International Human Resource Management-MJ Version

FIGURE 9.2

way within the context and conceptual framework of Western human resource
management (Legge, 1989, Ellig, 1997). Hence a distinction has been made in
the strategic human resource management literature between the ‘hard’ per-
spective reflecting utilitarian instrumentalism which sees people in the organi-
zation as a mere resource towards achieving the ends of the organization, and
the ‘soft’ developmental approach which sees people more as valued assets
capable of development, worthy of trust, and providing input through partici-
pation and informed choice (Beer and Spector, 1985; Tyson and Fell, 1986;
Hendry and Pettigrew, 1990; Storey, 1992; Vaughan, 1994).
Yet Tayeb (2000) quite rightly states that the concept of human resource
management is itself a product of a particular Anglo-American culture. It is
likely that the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches taken within Western organizations
are both a reflection of an inherent cultural concept that perceives human
beings in organizations as a means to an end (Blunt and Jones, 1997, use the
term ‘functionalism’). They are simply two poles of a continuum from high to
low instrumentalism. Working within this conceptualization of people as a

232 International Human Resource Management

Management Management Organizational Developing

practices attitudes orientation people

Human People are a People serve the Competencies

resource valuable ends of the approach −

management resource organization equipping people

for the job

INSTRUMENTALISM

Values concerning the regard for

people within organizations

HUMANISM

People People have a The organization Holism −

development value in serves the ends developing the

themselves of its people whole person

Management Management Organizational Developing

practices attitudes orientation people

Instrumentalism and humanism in the management of people (Jackson, 1999)