develop an environment in which teamwork and flexibility can flourish;
help the organization to balance and adapt to the needs of its stake
holders (owners, government bodies or trustees, management,
employees, customers, suppliers and the public at large);
ensure that people are valued and rewarded for what they do and
achieve;
manage a diverse workforce, taking into account individual and group
differences in employment needs, work style and aspirations;
ensure that equal opportunities are available to all;
adopt an ethical approach to managing employees that is based on
concern for people, fairness and transparency;
maintain and improve the physical and mental well-being of
employees.
These aims are ambitious and could be regarded as mere rhetoric. The
research conducted by Gratton et al (1999)^3 found that there was generally a
wide gap between rhetoric and reality. Managements may start off with good
intentions to do some or all of these things but the realization of them - 'theory
in use' - is often very difficult. This arises because of contextual and process
problems: other business priorities, short-termism, lack of support from line
managers, an inadequate infrastructure of supporting processes, lack of
resources, resistance to change and a climate in which employees do not
trust management, whatever they say.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HRM CONCEPT
Some aspects of the basic philosophy of 'soft HRM' can be traced back to the
writings of McGregor (1960)^4 who, as mentioned by Truss (1999)^5 , even used
the terminology 'hard' and 'soft' to characterize forms of management control
McGregor's theory X essentially describes the 'control' model of management
as described by Walton (1985)^6 , while McGregor's theory Y emphasizes the
importance of integrating the needs of the organization and those of the
individual the principle of mutual commitment, again expressed by Walton.