Strategy and Human Resource Leadership
Lecture 1: A critical approach to strategic
HRM
Recap of yesterday’s introduction lecture
Competences/abilities; something you can perform well, instead of positions.
Context is key! Context is environment, society (norms and values), contacts/networks, unions,
competitors, suppliers (slaughterhouses), customers (loyalty changes and you try to
obey/support/loyal them), the government (institutions with legal rules), culture, ect. That influence
the rules that you have to comply to. If you don’t understand the context you don’t understand the
complies you have to reach which gives you less chance to succeed.
In this course we try to combine business strategy, SHRM and Leadership.
What is Leadership? Is a person a Leader, is a department a Leader, is a vision a Leader?
HR policies aren’t given, they are persons made. That means that you can change them.
Why is looking behind what is said more important for HR than for example for marketing. Why is it
important to look behind the practices? HR is so specific in comparation to other business parts. It is
not only about what should be done but also how and why it should be done that way. Who benefits
from HR practices? A lot of different stakeholders; teams and individuals who all look different at your
practices. So that makes it a lot more complex. That is more complex than finance/marketing, there is
much more standardized. Every individual has different feelings and emotions and that makes HR
risky. That makes that you need to think how you phrase something because you need to make sure
the other stakeholder interpretates it.
Strategy, what does it mean? Mintzberg, 1989 (Paauwe & Boon, 2009, Chapter 3 in Collings & Wood
(Eds.)
- Strategy as a plan (intended); a direction, a guide or course of action into the future, which
implies looking ahead
- Strategy as a pattern (realized); consistency in behaviour over time, which implies looking at
past behaviour
- Strategy as a ploy; a specific maneuver intended to outwit an opponent or competitor
- Strategy as a position; the way in which the organization positions its products and or
services in particular markets in order to achieve a competitive advantage
- Strategy as a perspective; an organization’s fundamental way of doing things, the way in
which the members of the organization perceive their environment, their customers, ect.
- What is strategy? Strategies can be explicit and implicit. Often the implicit ones are there first
and the explicit ones are made later and further specified. The firm’s growth has changed as
well. Traditional firms grow and become international. But many start-ups start international
due to the internet.
,Different strategic processes dependent on the position you take within the scheme.
pluralistic = not only profit but also society, employees, ect.
if you go to strategic HRM, 1984 has 2 important models; The Harved model (Beer), The Mitichen
model. They had two different visions of SHRM.
Outside in means you look first outside the firm. What do you see outside? Markets, governments,
customers, ect. So you see what the outside world wants from the firm. If you know what they want
you can say what should be done and which employees you need for which salaries and qualities.
The other perspective is the inside-out. You start with the inside of the organization. You look at your
resources. Most companies today, human resources are dominant. Looking at the resources, who is in
you company? What can we do and what can we deliver and adapt your product.
Human capital and social capital becomes more important. Social capital is when you make
groups/network/interactions.
,Stakeholder interest situational factors leads to HRM policy choices.
this is the inside out model
More the outside in model
how can we help the stakeholders in the context with the company
, HRM started in 80s
- human resource management (HRM) emerged in the 1980s as it did (Guest,
what do you think about when you hear HRM? And what is the difference with personnel
management vs. HRM?
personnel management was for personnel, when we launch a new product it is separated
from the personnel management. When HRM came from the US it was perceived skeptical.
The idea was that in HRM a win-win situation was; the firm and the employees can benefit
from it. Until that, working in a company wasn’t seen as a benefit. What made working in a
company unpleasant? Taylorism. Taylor was able to make organizations very efficient by split
the process up in very small tasks. The result of Taylorism was efficiency raised but the
salaries weren’t raising equal. So the company was gaining more than the employees. So not
every one gained the same. The idea of HRM was to give employees the opportunity to
develop and to gain too. That makes employees like the jobs more. HRM is out to make
employees more happy (because of independency through knowledge) and the company is
happy because the employees are getting more productive/results.
As an individual the employee hasn’t very much power. To gain power is by collectivism.
Before the unions were there the company had all the power.
the big issue of the dived between the employee not having power and the company having
all the power → the power balance is wrong (Karl Marx)
Karl wanted to come to a new economic system, that resulted in the communism. That
system was in theory a beautiful system in comparison to capitalism. But in the end it didn’t
work out. Communism didn’t work because of they forgot about sociology; people want
freedom but mostly the power of the important people. When communism started the
dictator became important. The royalties/rulers got replaced by persons who represent the
communistic party. If you are a (important) member. The politics within the system was
eventually why it didn’t work out.
- Where is HR? In the middle between ? and power.
Power was easy to detect, today power is more hidden. Because the poor can afford more
these days and the employers stay rich but go invisible.
It is hard for HR to choose between the employee and the owner. The owner tends to follow
the stakeholder. The employees are risky and weak.
HR professionals should be the brokers between the employee/work and the
management/capital. Everyone for themselves has to decide who is mediation here and who
is right.
Lecture 1: A critical approach to strategic
HRM
Recap of yesterday’s introduction lecture
Competences/abilities; something you can perform well, instead of positions.
Context is key! Context is environment, society (norms and values), contacts/networks, unions,
competitors, suppliers (slaughterhouses), customers (loyalty changes and you try to
obey/support/loyal them), the government (institutions with legal rules), culture, ect. That influence
the rules that you have to comply to. If you don’t understand the context you don’t understand the
complies you have to reach which gives you less chance to succeed.
In this course we try to combine business strategy, SHRM and Leadership.
What is Leadership? Is a person a Leader, is a department a Leader, is a vision a Leader?
HR policies aren’t given, they are persons made. That means that you can change them.
Why is looking behind what is said more important for HR than for example for marketing. Why is it
important to look behind the practices? HR is so specific in comparation to other business parts. It is
not only about what should be done but also how and why it should be done that way. Who benefits
from HR practices? A lot of different stakeholders; teams and individuals who all look different at your
practices. So that makes it a lot more complex. That is more complex than finance/marketing, there is
much more standardized. Every individual has different feelings and emotions and that makes HR
risky. That makes that you need to think how you phrase something because you need to make sure
the other stakeholder interpretates it.
Strategy, what does it mean? Mintzberg, 1989 (Paauwe & Boon, 2009, Chapter 3 in Collings & Wood
(Eds.)
- Strategy as a plan (intended); a direction, a guide or course of action into the future, which
implies looking ahead
- Strategy as a pattern (realized); consistency in behaviour over time, which implies looking at
past behaviour
- Strategy as a ploy; a specific maneuver intended to outwit an opponent or competitor
- Strategy as a position; the way in which the organization positions its products and or
services in particular markets in order to achieve a competitive advantage
- Strategy as a perspective; an organization’s fundamental way of doing things, the way in
which the members of the organization perceive their environment, their customers, ect.
- What is strategy? Strategies can be explicit and implicit. Often the implicit ones are there first
and the explicit ones are made later and further specified. The firm’s growth has changed as
well. Traditional firms grow and become international. But many start-ups start international
due to the internet.
,Different strategic processes dependent on the position you take within the scheme.
pluralistic = not only profit but also society, employees, ect.
if you go to strategic HRM, 1984 has 2 important models; The Harved model (Beer), The Mitichen
model. They had two different visions of SHRM.
Outside in means you look first outside the firm. What do you see outside? Markets, governments,
customers, ect. So you see what the outside world wants from the firm. If you know what they want
you can say what should be done and which employees you need for which salaries and qualities.
The other perspective is the inside-out. You start with the inside of the organization. You look at your
resources. Most companies today, human resources are dominant. Looking at the resources, who is in
you company? What can we do and what can we deliver and adapt your product.
Human capital and social capital becomes more important. Social capital is when you make
groups/network/interactions.
,Stakeholder interest situational factors leads to HRM policy choices.
this is the inside out model
More the outside in model
how can we help the stakeholders in the context with the company
, HRM started in 80s
- human resource management (HRM) emerged in the 1980s as it did (Guest,
what do you think about when you hear HRM? And what is the difference with personnel
management vs. HRM?
personnel management was for personnel, when we launch a new product it is separated
from the personnel management. When HRM came from the US it was perceived skeptical.
The idea was that in HRM a win-win situation was; the firm and the employees can benefit
from it. Until that, working in a company wasn’t seen as a benefit. What made working in a
company unpleasant? Taylorism. Taylor was able to make organizations very efficient by split
the process up in very small tasks. The result of Taylorism was efficiency raised but the
salaries weren’t raising equal. So the company was gaining more than the employees. So not
every one gained the same. The idea of HRM was to give employees the opportunity to
develop and to gain too. That makes employees like the jobs more. HRM is out to make
employees more happy (because of independency through knowledge) and the company is
happy because the employees are getting more productive/results.
As an individual the employee hasn’t very much power. To gain power is by collectivism.
Before the unions were there the company had all the power.
the big issue of the dived between the employee not having power and the company having
all the power → the power balance is wrong (Karl Marx)
Karl wanted to come to a new economic system, that resulted in the communism. That
system was in theory a beautiful system in comparison to capitalism. But in the end it didn’t
work out. Communism didn’t work because of they forgot about sociology; people want
freedom but mostly the power of the important people. When communism started the
dictator became important. The royalties/rulers got replaced by persons who represent the
communistic party. If you are a (important) member. The politics within the system was
eventually why it didn’t work out.
- Where is HR? In the middle between ? and power.
Power was easy to detect, today power is more hidden. Because the poor can afford more
these days and the employers stay rich but go invisible.
It is hard for HR to choose between the employee and the owner. The owner tends to follow
the stakeholder. The employees are risky and weak.
HR professionals should be the brokers between the employee/work and the
management/capital. Everyone for themselves has to decide who is mediation here and who
is right.
