Some of the language of strategic HRM has provided ammunition for critics who
might see it as little more than a diVerent system of management control designed to
enmesh the worker more deeply in the organization while oVering little in return.
This means that we mustWrst consider what we mean by HRM and how it relates to
the long-standing issue of managerial control. This is important because it helps to
provide a context for some of the debates on the role of HRM and in particular some
of the more critical writing about HRM as a potential form of exploitation of
workers. The analysis of the shifting basis for control can also be linked to debates
about a ‘new deal’ that have helped to stimulate interest in the psychological contract.
7.2 HRM, Managerial Control, and the
New Psychological Contract
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
In highlighting the role of HRM as a potential source of competitive advantage,
Barney was pointing to an opportunity but not providing a solution, since he did
not advocate a form of HRM most likely to provide competitive advantage. His
background in strategic management meant that he leant towards a contingency
approach whereby HRM should be designed toWt with the wider strategic thrust of
the organization. However, this still leaves open the question of whether it is
possible to identify dominant approaches to HRM that might be adopted in
speciWc contexts. Writers from Miles and Snow ( 1984 ) to Boxall and Purcell
( 2003 ) have tried to provide answers.
Not everyone agreed that a contingency approach was appropriate. Walton
( 1985 ), an early and inXuential voice in the debates on HRM, argued that we needed
to move from what he termed ‘control’ to ‘commitment’ as the basis for managing
the workforce. Walton’s essential case was that the traditional model of tight
managerial control over the workforce was no longer eVective, largely because it
was based on the wrong set of assumptions about the nature of contemporary work
and the contemporary workforce and therefore about how best to manage it.
Furthermore, he argued that there were eYciencies in a high-commitment model
since it meant that workers exercised self-control, obviating the need for
external control over behavior and performance, and research on organizational
commitment (e.g. Meyer and Allen 1997 ) reveals a consistent association with lower
labor turnover. Therefore, there are likely to be gains for the organization through
improved performance and improved retention and gains for the workforce
through greater autonomy, control, and intrinsic job satisfaction. More controver-
sially, Walton implied that the commitment model was likely to be more eVective in
all contexts. He was therefore an early advocate of a universalist model of HRM.
hrm: towards a new psychological contract? 129