The trouble with HRM

Paul Thompson

Human Resource Management Journal · 2011 · 232 citations · 48 references

Concepts

TL;DR

HRM’s legitimacy is challenged by doubts over its core research impact and central practices, a debate largely framed by critical management scholars who have mistakenly portrayed HRM as merely a cultural tool for fostering employee commitment. The article seeks to identify the sources of HRM’s crisis and the perceived solutions, arguing that a critical, political‑economy perspective can contribute to the discussion and bridge mainstream and critical viewpoints. It adopts a political‑economy approach that situates HR troubles within the constraints of financialised capitalism’s accumulation regimes. The analysis shows that the crisis has strengthened market discipline at the expense of employee commitment as a driver of high performance.

Abstract

The legitimacy of HRM is threatened by challenges to the impact of its core research programme and the centrality of its practices and function. If HRM is in crisis, what are the sources and perceived solutions? This article addresses the question of what a critical approach to HRM can contribute to the discussion of its troubles. That territory has often been occupied by adherents of critical management studies. However, such perspectives have shared with normative models the mistaken assertion that HRM is primarily a cultural construct that focuses on the creation of employee commitment. This article makes a case for a political economy approach that situates HR troubles within the constraints of the accumulation regimes of financialised capitalism. Among the outcomes is a strengthening of market discipline rather than commitment as a driver of high performance. While challenging the assumption that HRM is a distinctive mode of managing the employment relationship, it seeks to identify some common grounds for dialogue between mainstream and critical approaches.

References

48