Implementation of Human Resources Management (HRM)

HR managers are now increasingly referred to as “Human Resource Management Managers”.

In rare cases, it can be said that only the title has changed, although many of the HRM philosophies are implemented in the daily practice and thinking of HR professionals. Reference: “Evolution of the concept of Human Resources Management (HRM)“,

For these specialists, the above-mentioned debates, which were characteristic of the second phase of the development of the given theory, are no longer of great importance.

They went from theory to practice; and, despite errors caused by organizational constraints, many of them are already difficult to identify, as evidenced by our observations of many years of research by more than 100 British companies.

Characteristics of the Human Resources Management (HRM) system

The summary of the views of the above-mentioned authors and the opinion of some other scientists helps to compile a consolidated list of the distinctive features of the HRM system, which manifests itself as a new paradigm of human governance. Reference: “Development of the Human Resources Management (HRM) concept“, The following is a list of key features:

• HRM emphasizes the importance of forming a commitment to the mission and values ​​of the company, ie this is a model “oriented to commitment”

• HRM is based on the awareness of the need for strategic compliance – integration of personnel and organizational strategy

• This activity is stimulated by the top management Reference: “Objectives of Human Resources Management (HRM)“,

• Implementation of an HRM system and the responsibility for the results are assigned to the line managers

• HRM makes a measurable contribution to the formation and maintenance of competitive advantage and focuses on creating additional value, especially for shareholders Reference: “Human resources management concept“,

• HRM is a comprehensive and comprehensive approach to the implementation of mutually supportive principles and methods for the formation of personnel policy, ie to develop a comprehensive system of policy and practice in the field of human resources

• Special attention is paid to the formation of the culture and values ​​of the company

• HRM is results-oriented, emphasizes the need to constantly move forward to new frontiers so that the company is always ready to solve new tasks

• Labor relations are unitary rather than pluralistic and are geared towards individual workers rather than the collective as a whole.

• The organization of processes is based on the principles of limitation and decentralization with the introduction of flexible roles, concentration of the process (ie ways of functioning, especially those that go beyond traditional organizational frameworks), and have a higher level of team building on the principles of flexibility Reference: “How to make a Human Resources plan for our organization”,

• Quality customer service and achieving a high level of customer satisfaction are of particular importance

• Differentiated system for remuneration based on work results, competence, personal contribution, or qualification

Of all the features listed above, the first two are priorities: building attachment and achieving strategic compliance.

Limitations of the Human Resources Management (HRM) model

At first glance, Human Resources Management (HRM) offers significant benefits, in any case for managers. However, a whole list of theorists and one practitioner, Alan Fowler (1987), have identified several limitations, which are summarized below:

• HRM still lacks the potential to become a separate theory or alternative in the form of an improved version of the personnel management model Reference: “Human resource management plan in project management practices”,

• HRM, in the words of Guest (1991), is in itself “an optimistic but dubious concept, where everything is built on promises and expectations.”

• Even if HRM exists as a separate process that many doubt, it is full of contradictions, manipulative, and, according to the Cardiff School (Blyton and Turnbull, 1992), absolutely untrue.

• The “promised goals” of HRM are unjustified at best and unfeasible at worst (Mabey et al, 1998).