setting out the systemic features of the capitalist labor process that shape and
constrain those relations’ (Thompson and Newsome 2004 : 135 ). While LPT only
has indirect interest in some areas of concern to HRM, notably labor market issues,
its research programs have incrementally generated some key propositions and
Wndings and the rest of the chapter sets those out in relation to parallel claims made
within HRM literatures.
8.4 Interrogating HRM
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
We now move to consider what insights LPT can provide into the core proposi-
tions of HRM through examining three sets of closely related issues which LPT can
elucidate and challenge. Each of the issues is addressed by considering empirical
studies which have been undertaken, informed by a LPT perspective, showing how
these studies have generated conclusions which are diVerent from those which the
core propositions of HRM would suggest.
- 1 Control
As we indicated earlier, HRM claims have been made that there has been from the
1980 s onwards a move fromcontrol to commitment.InXuential articles from Walton
( 1985 ) and Bowen and Lawler ( 1992 ) sought to locate these changes in new
competitive pressures and the enhanced demands of a service-oriented, know-
ledge-based economy. As a result, ‘command and control’ was no longer seen as an
option for successful businesses, and coercion and rules were displaced by values,
trust, and self-direction as a means of coordination.
It has to be said that such conceptualizations of control are very weak. Walton
refers tothecontrol strategy as if there were a single disposition of management or
context within which to operate. Explicitly or implicitly, control is treated as
coterminous with Taylorism, bureaucracy, and adversarial industrial relations
systems. In his view, new strategic contingencies (take your pick from post-Fordism
to the knowledge economy) mean that control is not required. A more credible
proposition oVered by some HRM writers is that there has been a shift towards soft
controls: in other words, towards practices intended togenerate commitment
through a combination of culture-led changes and delegation of authority. Soft
controls tend to be presented as part of a package of high-commitment practices
sustained by a strategic orientation and a high level of integration between
corporate, functional, and operational levels of the business (Kochan et al. 1986 ).
hrm: labor process perspectives 151