It provides an explanation on the cycle with which HRM centers itself on i. e. selection, performance appraisal, recruitment, training and development, rewards and motivation that improve the way organizations develop. This model is very narrow as it does not explain the HRM strategies and policies because it ignores the interests of the stakeholders, the situational facts and opinion of strategic choice. It really does not match the expresses of rationality of internal HR polities and external business strategies. (Kotler, 1996).
Harvard is the second model of HRM which explains the HR outcomes in terms of competence, cost-effectiveness and commitment the organization; the interests of the stakeholders the stakeholders who include community unions, the government and employee groups; the HRM choices of policies like employee influence, HRM resource flow and reward system; Situational factors like workforce uniqueness, business strategies and conditions, labor market unions and laws and societal values ; and the long term consequences on the individual’s as well as the being of the society.
The Harvard system has categorized the inputs and outcomes at the organization and society level. Unlike the Fombrun, Tichy and Devanna model there is no consistent theoretical foundation to determine the relationship between HR inputs and performance outcomes Harvard model is incorporated and most commonly analytical. The choice of policies is mostly influenced by group interests and situational factors. It’s possibly one way of communication which only recognizes preferred or major choices. (Ulrich 1996)
Guest -Being the third model reflects the important set of incorporated HRM practices; it can accomplish better-quality individual and organization performance and behavior. The goals of this model are to ensure high quality production of goods and services, flexibility in the organization with multi-tasking which is simply adaptable and strategic incorporation in planning logical policies and high commitment to the organization. This model has combined HR strategic themes like flexibility in variable contracts, wage-performance and quality i.
e. culture in employees full participation encouraging team work and direction of customers. Its strategic themes are range from commitment, leadership and involvement to leadership in the top management and continuous learning thus promotion skills, training and developing a new culture with the employees. Storey model is the next model that gives a clear demonstration of the differences between ‘personnel and industrialists’ and the HRM prototype is making a perfect model.
It characterizes HRM as a mixture of description, narrative, instruction and logical conclusion. It gives minor details in the HRM scene of various functions of the organization. Finally we have the new HRM model that has not hit very many organizations in the strategic planning business. But in the few organizations it’s used by the HR designers in the highest levels of decision making. It is also used in regeneration of individuality in communism. This model disjuncture between the knowledge of HRM model and the practice of management
To conclude US models are those of Fombrun et al and Beer et al. while Fombrun et al emphasizes on managing employment relations using HR rationality practices, specific bundles of HR practices lead to performance outcomes. (Hoyer, 20010). Harvard gives an analytical framework for studying HRM using analytical elements like situational factors, strategic choice, stakeholder interests and employee commitment. Storey and Guest models are employed in the UK, like Beer et al.
, Guest has features of personnel management and has high employee commitment as an important HRM outcome, it in cooperates the outer and inner environments in exploring how HR should acclimatize change. Storey model sees HRM as a combination of logical, narrative and prescription judgment. Personnel management is based on legal exchange work and pay while HRM is based on obligations between the parties of the contract thus a mutual commitment. Finally HRM dialogue should be considered within a range of debates and changing the public policy.
Though it’s still divisive but central to understanding employment affairs Reference 1. Hendry C, Perkins, S. J. (2001) Global Champions: Who's Paying Attention? Thunderbird International Business Review 48 (1), 53-75 2. Theory and practice by john Bratton, Jerrey Gold (2001) business ; Economics page 18. 3. Hendry C, Woodward, S. A. , Bradley, P. and Perkins, S. J. (2000) Performance and Rewards: Cleaning Out the Stables Human Resource Management Journal 10 (3), 46-62