Many HRM and SHRM studies adopt a managerial perspective rather than an employee perspective (Townsend, Wilkinson, Allan & Bamber, 2011, p. 168). The literature review has identified research of these types that has provided an understanding of workforce management, but Townsend et al (2011) stated that there is value in asking employees in the workplace about their views as a potential means of understanding HRM or SHRM issues.
This thesis has already identified that research is needed into understanding employee needs and identifying the key contributors to building a motivated, engaged and productive workforce. The role of, and input from senior management in measuring HR
effectiveness was also noted in the literature (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Townsend et al, 2011). Guest (1999) undertook a study based on the view that the impacts of HRM on employees are as relevant as those on business. For Guest (1999) this is necessary, both as an end in itself and also to inform the critical debates on HRM. Legge (1995) claimed that accounts of HRM are the ‘voices of management’ and that there is insufficient good evidence about how workers react to HRM (this has since changed with the advent of quantitative employee surveys about HRM activities). Guest’s (1999) study was concerned with perceptions of fairness, trust and the extent to which management is believed to be delivering on its promises and commitments. It is of interest that Guest uses the term ‘react’ to describe employees relationships with HRM, although empirical research does not always clearly identify whether it is the reaction to, impact of or the actual types or quality of what HR does that is being analysed, evaluated or reviewed.
Gibb’s (2001) research (involving a survey of 2,632 employees in 73 countries) explored a range of arguments about trends in the evaluation of HRM and noted that most methods use either a fit with ‘best practice’ or with contingencies. Gibb (2001) sought to investigate how employees’ ‘points of view’ could be an alternative model in HRM evaluations, and found that employees reported areas of strength in HRM that include training and development, rewards and levels of personal motivation. Further, Gibb found areas of weakness in HRM: the management of staffing levels, aspects of recruitment and communication and levels of morale in the organisation as a whole. Gibb (2001, p. 332) wrote that the comments in the survey suggest that employees possess a ‘memory’ and understanding of HRM which is partly self-interested, partly drawn from their common organisational experiences, and partly based on a knowledge of HRM in general. Gibb undertook to understand the dynamics and strengths of employment matters from the employee view and also highlighted the contribution that different philosophies (disciplines), systems and approaches make in measuring and evaluating HR.
Edgar & Geare (2005), who stated that most research and reporting of HRM have ignored the view of employees, believe that employee attitudes are a fitting HRM measure. They therefore sought to see whether there is a significantly strong relationship between HRM practice and employee attitudes if employee perceptions of HRM practice are taken as a measure of HRM performance or effectiveness. They tested the relationship between HRM practice and employee work-related attitudes to examine whether different approaches to the measurement of HRM gave different results. Edgar & Geare (2005) measured HRM practice using employee attitudes to
organisational commitment, job satisfaction and organisational fairness, and found significant results were obtained between HRM practice and employee attitudes, but only when employee reports of the strength of HRM practice were used to measure HRM value and effectiveness. Guest (2001, p. 1099) claimed that further research is needed to test the extent that employer and employee views on HRM coincide or differ and that:
There is now a need for more research comparing the responses of managers responsible for developing and overseeing HRM practices and employees to identify levels of agreement about the operation of practices...
Guest (2001), Gibb (2001) and Edgar and Geare (2005, 2005a) support the view that employees’ perceptions about their employment can provide key information about current HR policies and practices. Their research does not identify a base point for measuring HR, nor does it identify how such a measurement is made about the actual range of HR policies or the extent to which HR management is done well across an organisation. What is confirmed, however, is that for SHRM to be implemented successfully there is a strong need to align employee needs (drawn from employee perceptions) with managers’ perceptions and with organisational HR policies and practices. Without this alignment, the other components of SHRM would stand fractured from each other, and therefore the prime intent of SHRM in achieving organisational goals would not be met.
Edgar and Geare (2005, p. 537) described the different approaches used to assess the relationship between HRM practice and employee work-related attitudes. This first is the additive approach that involves employees responding to ‘yes/no’ questions, where the higher number of ‘yes’ responses leads to the assumption of better HRM. The second is the use of employer self-reports involving the use of response bands such as those contained in Likert scales. Because these are both quantitative studies, the results are limited by the structured survey questions (Guest & Peccei, 1994). Alternative approaches could involve seeking employees’ opinions in their own words and without formally or strictly derived questions.
As far as the relationship between HRM practice and employee attitudes is concerned, HRM practice dimensions have been measured using data collected from employees in one of two ways: using additive measures of HRM practice or self-reports about the extent to which particular HRM practices have been operationalised (Edgar & Geare, 2005). For Edgar & Geare (2005) there is a third possible approach, which is to collect
employee views about the operationalisation of HRM practice and then relate these reactions to their attitudes.
Edgar and Geare (2005) noted in their research findings that if managers want to maximise employee attitudes, then implementing lots of practices is not sufficient: practitioners need to be aware that the way they implement their HRM practices may be a more important determinant of employee attitudes than the number of practices they put in place. This aligns with Kramar’s (2006) and Boxall and Purcell’s (2008) views about needing the right (effective) bundles of HR policies and practices at any given time to meet both employees’ and the organisation’s needs. Armstrong (2001) suggested the possibility that it is the quality of the practice that counts and not the quantity; it may be that practitioners need to undertake regular attitudinal surveys to assess employees’ reactions to current HRM practice and plot them longitudinally to identify what is working and what it is not. This, then, relates to how the policies and practices are delivered and managed from the senior management level to HR and at the workforce level.
Edgar’s (2003) study examined the extent to which the employee-centred model is used in New Zealand organisations and the relationship between the use of these practices and employee wellbeing. The employee-centred model is described by Edgar (2003, p. 230) as the soft model of HRM where HRM is focussed on employees and their wellbeing; whereas the hard model is organisation-focussed. The findings indicate that most organisations surveyed had moderate numbers of employee-centred HRM practices in place, but that the number of practices in place did not relate to employee wellbeing. Edgar (2003, p. 237) asserted that an explanation for the results is either that employees do not consider all areas of HRM to be equally important, and that the absence of this relationship may suggest that not all HRM practices have the potential to equally enhance employee wellbeing, or that employers have failed to effectively operationalise their HRM practices.
Edgar’s (2003) findings suggest that a gap may exist between employer rhetoric about HRM and the reality of HRM as experienced by employers. Edgar (2003, p. 232) observed that, along with the paucity of research on HRM practice in New Zealand, there are even fewer studies conducted there or internationally that look at HRM practice from the employee perspective (the exceptions include Guest, 1999 & Rasmussen, McLaughlin & Boxall, 2000). Edgar (2003, p. 232) found this surprising, given that the employee is, in effect, the actual consumer of HRM and, in the case of ‘soft HRM’, the supposed beneficiary.
Empirical research into HRM practices has mainly assessed and evaluated the activity from an employer’s perspective, and concern has been expressed about the lack of empirical analysis conducted from the employees’ perspective (Edgar & Geare, 2005a, p. 361). Their results also provide insights for academics and practitioners in that new policies and practices should be aimed at maximising the potential of people in the workplace. Securing employee commitment has come to be seen as pivotal to the success of HRM and underpinning this relationship is the view that employee attitudes and behaviours can be affected by HR policies and practices. It is this perspective that has been adopted by most HRM researchers, according to Edgar & Geare (2005a), drawing on the writings of Whitener (2001) and Arthur (1994).
Edgar and Geare (2005) noted that if it is accepted that employees are important stakeholders, then exploring their views on HRM makes empirical testing of some of the assumptions and relationships in HRM more accurate. The question of the current importance to the employee of the employment relationship today is a question that has received little empirical attention, so obtaining employee views about HRM allows for the exploration of some of these relationships by providing insights into how effective employees consider current HRM policy and practice to be (Edgar & Geare, 2005).
Employers report on the effectiveness of their HRM policies and practices using information sourced from managers rather than from all employees. Edgar and Geare (2005a, p. 364) stated that:
…the tenet, around which HRM is fundamentally built, is the view that employees are the organisation’s ‘greatest asset’ and therefore should be afforded some voice in HRM research.
The more informed employers and academics become, with regards to employees’ views about the importance and value of HRM practices, the greater the probability that initiatives in introducing HRM practices will be effective (Edgar & Geare, 2005). HRM initiatives implemented by practitioners should be those most appropriate to meet the needs of their employees, and these practices should also be performed well, as it would appear it is the quality of the HRM practices that counts rather than the quantity (Edgar & Geare, 2005a). Therefore, there is valuable information to be obtained in seeking employees’ views, of the effectiveness of HR, and also about their current employment conditions and wishes for the future. This will assist in ensuring that HR policies and practices achieve the required outcomes for a capable and ready workforce and that is also aligned with organisational goals.