Truss et al., 1997 mentioned that most companies do not stick to one particular HRM style, rather they characterize soft HRM and HARD HRM into the aspects to best suit their desired outcome. What if we can create a concreate balance between both? Will it be worth it without sticking to one extreme?
If the extreme is more towards soft HRM, following criteria will be affected as such:
- Productivity: high morale but performance may differ
- Innovation: exceeds creativity but may lack focus and consistency
- Retention: better loyalty but contains inefficiency
- Organizational culture: has team work but may lack discipline due to autonomy
If the extreme is more towards HARD HRM, following criteria will be affected as such:
- Productivity: high efficiency short term but suffer burn outs (Paauwe, 2005).
- Innovation: rigid culture by sticking to protocols.
- Retention: lack of engagement and high rate of cluster cultures.
- Organizational culture: low emotional quotient and lack empathy
The impact of this technique is seen in global giants such Google, where HARD HRM is used for performance metrics and analytics but uses soft HRM for employee retention methods such as personal development and employee well-being.
References
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P., 1997. Soft and hard models of human resource management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), pp.53–73.
Paauwe, J. and Boselie, P., 2005. Best practices…in spite of performance: Just a matter of institutionalization? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(6), pp.987-1003.
You've done a great job explaining the practical implications of both HRM styles and how striking a balance can help organizations avoid the pitfalls of either extreme. The comparison between soft and hard HRM impacts on productivity, innovation, retention, and culture is especially clear and relatable. To further enhance this section, consider suggesting that companies conduct periodic internal assessments (e.g., pulse surveys or performance reviews) to evaluate whether their current HRM mix is delivering the intended outcomes. This would encourage adaptive strategies rather than fixed models, reinforcing your message of balance. Well done!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the informative comment! I will consider doing more research and will definitely post a new blog in time!
DeleteHRM is a balance and you nails that idea correctly. 1997, by Truss et al. blend of Soft HRM and Hard HRM allows the companies to tailor the approaches properly.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is a good example with performance in hard comlex matrics and prioritizing with top talent.
Thank you Himasha! Yes! since we all google all day, its best to know how they became so efficient!
Delete