into a non-functionalist style of analysis (i.e. one in which contingencies are given
no ‘determining’ role) by Child ( 1972 , 1997 ), who links contingent circumstances to
strategic managerialchoices, an insight that can valuably inform how we under-
stand the ways in which diVerent HR strategies are chosen in diVerent circumstan-
ces (Watson 2004 , 2005 ).
In the 1980 s, the employment management aspects of organizations began to
be examined in a new way, one which saw a relabeling of the activity as HRM
rather than as personnel management or personnel administration. The factors
behind this and the key characteristics of the ‘new’ HRM are discussed in Chapter 2.
The renewal of scholarly interest in employment management processes and
practices might have been a point at which organization theory resources were
turned to. But this did not happen. And HRM has continued to ‘follow a
diVerent lead’ theoretically (Morgan 2000 : 860 ). Why was this the case? On the
one hand, there was the fact that organization theory had movedWrmly away
from its earlier managerial origins, with its re-engagement with the more critical
version of Weberian sociology that was now available (below pp. 116 – 17 ), the
revisiting of Marxian labor process thinking (below pp. 117 – 19 ) and the growing
‘interpretativist’ interest in human agency, language, and meanings which fol-
lowed from the broad sociological rejection of functionalist theorizing (this
clearly signaled by Silverman 1970 ; see also Reed 1996 ). This meant that organ-
ization theory was moving quickly away from its earlier systems-thinking base.
But, on the other hand, systems ideas were too valuable to the HRM project for
them to be abandoned in the way organization theory had largely done. Systems
thinking had what might almost be seen as a natural aYnity with the new HRM.
‘HRM’ thinking therefore tended to follow its own direction. This was one more
consistent with the earlier, more managerially engaged, systems-based, organiza-
tion theory. As Jacques observes, the three themes of the new thinking—‘com-
prehensive as opposed to patchwork direction of the human function in
organizations; linking operational HR issues to theWrm’s strategy and structure;
learning to regard expenditures on labor and worker-embodied knowledge as an
investment rather than an expense’—represented a clear continuity with earlier
managerially oriented American social science ( 1995 : 202 ). The message of the
new HRM, to put it at its simplest, was ‘integrate, integrate, integrate’ and,
theoretically, this tends to mean in the social sciences ‘systems, systems, systems.’
What Greenwood calls a ‘mainstream HRM’ thus takes a ‘systems maintenance or
functionalist approach, viewing HRM as a mechanism for the attainment of
organizational goals’ ( 2002 : 262 ).
The main theoretical thrust within HRM research and writing is clearly in the
area of the relationship between HRM practice and corporate strategies (Tichy et al.
1982 ; Schuler et al. 2001 ). This work is covered in Chapters 3 , 5 , 26 , and 27. There is a
considerable input here from economics, a discipline which, as Guest notes, is very
much ‘theory-led,’ and therefore has the potential to help overcome the general
organization theory and hrm 115