This
refers to the overall outlook on the “hard” HRM approach emphasizes mainly on
strategic business objectives and treats human recourses as a mere factor in
the production line, in other words an employee rather than a person. It is
often seen as a kinship related to scientific management, and is highly
suitable in mass production industries (Druker et al., 2010).
In
this approach, an organization assumes power over every employee’s activities
mainly to secure a competitive advantage, in the following nature: (1)
marginalizing the interests of employees and other stakeholders, (2) agreeing
to a unitarist perspective where both the interests of the employer and
employee must align, (3) aligning personal and professional goals of the
employee, and (4) external and mutual interest of both employer and employee (Shrestha,
2020).
Is
HARD HRM good?
- ·
This
method provides short term efficiency (e.g. during deadlines in mass production
lines)
- ·
Employees
are clearly held accountable as each task is individually defined.
Is
it bad?
- ·
Low
morale of employees as they do not contain autonomy.
- · Employees
often feel like tools of a production line, which hinders their psychological
safety, eventually leading them to resign.
- ·
Strict
workplace rules often leave employees burnt out as they strive to produce the
same result on a daily basis.
- · Due to the lack of involvement of the employees, their initiatives are often left unheard (Shrestha, 2020).
References
1. Druker, J., White, G., Hegewisch, A.
and Mayne, L., 2010. Between
hard and soft HRM: human resource management in the construction industry.
[online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.506921 [Accessed
12 Jul. 2025].
2. Shrestha, P., 2020. Status of Hard
and So ft HR Approaches: Evidence from
Workplaces of Nepal. [online] Tribhuvan University. Available at:
mailto:mrprakashshrestha@gmail.com [Accessed 12 Jul. 2025].
This is a well-structured and informative explanation of the hard HRM approach, clearly outlining its strategic focus and impact on employees. The examples related to mass production and employee accountability are well-placed. To enhance the reader's understanding, you could consider adding a brief comparison or transition to soft HRM at the end of this would create a smoother flow into the contrasting perspective. Great use of references and real world implications!
ReplyDeleteAs per the Shrestha 2020, the model gives a short term increases but risk the burn out in long term and the disengagement. Fast pace industries captures new technologies but should maintain the human sense as well.
ReplyDeleteYou have given an accurate and fair representation of the strengths of hard HRM, best notably its efficiency-driving capabilities (Druker et al., 2010), but have not hesitated to point out the human costs of hard HRM, including low morale and burnout (Shrestha, 2020). I appreciate how you managed to discuss the fact that task clarity and task accountability do not have to undermine the psychological safety. What are the ways through which organisations can maintain the structure and discipline of a hard approach, but at the same time be able to instil autonomy and employee voice to remain engaged in the long term?
ReplyDelete