A somewhat diVerent perspective onXexibility has been presented by Lepak and
Snell ( 1999 ) who argue that it is appropriate to recognize diVerent categories of
worker and to develop distinctive HR practices to reXect these diVerences. In their
model, they outline four categories based on the value and uniqueness of human
capital. Where both are high, they suggest that a high-commitment approach to
HRM will be most appropriate; where both are low, a more contractual relation-
ship with a narrower focus on performance will be more eVective. The core of the
Xexibility argument is that the approach to HRM should be determined by
strategically identiWed characteristics of the workforce. It implies that HRM is
likely to be diVerentiated across organizations but also within organizations and
therefore, potentially, to aVect diVerent categories of worker in diVerent ways.
A second attempt to reconcile these contrasting approaches to HRM and control
of the workforce is oVered by advocates of what has come to be described as ‘high
performance’ or ‘high involvement’ (Batt 2002 ) work systems. Building on expect-
ancy theory, Becker et al. ( 1997 ) and Guest ( 1997 ) suggested that high performance
depends on adopting HR practices that lead to workers having high ability/
competence, high motivation, and an opportunity to contribute through jobs
that provide the discretion, autonomy, and control to use the knowledge and skills
and to exercise motivation. A key feature of this approach is that it places
employees at the centre of HRM. Furthermore, with its elements of internal and
external control and intrinsic and extrinsic incentives, it perhaps oVers a pragmatic
approach to high performance. Nevertheless, its focus is on performance, and
despite taking account of issues such as trust and job security, it has little explicit
to say about workers’ satisfaction and well-being. The key challenge for HRM
within the framework being adopted here, which places the worker at the centre of
the agenda, is to identify the circumstances under which HR policy and practice
can result in both high performance and high levels of employee satisfaction and
well-being.
While the diVering approaches to HRM and management control imply rather
diVerent views about workers and may appear to show diVerent degrees of concern
about workers’ well-being, they are all invariably presented essentially as routes to
better performance. Walton implies that, like it or not, in the contemporary
workplace there is no choice but to manage with the commitment rather than
the compliance of the workforce. Yet this is still an argument about organizational
performance rather than worker well-being and leaves open questions about the
association between organizational performance and worker well-being.
Although there has been a continuing, albeit often low-key dimension in the
debate on the relationship between HRM and performance about the need to take
more seriously the role of employees, in practice, most of the research on HRM and
performance has neglected what has been termed the ‘black box’ or the process
whereby HRM aVects performance. However, it is generally acknowledged that it
must be partly through its impact on the attitudes and behavior of the workforce.
hrm: towards a new psychological contract? 131