CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL GUIDE FROM UNISA. THE REPORT IS NOT
PREPARED NOR APPROVED BY UNISA, RATHER REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE
SOLUTION TO THE TASK CONSISTENT WITH THEORY OF CHRM8. THIS REPORT
IS INTENDED TO ASSIST STUDENTS IN GETTING STARTED WITH THEIR
ASSIGNMENT, AND IN NO CASE THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE USED FOR
CHEATING. WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BE A GOOD STARTING POINT AS IT WAS
PREPARED BY OUR TEAM OF PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE TUTORS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND IT WAS PREPARED USING VARIOUS SOURCES. ANY
SIMILARITY WITH ANY EXISTING THEORY OR DISCUSSION BY OTHER AUTHORS
IS EXCUSED. THE AUTHORS HOWEVER DO NOT CLAIM MONOPOLY TO
KNOWLEDGE HENCE MODIFICATION OF THE ANSWERS CONTAINED IN THIS
FRAMEWORK MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED AS IT CONTRIBUTES TO EXPANSION OF
KNOWLEDGE. FOR ANY FURTHER GUIDELINE ABOUT THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED HERE AND THE MODULE IN GENERAL, CONTACT PASSMATE
TUTORIALS.
WE ASSIST WITH OTHER MODULES INCLUDING:
ECSs, FACs, MACs, MNGs, INTs, TRLs, HMEMS, PRMs, PROs, MNBs, DSC, QMI,
MNMs, MNO, MNPs, FIN, PUBs, MNMs, RESEARCH among others.
WE OFFER CLASSES, ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES, EXAMINATION PREPARATION,
RESEARCH AND RESEARCH PROPOSALS, DISSERTATION EDITING etc.
OTHER THAN UNISA, WE ALSO ASSIST STUDENTS AT VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS
INCLUDING MANCOSA, REGENT, REGEYNESES, BOSTON, STADIO, OLG, UJ, UP
etc
For any enquiries the following numbers can be used for calling, sms, whatsapp and
telegram
CONTACT PASSMATE TUTORIALS @061 262 1185/068 053 8213/0717 513 144 or email
,CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
Empirical Work on Strategic Human Resources Going Forward
Workforce Strategy Rather Than HR Architecture
The most general implementation challenge facing HR professionals reflects an
interesting conundrum. We find widespread acceptance among senior HR and line
managers of the notion that an appropriately designed and implemented HR strategy can
make a managerially significant contribution to their firm’s financial performance. Any
skepticism they express generally reflects the extent to which they believe the managers
in their own firms are capable of the transition. Most HR professionals, and certainly all
senior HR professionals, want to play a strategic role in their organizations, if for no other
reason than senior line managers increasingly demand it. Unfortunately, although SHRM
theory focuses on inimitable HR systems aligned to strategic goals, HR professionals too
often focus on cost control and efficiency gains in an effort to demonstrate their bottom-
line success. New measures with names like “human capital value added” are sometimes
used to justify traditional practices and approaches to workforce measurement (such as
cost per employee or benefits expense as a proportion of revenue). This approach merely
reinforces the view that the HR function is a cost center and does very little to improve
the firm’s strategy implementation. Even in a firm where HR professionals (and line
managers) understand SHRM concepts, the HR function’s legacy reputation is often a
significant hurdle to overcome. As one line manager put it, “I’m absolutely convinced that
doing a better job managing the workforce would create considerable wealth in our
business. I’m just not convinced that anyone in the HR department can help us get there.”
This quote highlights an important distinction between managing the workforce and
managing the HR function. The notion of workforce strategy is understood by managers
in much the same way as academics speak of the HR architecture, with one important
difference. It highlights a shared responsibility for strategic workforce performance
between line managers and HR professionals that are not as central in the HR
architecture construct. This is not just a case of putting a new title on the same story.
There is a lesson here for both managers and academics. The notion of workforce
strategy appears to be a much more effective organizing principle for SHRM concepts in
practice because the involvement of line managers provides a much clearer line of sight
,CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
to an emphasis on strategy execution. The concepts of fit and alignment in SHRM theory
are more easily implemented when line managers and HR professionals focus on
strategic business processes and not individual HR practices. It helps to mitigate the all
too common situation where HR professionals find the organisation’s strategic goals
either unclear or inconsistent, making it all but impossible to determine the human capital
dimension of those goals.
The Limits of Differentiation
We have argued for a much greater focus on differentiation in the HR architecture, both
between firms and within firms. But this should not be interpreted as another variation of
the debate over universal versus contingent HR systems. The distinction is too narrow,
emphasizing the contingency with a small set of positioning strategies. When
contingencies are instead focused on the processes that implement a strategy, the
appropriate question is not best practice versus contingencies. The interesting question
will focus on the appropriate mix between core and differentiated HR practices and
whether certain practices are more easily differentiated. What features of the strategic or
organizational environment will determine the appropriate mix of differentiation and best
practices for a particular firm? Likewise, are there particular functions within the HR
architecture that are more appropriately offered as a best practice, whereas others are
more likely candidates for differentiation? A greater emphasis on differentiation within the
firm means that will play a much more central role in SHRM theory. Does this approach
necessarily create a tension between the benefits of fit and the constraints on flexibility
(Wright & Snell, 1998)? In particular, what are the limits imposed by dynamic market
environments, and would those apply to all strategic business processes in the
organization? It is not just that greater fit might come at some cost in terms of flexibility.
What is the relative magnitude of those costs and benefits, both theoretically and
empirically?
Perhaps more important is the issue of differentiation among firms. The extant SHRM
literature suggests very little differentiation. If strategy implementation is the core value
creation mechanism for SHRM, what is the optimal mix of differentiation among HR
, CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
architectures of close competitors? Building competitive advantage around strategic
capabilities requires a degree of differentiation in those capabilities across close
competitors. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) found that strategic business processes often
approach best practices among close competitors, although they may be executed
differently. SHRM empirical work would benefit from a similar analysis of HR architectures
within the context of close competitors. Specifically, do HR architectures that are
differentiated across similar business processes provide significant improvements in the
execution of those strategic business processes among close competitors? Do HR
architectures that appear to be best practices in large multi-industry studies in fact reveal
meaningful differentiation when analyzed within the impact on strategic business
processes among close competitors?
Source: Becker, B.E & Huselid, M.A. Strategic Human Resources Management: Where
Do We Go From Here? Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, December 2006 898-925.
QUESTION 1
The above excerpt reflects a debate about adopting differentiation by differentiating HR
practices and recognising that certain practices are more easily differentiated. Using the
theory of levels of integration critically discuss how some of the proposed thinking
reflected in the article can be considered.
Question 1: Differentiation in HR Practices & Levels of Integration
Study Unit/Area:
Strategic HRM (SHRM)
HR Differentiation & Integration
Universalistic vs. Contingency Perspectives in HRM
Key Aspects Examined:
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL GUIDE FROM UNISA. THE REPORT IS NOT
PREPARED NOR APPROVED BY UNISA, RATHER REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE
SOLUTION TO THE TASK CONSISTENT WITH THEORY OF CHRM8. THIS REPORT
IS INTENDED TO ASSIST STUDENTS IN GETTING STARTED WITH THEIR
ASSIGNMENT, AND IN NO CASE THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE USED FOR
CHEATING. WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BE A GOOD STARTING POINT AS IT WAS
PREPARED BY OUR TEAM OF PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE TUTORS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, AND IT WAS PREPARED USING VARIOUS SOURCES. ANY
SIMILARITY WITH ANY EXISTING THEORY OR DISCUSSION BY OTHER AUTHORS
IS EXCUSED. THE AUTHORS HOWEVER DO NOT CLAIM MONOPOLY TO
KNOWLEDGE HENCE MODIFICATION OF THE ANSWERS CONTAINED IN THIS
FRAMEWORK MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED AS IT CONTRIBUTES TO EXPANSION OF
KNOWLEDGE. FOR ANY FURTHER GUIDELINE ABOUT THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED HERE AND THE MODULE IN GENERAL, CONTACT PASSMATE
TUTORIALS.
WE ASSIST WITH OTHER MODULES INCLUDING:
ECSs, FACs, MACs, MNGs, INTs, TRLs, HMEMS, PRMs, PROs, MNBs, DSC, QMI,
MNMs, MNO, MNPs, FIN, PUBs, MNMs, RESEARCH among others.
WE OFFER CLASSES, ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES, EXAMINATION PREPARATION,
RESEARCH AND RESEARCH PROPOSALS, DISSERTATION EDITING etc.
OTHER THAN UNISA, WE ALSO ASSIST STUDENTS AT VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS
INCLUDING MANCOSA, REGENT, REGEYNESES, BOSTON, STADIO, OLG, UJ, UP
etc
For any enquiries the following numbers can be used for calling, sms, whatsapp and
telegram
CONTACT PASSMATE TUTORIALS @061 262 1185/068 053 8213/0717 513 144 or email
,CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
Empirical Work on Strategic Human Resources Going Forward
Workforce Strategy Rather Than HR Architecture
The most general implementation challenge facing HR professionals reflects an
interesting conundrum. We find widespread acceptance among senior HR and line
managers of the notion that an appropriately designed and implemented HR strategy can
make a managerially significant contribution to their firm’s financial performance. Any
skepticism they express generally reflects the extent to which they believe the managers
in their own firms are capable of the transition. Most HR professionals, and certainly all
senior HR professionals, want to play a strategic role in their organizations, if for no other
reason than senior line managers increasingly demand it. Unfortunately, although SHRM
theory focuses on inimitable HR systems aligned to strategic goals, HR professionals too
often focus on cost control and efficiency gains in an effort to demonstrate their bottom-
line success. New measures with names like “human capital value added” are sometimes
used to justify traditional practices and approaches to workforce measurement (such as
cost per employee or benefits expense as a proportion of revenue). This approach merely
reinforces the view that the HR function is a cost center and does very little to improve
the firm’s strategy implementation. Even in a firm where HR professionals (and line
managers) understand SHRM concepts, the HR function’s legacy reputation is often a
significant hurdle to overcome. As one line manager put it, “I’m absolutely convinced that
doing a better job managing the workforce would create considerable wealth in our
business. I’m just not convinced that anyone in the HR department can help us get there.”
This quote highlights an important distinction between managing the workforce and
managing the HR function. The notion of workforce strategy is understood by managers
in much the same way as academics speak of the HR architecture, with one important
difference. It highlights a shared responsibility for strategic workforce performance
between line managers and HR professionals that are not as central in the HR
architecture construct. This is not just a case of putting a new title on the same story.
There is a lesson here for both managers and academics. The notion of workforce
strategy appears to be a much more effective organizing principle for SHRM concepts in
practice because the involvement of line managers provides a much clearer line of sight
,CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
to an emphasis on strategy execution. The concepts of fit and alignment in SHRM theory
are more easily implemented when line managers and HR professionals focus on
strategic business processes and not individual HR practices. It helps to mitigate the all
too common situation where HR professionals find the organisation’s strategic goals
either unclear or inconsistent, making it all but impossible to determine the human capital
dimension of those goals.
The Limits of Differentiation
We have argued for a much greater focus on differentiation in the HR architecture, both
between firms and within firms. But this should not be interpreted as another variation of
the debate over universal versus contingent HR systems. The distinction is too narrow,
emphasizing the contingency with a small set of positioning strategies. When
contingencies are instead focused on the processes that implement a strategy, the
appropriate question is not best practice versus contingencies. The interesting question
will focus on the appropriate mix between core and differentiated HR practices and
whether certain practices are more easily differentiated. What features of the strategic or
organizational environment will determine the appropriate mix of differentiation and best
practices for a particular firm? Likewise, are there particular functions within the HR
architecture that are more appropriately offered as a best practice, whereas others are
more likely candidates for differentiation? A greater emphasis on differentiation within the
firm means that will play a much more central role in SHRM theory. Does this approach
necessarily create a tension between the benefits of fit and the constraints on flexibility
(Wright & Snell, 1998)? In particular, what are the limits imposed by dynamic market
environments, and would those apply to all strategic business processes in the
organization? It is not just that greater fit might come at some cost in terms of flexibility.
What is the relative magnitude of those costs and benefits, both theoretically and
empirically?
Perhaps more important is the issue of differentiation among firms. The extant SHRM
literature suggests very little differentiation. If strategy implementation is the core value
creation mechanism for SHRM, what is the optimal mix of differentiation among HR
, CHRM8 EXAM RESOURCES 2025
architectures of close competitors? Building competitive advantage around strategic
capabilities requires a degree of differentiation in those capabilities across close
competitors. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) found that strategic business processes often
approach best practices among close competitors, although they may be executed
differently. SHRM empirical work would benefit from a similar analysis of HR architectures
within the context of close competitors. Specifically, do HR architectures that are
differentiated across similar business processes provide significant improvements in the
execution of those strategic business processes among close competitors? Do HR
architectures that appear to be best practices in large multi-industry studies in fact reveal
meaningful differentiation when analyzed within the impact on strategic business
processes among close competitors?
Source: Becker, B.E & Huselid, M.A. Strategic Human Resources Management: Where
Do We Go From Here? Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, December 2006 898-925.
QUESTION 1
The above excerpt reflects a debate about adopting differentiation by differentiating HR
practices and recognising that certain practices are more easily differentiated. Using the
theory of levels of integration critically discuss how some of the proposed thinking
reflected in the article can be considered.
Question 1: Differentiation in HR Practices & Levels of Integration
Study Unit/Area:
Strategic HRM (SHRM)
HR Differentiation & Integration
Universalistic vs. Contingency Perspectives in HRM
Key Aspects Examined:
