Strategic Human Resource Development Framework

1614 Words Sep 21st, 2010 7 Pages
INRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to review academic literature of the different frameworks/models proposed by different researchers and eventually propose a framework of choice which will help leaders to better manage their Human Capital (HC) and understand how to incorporate HR policies into everyday decision making and long term planning. First we start by defining Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM). We then look into what purpose it serves in an organisation. Then we look into the different models of SHRM how these models compare with each other. Literature review intends to develop a new framework which is a combination of two frameworks, The Harvard Model and the Warwick model of SHRM.

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE
…show more content…
Many find this model to be attractive given both its analytical and prescriptive nature (Pettigrew & Hendry 1990; Boxall, 1992). However Armstrong (1987) argues that the human (soft) aspect in this model may conflict with the business focus.
The Michigan model proposed by Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna (1984), consist of five factors namely, selection, performance, appraisal, rewards and human resource development. It emphasises the interrelatedness of the HRM activities. Contrary to the Harvard model it treats people as any other resource which can be used to achieve business goals (Truss, Gratton, Hailey, McGovern & Stiles, 1997). Hence it has a ‘hard’ focus that is, a focus on organizational growth and performance (Bratton & Gold, 2001). Another major drawback is that it views organization and employee goals to be mutual (Walton, 1985) thus ignoring the concept of conflict or diversity (Bagshaw, 2004) or the influence of the external environment (Walton, 1985; Bratton & Gold, 2001) which ultimately can lead to market failure (Chuang, Church, Zikic, 2004).
The Warwick model proposed by Hendry & Pettigrew (1990) draws on the Harvard model and further extends the analytical aspects. The authors argue that “better descriptions of structures and strategy-making in complex organizations,
Open Document