through its adapting to strategic business �processes and strategic job positions in companies, all the way to individualization in the case of unique employees;

Significant growth in the importance of effectiveness and varied implementation of �HRM strategy through business processes as discussed above;

The targeting of HRM at molding employee attitudes and behavior supporting the �implementation of company strategy—behavioral effects that lead to high–efficiency work, which in its turn leads to company economic results;

The resultant growth in the importance of SHRM based on the integrated involve- �ment of employees that takes into account involvement in the performance of entrusted tasks and organizational involvement;

A stronger SHRM orientation aimed at creating employee well–being based on the �harmonizing of the interests of employers and employees (mainly key workers), who are usually employed for a specified period of time, which is a significant prerequisite for the attracting of such workers;

Growth in the role of organizational culture and its integration with SHRM intent �on the further horizontal integration of SHRM;

Greater stress on building social capital and the development of social skills; �The deepening stratification of employees with employees holding high qualifica- �

tion and development potential (managers, professionals, talents) on the one hand, and peripheral workers on the other, which is tied with the real threat of a worsening of the well–being of peripheral workers with low qualifications;

Diversification of the role of HR professionals in connection with changes in the �role of internal HR and the expansion of external HR services.

The listed directions of change in SHRM and the role of its entities bring with them both good and bad consequences. The latter are mainly tied with the stratification of employees primarily in terms of their qualification level, but also sex and probably age. However, it cannot be ruled out that fears linked with age shall be losing their impor-tance in the case of the maintaining of the downward tendency in birthrate, where its effects in terms of employee numbers are not compensated for by the further develop-ment of high technology. Moreover, this does not exhaust possible directions of SHRM development in the further future, but they do bear witness to the growing importance


Quo Vadis HRM? 29

of SHRM and the major challenges facing it. They also indicate a need for intense re-search into the discussed and other probable directions of SHRM change.

Literature

Barney J. B. (2001), “Resource–Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten–Year Retro-spective on the Resource–Based View,” Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 6.Becker B. E. and Huselid M. A. (1998), “High Performance Work Systems and Firm Perfor-mance: A Synthesis of Research and Managerial Implications,” Human Resource Management, vol. 16.Becker B. E. and Huselid M. A. (2009), “Strategic Human Resources Management: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, http://www.sage-eref-erence.com/hdbk_humanresourcemgmt/Article_n21. html (downloaded April 23, 2010).Beer M. and Spector B. (1985), “Corporate Transformation in Human Resource Management,” in R. E. Walton and P. R. Lawrence (Editor), HRM Trends and Challenges, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Bohdziewicz P. (2010), “Współczesne kariery zawodowe: od modelu biurokratycznego do przedsiębiorczego” [Modern Career Models: From Bureaucracy to Entrepreneurship], Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi [Human resource management], no. 3–4.Bowen D. E. and Ostroff C., (2004), “Understanding the HRM–Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the ‘Strength’ HRM System,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 29 no. 2.Boxall P., Purcell J., and Wright P., (2008), “Human Resource Management: Scope, Analysis, and Significance,” in Boxall P., Purcell J., and Wright P. (Editors) The Oxford Handbook of Hu-man Resource Management, Oxford University Press.Cordery J. and Parker S. K., (2008), “Work Organization,” in P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. Wright (Editors) [2008), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press. Gerhart B., Trevor C. O., and Graham M. E. (1996), “New Directions in Compensation Re-search: Synergies, Risk, and Survival,” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, no. 14.Guest D. E. (1997), “Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research Agenda,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, no. 8(3).Guest D. E., (2008), “HRM and the Worker: Towards a New Psychological Contract?” in P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. Wright (Editors), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource of Management, Oxford University Press.Guthrie J. P., Liu W., Flood P. C., and MacCurtain S. (2008), “High Performance Work Systems, Workforce Productivity, and Innovation: A Comparison of MNCs and Indigenous Firms,” LINK Working Paper Series, no. 04–08.Guthrie J. P. (2001), “High–Involvement Work Practices – Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 1.Haggerty J. J. and Wright P. M., (2009), Strong Situations and Firm Performance: A Proposed Re–Conceptualization of the Role of the HR Function. Ichniowski C., Shaw K., and Prenushi G. (1997), “The Effects of Human Resource Manage-ment Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines,” American Economic Review, vol. 87.Ichniowski C., Kochan T., Levine D. I., Olson C., and Strauss G. (2000), “What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment,” in C. Ichniowski, D. I. Levine, C. Olson, and G. Strauss,



The American Workplace: Skills, Compensation and Employee Involvement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Kinnie N, Stuart J, Rayton B, Hutchinson S, and Purcell J, (2004), “HR Policy and Performance: An Occupational Analysis,” IIRA HRM Study Group Working Papers in Human Resource Manage-ment, no. 2.Lepak K. and Snell S., (1999), “The Human Resource Architecture: Toward a Theory of Human Capital Allocation and Development,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 19. no. 1.MacDuffie J. (1995), “Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organiza-tional Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry,” Industrial & Labor Relations.MacDuffie J. P. and Pil F. K. (1996), “The Adoption of High–Involvement Work Practices,” Working Papers of the Reginald H. Jones Center, The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, January, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/508.pdf.Marchington M, Cooke F. L., and Hebson G. (2009), “Human Resource Management across Organizational Boundaries,” The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, SAGE Publications, April 23, 2010, http://www.sage-ereference.com/hdbk_humanresourcemgmt/Ar-ticle_n27.html. Oldham G. R. (996), “Job Design,” in C. L. Cooper and I. T. Roberstson (Editors), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. XI, John Wiley, New York.Pfeffer J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Pfeffer J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Pil F. K. and MacDuffie J. P. (1996), “The Adoption of High–Involvement Work Practices,” Industrial Relations, vol. 35, no. 3.Purcell J. and Kinnie N. (2008), “HRM and Business Performance,” in P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. Wright (Editors), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press.Strużyna J. (2010), “Ewolucja strategicznego zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi” [The evolution of strategic human resource management], Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi [Human resource management], no. 3–4.Strużyna J. (2010), “The Evolution of Strategic Human Resource Management,” Human Re-source Management, no. 3/4.Walton R. E. (1985), “Towards a Strategy of Eliciting Employee Commitment Based on Policies of Mutuality,” in R. E. Walton and P. R. Lawrence (Editors), HRM Trends and Challenges, Har-vard Business School Press, Boston.

Stanis ława Borkowska – Professor, Ph.D., Habil. in the economic sciences. A prominent specialist in the field of human resource management. Heads the Chair of Labor and Social Policy of the University of Łódź as well as of the Human Resource Management Department of the Institute of Labor and Social Studies in Warsaw. Scien-tific achievements encompass over 300 publications devoted to the topics of remunera-tion, revenue policy, the labor market, and human resource management. Collaborates with national and international scientific societies. Long–term Deputy Chairperson and Chairperson of the Committee for Work Studies and Social Policy of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and of the Committee for Economic Studies. Member of the presid-


Quo Vadis HRM? 31

ium and Scientific Board of the Polish Economic Society (PTE), the honorary chairper-son of the Main Committee of Economic Knowledge Olympics. Editor–in–chief of the Zarządzania Zasobami Ludzkimi [Human Resource Management] bi–monthly, member of many editorial boards, including Polityka Społeczna [Social Policy], and head of the award chapter in the Human Resource Management Leader competition.


Date post:	12-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ARTICLES - Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych · long time now. They are core employees,...

Documents