In this study, the researcher found five important people-management approaches such as soft HRM, hard HRM, labour repression, paternalist or African model and lastly a mix-match approach. Thus, this study proposes to discuss three predominant HR approaches which: labour repression (managing people as a cost, to be managed in a short-termist unstrategic manner), soft HRM (which promotes cooperative approaches to managing people) and hard HRM (which treats people as an instrument to be deployed to promote competitiveness). Labour repression will be discussed in chapter three and the finding chapters (five, six and seven). Two opposites of HR practice are discussed in this section 2.2.
Two opposites of HR practice are discussed in this section. The ‘hard’ variant of human resource management considers employees only as resources of the organisation. Therefore, it argues that employees should be used effectively in order to achieve organisational goals which, under hard HRM, employees can be paid well - unlike labour repression. Thus, hard HRM is not the same as simply paying low wages, and treating workers badly.
The ‘soft’ HRM stresses the ‘human’ aspects of HRM. Its main concerns are with commitment, communication and development - and is associated with the organization’s goals of flexibility and adaptability. This thesis forms part of a doctoral study in Development Studies. Development Studies is an interdisciplinary field across the social sciences and shows that there is a complementarity between Development Studies (theory and policy) and HRM; as soft HRM approach is a developmental humanist approach and hard HRM approach is aligned with strategic HRM. Both Development Studies (theory and policy) and HRM put more emphasis on social and human capital, industry development and their effectiveness to help the textile and clothing industry to achieve its organisational goals. It is important to note that there is a relationship between Development Studies (theory and policy) and HRM, as human resource- management practices constitute a new ‘paradigm’ for industrial relations.
The ‘soft’ human resource management considers employees first and foremost as human beings who contribute to the organisation (Maund, 2001). According to Manning and Worland (2005), the ‘hard’ variant of human resource management focuses on cost reduction and containment, as well as links with strategy and the role of HRM in furthering the competitive advantage of the organisation. Typically labelled ‘soft’ HRM builds on human relations traditions and stresses the importance of the subjects as a means of furthering employee satisfaction and a range of other related human objectives that are achievable vis-a-vis insights into systematic studies within HRM (Manning & Worland, 2005:6).
According to Storey (1992), soft HRM is associated with the human relations movement and the utilization of individual talents; and 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-regulated rather than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual, as well as relations within the organization which are based on a high level of trust’ (Wood, 1996:41). The soft model emphasizes that this commitment will be generated if employees are trusted, trained and developed; and if they are allowed to work autonomously and have control over their own work (Guest, 1987; Kamoche, 1994; Tyson 1995a). Soft HRM is also associated with the goals of flexibility and adaptability, thus implying that communication plays a central role in management (Storey & Sisson, 1993). The soft version assumes that employees will work best (thereby increasing organizational performance) if they are fully committed to the organization (Legge, 1995a; Guest, 1987).
Additionally, the soft version of HRM sees employees as ‘valued assets and as a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high level of skills and performance’. It has, however, been observed by Truss (1999) that ‘even if the rhetoric of HRM is soft, the reality is often hard, with the interests of the organization prevailing over those of the individual’. Furthermore, research carried out by Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Styles & Truss (1999) found that in the eight organizations they had studied, a mixture of hard and soft HRM approaches was identified.
Therefore, hard HRM on the other hand stresses the quantitative, calculative and business- strategic aspects of managing the “the headcount resource” in as “rational” a way as with any other factor of production, as associated with an utilitarian-instrumentalist approach (Storey,
1992:29). Hard HRM focuses on the importance of ‘strategic fit’, where human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategic objectives of the organization (external fit), and are coherent among themselves (internal fit) (Storey & Sisson, 1993). Under the hard model, control is more concerned with performance systems, performance management, and tight control over individual activities - the ultimate goal being to secure the competitive advantage of the organization (Guest, 1995).
Indeed, the soft HRM stands in contrast with the hard variant (Collings & Wood, 2009: 2). Thus, the soft school emphasizes the importance of aligning HR policies with organizational strategy, emphasizing the role of employees as a valuable asset and source of competitive advantage through their commitment adaptability and quality (Legge, 1995; D’ Art, 2002 quoted in Collings & Wood, 2009:2). Hence it is sometimes conceptualized in terms of strategic interventions designed to develop resourceful employees and to elicit their commitment to the organizational goal (Storey, 1992 quoted in Collings & Wood, 2009:2). In other words, soft HRM is about trying to encourage firms to be ‘nicer’ to their people, on the basis that such ‘niceness’ is likely to translate into greater commitment and productivity - and hence, even more profits (Collings & Wood, 2009:2).
However, such approaches discount the value of long term commitment and organization- specific knowledge (Harcourt, Roper & Wood, 2006). Indeed, Storey (1989) has made a distinction between the hard and soft forms of HRM, typified by the Michigan and Harvard models respectively. ‘Hard’ HRM focuses on the resource side of human resources. It emphasizes costs in the form of ‘headcounts’, thus placing control firmly in the hands of management. The latter’s role is to manage numbers effectively, keeping the workforce closely matched with requirements in terms of both bodies and behaviour. ‘Soft’ HRM, on the other hand, stresses the ‘human’ aspects of HRM. Its concerns are with communication and motivation. People are led rather than managed. They are involved in determining and realizing strategic objectives.
The soft version of HRM traces its roots to the human-relations school; it emphasizes communication, motivation and leadership (Armstrong, 2006:12). As described by Storey (1989) it involves ‘treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high quality (of skills, performance and so on)’ (Storey, 1989 quoted in Armstrong, 2006:12). It therefore views employees, in the words of Guest (1999a), as a means rather than an object, but does not go as far as following Kant’s advice: ‘Treat people as ends unto themselves rather than as means to an end’ (Guest, 1999a cited in Armstrong, 2006:12). Armstrong (2006:12) adds that the soft approach to HRM stresses the need to gain the commitment (the ‘hearts and minds’) of employees through involvement, communication and other methods of developing a high-commitment, high-trust organization. Attention is also drawn to the key role of organizational culture. The above scholars provided a deep understanding of soft HRM which coincided with some of the pertinent research questions related to involvement, motivation and communication. It then discusses issues related to soft HRM such as training and developmental activities, reward systems in the firm regarding performance based pay, union involvement, engagement in collective bargaining, existence of
work council and lastly the existence of the different quality circles (use of team working, general workforce meeting, staff notice boards, suggestion boxes, etc.).
In this study, the researcher tried to find out what ensures a firm’s survival, as well as being competitive in terms of approaches to people management. The debate regarding the “soft” model approach is a developmental humanist approach and, for the “hard” model approach, a situational contingent approach is followed, though not necessarily resolved (Storey, 1992; Legge, 1995; Boxall, 1996; Browning & Edgar, 2004). The “soft” approach can be summarized as HRM being effective when it involves a focus, such as employee motivation, commitment and development. It also reflects the role of management in creating a work environment which allows the employee at work level to participate in communication, gain effective training and become of value (Kane, 2001; Boxall, 1996).
The “hard” approach is seen as being aligned with strategic HRM and HRM effectiveness and appears to be more contingent upon cost minimization instead of a more significant investment in human resources (Ulrich, 1997; Legge, 1995; Purcell, 1995; Truss, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Mc Govern & Styles, 1997; Storey, 1995; Burton, 2003). In terms of the “hard” approach the HR profession approach needs to bring a strategic view to the management function in organizations according to the literature and empirical research. The empirical research of Beaver, Nel and Du Plessis (2003) and Burchell (2002), for example, found that HR managers must endeavour to create and maintain an organization that should be able to deliver the plan and strategy of the business by ensuring that HR strategy is continually aligned with business strategy. Lipiec (2001) and Kane (2001) again believe that HRM managers need to focus more on the strategic management role of HR.
Comparing the two HRM approaches, Legge (1998) pointed out that the ‘hard’ model of HRM as a process emphasizing ‘the close integration of human resource policies with business strategy which regards employees as a resource to be managed in the same rational way as any other resource being exploited for maximum return’. Thus, Kochan and Osterman (1994:45) describe that firms treat human resources as a source of competitive advantage and do so in a manner that preserves high standards of living: “high commitment”, “excellent”, “best practice”, “high performance”, “salaried”, or “transformation”. Kochan and Osterman are arguing for soft HRM. The above scholars tried to compare the two HRM approaches: hard HRM regarding employees as a resource and soft HRM regarding employees as a source of competitive advantage. This coincides well with two important issues discussed in study, namely labour repression and best labour practice on how to keep the textile and clothing industry survival and competitive.
In addition to the above, Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Quinn-Mills and Walton (1984) indicate that ‘hard’ HRM focuses on managing and controlling employees so as to achieve the organization’s strategic goal, whilst soft HRM gives more recognition to the needs of employees and the importance of their commitment to the organization. Collings and Wood (2009:2) add further that while soft HRM emphasizes the human element of HRM, the emphasis of the hard approach relies very much on the resource as a means of maximizing shareholder value over the short- term. The duty of managers is quite simply to make money for owners and a focus on other
issues such as employee rights is simply a distraction: rather, by focusing on returns, the organization will perform most efficiently, which is ultimately in the interests of all.
Briefly, the study found two opposites of HR practice. The ‘hard’ variant of human resource management considers employees only as a resource of the organisation. Therefore, it argues that employees should be used effectively in order to achieve organisational goals in which, under hard HRM, employees can be paid well, unlike in the case of labour repression. The ‘soft’ HRM stresses the ‘human’ aspects of HRM. Its main concerns are with commitment, communication and development - and is associated with goals of flexibility and the adaptability of the organisation. This thesis forms part of a doctoral study in Development Studies. It then provides an understanding of hard and soft HRM. The study tries to explore whether there is any complementarity between Development Studies (theory and policy) and HRM - as soft HRM approach is a developmental humanist approach and hard HRM approach is aligned with strategic HRM. Thus, labour repression and best labour practice are the principal issues which the following chapters will look at.