and individual well-being. As the emphasis on stakeholders and contextual factors
implies, the model was oVered more as an analytical framework and teaching
device than as a theory (Beer et al. 1984 : 17 ).
In terms of our understanding of overarching HRM goals, the most important
chapter in the Harvard text was the last one in which the authors sought to
integrate the huge range of HR choices that might be adopted by considering the
diVerences between ‘bureaucratic’, ‘market’, and ‘clan’ models of HRM, a set of
categories that draws on the work of Ouchi ( 1980 ). The fundamental goals of HRM
are seen to diVer across these styles or models. The bureaucratic model is seen as
concerned with ‘control and eYciency,’ using traditional authority and such staples
of personnel management as job descriptions and job evaluation to provide order
and equity (Beer et al. 1984 : 179 ). This HRM approach is regarded as relevant to
markets with stable technology and employment levels. The market HRM
approach, on the other hand, aims to treat employees more like subcontractors,
fostering short-term exchanges and performance-related pay systems. This is seen
as relevant to fast-changing environments such as high-fashion merchandising,
advertising, and professional sports (ibid.: 180 ). Finally, clan HRM systems are seen
as building more diVuse kinship links, fostering shared values, teamwork, and
strong commitment in organizations seeking ‘long-term adaptability’ (ibid.: 181 ).
This is seen as relevant toWrms pursuing quality and innovation. Combining
aspects of two or even three models is seen as useful when facing complex
environments (ibid.: 184 ).
While the links between HRM goals and the Wrm’s business strategy and
environment are only very brieXy sketched in the book, the main message is that
HRM goals can, and should, vary based on contextual factors and thatWrms should
aim to develop a relatively consistent style. Beer et al. ( 1984 : 178 , 184 ) argue that
‘HRM policies need toWt with business strategy’ and with ‘situational constraints’
while also envisaging a role for management values (ibid.: 190 – 1 ). Most of this is
not well developed but the goal ofWt with broader business strategy and context,
followed by internal consistency in HR choices, was argued to be the essential
purpose of HRM.
The Harvard framework was followed by a range of similar models (e.g. Baron
and Kreps 1999 ; Dyer and Holder 1988 ). In Dyer and Holder’s ( 1988 ) framework,
management’s goals in HRM are analyzed across the dimensions of contribution
(what kind of employee behaviour is expected?), composition (what headcount,
staYng ratio, and skill mix?), competence (what general level of ability is desired?),
and commitment (what level of employee attachment and identiWcation?). Like
Beer et al. ( 1984 ), Dyer and Holder ( 1988 : 10 ) advocate ‘consistency between HR
goals... and the underlying business strategy and relevant environmental condi-
tions’ (with the latter, like the Harvard framework, including inXuences such as
labor law, unions, labor markets, technology, and management values). In Baron
and Kreps’s ( 1999 ) framework, managers are advised to consider the impact of ‘Wve
the goals of hrm 51