rationale to employment, envisaging it as a costly and purposeful human activity,
serving some kind of desired end. Whether, of course, all parties are enamored of
the same ends is another matter.
3.2 Goal Frameworks in HRM
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
As was widely noted in the late 1980 s and early 1990 s (e.g. Boxall 1992 ; Poole 1990 ),
the Harvard framework (Beer et al. 1984 ) provided one of theWrst major statements
in the HRM canon on the issue of employer goals (Fig. 3. 1 ). In this framework,
managers inWrms are encouraged to set their own priorities in HRM based on the
interplay of stakeholder interests and situational factors. HR outcomes, in turn, are
seen as having longer-term impacts on organizational eVectiveness and on societal
Stakeholder
interests
Shareholders
Management
Employee
groups
Government
Community
Unions
HRM policy
choices
Employee
influence
Human resource
flow
Reward systems
Work systems
HR outcomes
Commitment
Competence
Congruence
Cost
effectiveness
Situational
factors
Workforce
characteristics
Business
strategy and
conditions
Management
philosophy
Labor market
Unions
Task
technology
Laws and
societal values
Long-term
consequences
Individual
well-being
Organizational
effectiveness
Societal well-being
Fig. 3.1. The Harvard ‘map of the HRM territory’
Source:Beer et al. 1984.
50 p e t e r b o x a l l