54 SITUATING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(1995) in his industrywide studies. The problem, now well recognized, was
that in each case there was a concern to demonstrate a relationship between
the effective strategic management of HR and firm performance. In doing
so, researchers ignored the ‘black box’ in which workers were located and, by
failing to consider either worker reactions to HRM or the consequences for the
deployment and utilization of workers, were neglecting the core point about
the process whereby HRM is presumed to have an impact. As a result, they
might be able to demonstrate an association between HRM and performance
but they could not explain how it came about. Issues about whether workers
responded to HRM strategy and practices with enthusiasm, indifference, or as
‘willing slaves’ (Scott 1994) were not considered.
Despite the neglect of workers, in many ways these early studies of HRM
and performance are impressive. In most cases, they measured intermediate
outcomes such as labour turnover and productivity, which, it might be argued,
serve as proxies for employee behaviour. They also serve an important role as
landmark studies by showing that there is evidence of a relationship between
HRM and performance. In contexts such as business schools and in the wider
business community, this is a crucial message in seeking to persuade sceptics to
take HR seriously. If, following the arguments of Beer et al. (1985) and Skinner
(1981), HRM is too important to be left to HR specialists, then the case needs
to be forcibly made for why chief executives and others should be taking it
seriously. What has followed in the academic community has been a necessary
and inevitable corrective but subsequent research has not undermined the
core argument that ‘good’ HRM is associated with superior performance.
Given its roots in business strategy, one of the ironies of much of this and
subsequent research on HRM and performance is that the strategic approach
has proved less successful in explaining outcomes than a more universalist
approach (Becker and Huselid 1998).
The stream of research that emphasizes strategy and performance and
largely neglects workers and their roles and concerns has been described as
‘hard’ HRM (Storey 1987). It has evolved, notably in the USA, into a concern
for what are currently described as ‘high performance work systems’ which
require ‘high performance HR practices’. The language reflects the intended
focus and purpose behind the interest in HRM. Increasingly, this stream
of analysis has begun to focus more directly on workers, but in doing so,
the core question is about the practices most likely to result in improved
performance. Typically, the answer centres around the idea of ‘performance
management’. This approach advocates use of HR practices to ensure that
workers who have the necessary capabilities and competencies are motivated
and, through the design of jobs and teams, able to contribute fully. It can be
achieved through the distinctive application of practices such as selection and
training, financial incentives, and goal-setting and team-working (Becker et
al. 1997). At all times, the focus is first and foremost on fully utilizing the key