l Business strategy may be an important influence on HR strategy but it is
only one of several factors.l Implicit (if not explicit) in the mix of factors that influence the shape of
HR strategies is a set of historical compromises and trade-offs from stake-
holders.It is also necessary to stress that coherent and integrated HR strategies are only
likely to be developed if the top team understands and acts upon the strategic
imperatives associated with the employment, development and engagement
of people. This will be achieved more effectively if there is an HR director who
is playing an active and respected role as a member of the top management
team. A further consideration is that the effective implementation of HR
strategies depends on the involvement, commitment and cooperation of line
managers and staff generally. Finally, there is too often a wide gap between the
rhetoric of strategic HRM and the reality of its impact, as Gratton et al(1999)
emphasize. Good intentions can too easily be subverted by the harsh realities
of organizational life. For example, strategic objectives such as increasing
commitment by providing more security and offering training to increase
employability may have to be abandoned or at least modified because of the
short-term demands made on the business to increase shareholder value.
Schools of strategy development
Purcell (2001) has identified three main schools of strategy development: the
design school, the process school and the configuration school.
The design schoolis deliberate and is ‘based on the assumption of economic
rationality’. It uses quantitative rather than qualitative tools of analysis and
focuses on market opportunities and threats. What happens inside the
company is ‘mere administration or operations’.
The process schooladopts a variety of approaches and is concerned with
how strategies are made and what influences strategy formulation: ‘It is
much more a study of what actually happens with explanations coming from
experience rather than deductive theory.’ As Purcell suggests, the impli-
cation of the design concept is that ‘everything is possible’ while that of the
process school is that ‘little can be done except swim with the tide of events’.
The rationalist approach adopted by Purcell’s design school broadly corre-
sponds with the classical approach to strategy, and Porter is a typical repre-
sentative of it. Purcell’s process school is the postmodern version of strategy
of which Mintzberg is the most notable exponent. But, as Grant (1991) has
indicated, the rationalist approach may indeed be over-formalized and rely
too much on quantitative data, but the Mintzberg approach, which down-
plays the role of systematic analysis and emphasizes the role of intuition and
vision, fails to provide a clear basis for reasoned choices.
HR strategies l 63