Similarities and Differences between the Models on STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

        Theory X is an approach of management which believes that people work for self interest and are otherwise indolent. The approach suggests that it is the duty of the management to introduce an environment that cultivates hard work and productivity; to adopt a carrot and stick policy. The nature of the organization supersedes that of the nature of the employees who are already considered lazy and unmotivated. Human resources are viewed just as other resources and are considered to be made productive under a system. This is the Michigan model or Hard HRM. Theory Y is an inverse approach that believes that human resources have emotions and can be motivated as well as encouraged. This approach entails that through self realization; workers commit to work and also take interest. It is important for managers to make sure that they keep their workers motivated and help them to realize that they have potential to do well. According to this theory approach, the people are responsible rather than lazy, and they can be motivated to achieve goals. This HRM approach is the real essence of Soft HRM or Harvard Model (Thompson, 1967)

        The quick decisions might be taken with the help of hard approach, and it might also help in achieving cost effective workforce, but workers needs are neglected in this approach hence resulting in more absenteeism, higher turnover and inadequate hiring practices. The "soft" approach is more of an empathetic approach where good treatment is deserved by all. This approach is said to increase motivation due to factors such as rewards and benefits. However, sometimes businesses need to ensure that the cost of all benefits combined is not harming the company’s interests. (Tichy, Devanna, & Fombrun, 1984)

        The table below entails the contrast between the two theories. It categorizes the hard model as elements of control while the soft model as elements of commitment. The hard model is a traditional view of management where there is more control and supervision. Due to this staunch approach there is little commitment to work. The soft model is considered to be a contemporary approach where employees are self motivated and are highly committed to work. This model relates to human relationships where teamwork is encouraged while the hard model has more of a bureaucratic style with little or no teamwork. With regard to managerial structure, the hard model is hierarchical while the soft model has a flatter structure. The difference between control and commitment is that while employees are treated as workers in the former, the latter treats them as assets. Skills and competencies of the employees are not recognized by the organization that practices hard models. These employees are not given autonomy or control over anything. Organizations practicing the soft model encourage and develop skills and competencies through reward and motivation and are empowered and autonomous with the work entitled to them. Finally, both models work towards achieving the goals of the organization first and foremost; however the soft model aligns the goals of its employees to those of the organization hence also achieving employee’s goals.

(Truss C. , 1997)

                    
        Soft culture accentuates the integration of business objectives with HR policies. The focus is given to considering employees as valuable assets who are committed, skilled and motivated enough to be a competitive advantage for the organization. When employees are entrusted and empowered they participate enough to develop an environment which is conducive and productive in nature. This way, employees feel more committed and motivated to work with more determination and in turn develop trust and loyalty. The HRM”S main focus is given to “humans”. The business strategy is actually incorporated in the hard culture approach, which asserts that system, human resource policies and activities should be taken into consideration. With this perspective, the human resource is considered as a production factor, which lists the employees of an organization as business expenses rather than resource that are skilled enough to transform factors of production into monetary terms. The passive overview is given to resources, and they are treated as skills as well as numbers with an equitable price, rather than taking a resource as innovative minds. The HRM’s focus in this regard is given to “resource” (Rao, 2016)

        The normative HRM concept is also brought out in view by the research. Many organizations have adopted this concept, and operate it on two common premises. The first is HR policies, regardless of their hard or soft nature, should be incorporated into strategic business planning which will help alter the culture of the organization with regard to business goals. Secondly, human resources act as a competitive advantage for businesses and should be valued. These resources when tackled through the right policies will help to promote actual commitment. Hence, normative HRM concept suggests that a linear as well as simple relationship exists between HRM & strategy. (Vaughan, 1994)
There is certain distinction between both soft & hard HRM, and it offers two sharply different alternatives aspects in a single approach for the management. Moreover, both also stresses upon the importance of strategy, people so that each component can be given a different meaning, and different assumptions are made for the human nature. Hence, the contrast that exists between soft & hard HRM, is unmistakably a gap between actual realty and rhetoric.

        As per conclusions made by the analysis of annual report, it was found that rhetoric for the organization was soft, and Australian workforce survey analysis revealed that actual reality for the workforce is hard. From this perspective human resources act as an expense to the business (hard HR) while organizational practices exercise more control rather than encouraging commitment which lead to findings that relate that even though productivity levels surged, the level of stress and dissatisfaction also increased. Although some surveys have provided the evidence for the variables of soft HRM that they are also increasing and that reality does not only comprise of hard elements, however, once again within the constraints, in other words performance. Interestingly, survey results also come with the limitation that the management and employees responses are not in the same perspective; while the management records its responses with soft elements the workers focus on the hard realities of the workplace. (Blyton & Turnbull, 1994)

        According to research, in reality there are no hard and fast examples of soft as well as hard HRM. The companies adopted the rhetoric which was very similar to show the elements of soft & commitment model, but in actual the employees were experiencing a different reality where they were dealing with the hard model looking to get strategic controls. A research finding stipulates that ironically enough, companies that incorporate motivational programs to increase employee commitment are mostly the ones that are downsizing and focused on cost cutting. With this perspective, it has been explained by the researchers that HRM does not come with one language, rather it consist of two languages, one is hard and the other is soft, which are compliant by the “tough love” language, where there are two parties that reap the effects, the ones that benefit and the ones that suffer. As a result, saving the mass at the loss for a few is described as downsizing while though the ones that remain do not lose their job, they do lose the sense of job security. It has been revealed by the research that in overall terms, the rhetoric of HRM comes with soft view, but in reality, it is not soft, rather it is hard. Even there are cases, where soft elements are incorporated into the culture, the structure and backbone usually comprises of a hard framework (Legge, 1995)

 References on STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Blyton, P., & Turnbull, P. (1994). Reassessing HRM. Sage Publications.

Legge, K. (1995). HRM: Rhetoric, Reality and Hidden agendas.

Rao, M. (2016). Hard VS. Soft Leadership. Strategic Hr Review .

Thompson, J. (1967). Organization in Action. In M. Hill, Organization in Action.

Tichy, N., Devanna, M., & Fombrun, C. (1984). Strategic HRM. Wiley, NY.

Truss, C. (1997). Soft and Hard Models of HRM. (L. Gratton, Ed.) Strategic HRM , 134-148.

Truss, C., Gratton, L., & Hope-Hailey, V. (1997, January). SOFT AND HARD MODELS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:A REAPPRAISAL. Journal of Management Sciences , 54-73.

Vaughan, E. (1994). The trial between sense and sentiment, A refelcetion of the language of HRM. Journal of General Management , 20-32.