英语论文网

ively in a British context(Hendry and Pettigrew,1990).Guest(1987)and Storey(1992)in their de?nitions of soft±hard models ofHRM view the key distinction as being whether the emphasis is placed on thehuman or the resource.Soft HRM is associated with the human relationsmovement,the utilization of individual talents and McGregor's Theory Y per-spective on individuals(developmental±humanism).This has been equated with
the concept of a`high commitment work system'(Walton,1985b),`which is
aimed at eliciting a commitment so that behaviour is primarily self-regulatedrather than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual andrelations within the organization are based on high levels of trust'(Wood,1996,p.41).Soft HRM is also associated with the goals ofˉexibility and adaptability(which themselves are problematic concepts,as we shall see in more detail later),and implies that communication plays a central role in management(Storey andSisson,1993).
#Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997Hard HRM,on the other hand,stresses`the quantitative,calculative andbusiness-strategic aspects of managing the``headcount resource''in as``rational''a way as for any other factor of production'(Storey 1992,p.29;Legge,1995b)(utilitarian±instrumentalism).Hard HRM focuses on the importance of`strategic?t',where human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategicobjectives of the organization(external?t),and are coherent among themselves(internal?t)(Baird andMeshoulam,1988;Hendry and Pettigrew,1986),with theultimate aim being increased competitive advantage(Alpander and Botter,1981;Devanna et al.,1984;Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall,1990;Miles and Snow,1984;Storey and Sisson,1993;Tichy et al.,1982;Tyson and Fell,1986).These two perspectives on HRM are viewed as opposing:`what is striking isthat the same term[HRM]is thus capable of signalling diametrically oppositesets of assumptions'(Storey,1992,p.26).However,both Guest and Storey,while explicitly acknowledging this dichotomy,incorporate both when construct-
ing their own HRM`model'or`theory'.For example,in his paper,Guest(1987)draws on both hard and soft dimen-sions in constructing his`theory'of HRM which contains reference to four HRM`policygoals',including`strategic integration',which is clearly associated with hisinterpretation of the hard model,and`commitment',which is associated with hisview of the soft model.Thus,Guest acknowledges a di?erence between theconcepts and assumptions of soft and hard HRM,but abandons the distinction
when embarking upon theory-building.
Similarly,Storey(1992),identi?es his four key features of an HRM approach
as incorporating both soft elements such as commitment,and hard elements suchas strategic direction.
The incorporation of both soft and hard elements within one theory or modelis highly problematic because each rests on a di?erent set of

代写英国硕士论文

https://www.51lunwen.org/uk/

assumptions in thetwo key areas of human nature and managerial control strategies.Many of theseassumptions