Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the different models Essay

Critic totallyy assess the strengths and weaknesses of the different models of strategical Human Resource Management - see ExamplePersonnel Management involved hiring the best employees, keeping employees productive, monitoring employees in their operations, payment, motivation and development of employees (Biz Bite Consulting Group, 2011). Personnel management was mainly focusebd on ensuring that workers made to provide the best results and this was done in a very isolated manner that was independent of central organizational goals and objectives (Becker and Gerhart, 1996 Thomson, 1999). This meant that employee matters were simply grouped nether this aspect of the business and it enabled the business to remain in control of affairs in organisations. Also, personnel management involved a social unit that ensured that employee matters were dealt with and employee challenges were revolved. It existed as a necessary unit but not a vital component that was manipulated by management t o meet the overall goal of the organisation. Strategic human imaginativeness management, on the other hand, evolved to blend personnel management with the goals of the organisation (Thomson, 1999). In other words, the personnel management unit is designed and ran in such a way that it contributes directly to the long-term organisational plan and goals (Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978). This integration meant that the strategy of the organisation was integrated into the personnel department and this department was ran to meet organisational strategic goals. In linking the sometime(a) personnel management unit of a business to the strategic units and levels of businesses, there atomic number 18 four main methods and approaches that are used to link the two systems. They are 1. Universalistic Approach 2. Contingency Approach 3. Resource-based Approach and 4. Institutionalist Approach Each of these four approaches to strategic human resource management comes with various strengths and weaknesses. This paper examines each of the approaches and undertakes a critical analysis of all of them. This will involve an examination of the main theory that underlines the approach and an assessment of the merits and demerits of each approach. Universalistic Approach to Strategic Human Resource Management. The universalistic approach assumes that there is one best way of carrying carrying out the human resource management function strategically (Pfeffer, 1998). In other words, the management spend time to crystallize a system of managing people that they consider to be foolproof and appropriate to the organisation in all circumstances. The best way of doing human resource management cash in ones chipss a universal set of rules that are used to run the human resource management unit as a strategic business unit that works to meet strategic goals of the organisation. There are three yardsticks that are used in define the best way. These yardsticks come up as a result of the n eed to define what is best and what will eventually become the universally accepted human resource management system. The first yardstick is a commitment based system which involves the choice of a strategic human resource management system that helps employees to become more committed (Guest, 1987). This way, the basis for choosing a system of implementation is to find out what best enhances employee commitment. The foster yardstick is the concern for employee motivated system (Wood, 1999). I doing this, what is defined as the best human resource management system is judged by how sensitive it is to the needs of employees. The third model is quite opposite to the second model. This is a concern for work model. In other words, the universalistic approach is based on the ability of an HRM model to make employees provide the highest level of expiration and results for the