MANAJEMEN DAN KEWIRAUSAHAWAN

A REVIEW ON:
SOFT AND HARD MODELS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
A REAPPRAISAL

KPBI 2011
Group 2
Arranged by:

NAMA

NPM

DANARAJ THANGAVELU

260110113035

DIANNE DHASHINI DAVID

260110113037

MURALI BABU

260110113039

R,THINESKUMARAN

260110113053

RAKSHA PRIYA

260110113057

RACHEL YUNUS

260110113058

YAP JIA LIN

260110113064

FAKULTAS FARMASI
UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN
2014

SOFT AND HARD MODELS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:

A REAPPRAISAL

CATHERINETRUSS, LYNDA GRATTON, VERONICA HOPE HAILEy, PATRICK MCGOVERN, PHILIP

STILES

ABSTRACT: Two of the most widely adopted models of human resource

management are the hard and soft versions. These are based on opposing
views of human nature and managerial control strategies. The hard model is
based on notions of tight strategic control, and an economic model of man
according to Theory X, while the soft model is based on control through
commitment and Theory Y. We argue that because these assumptions are so
divergent, they cannot both properly be incorporated within a single model of
human resource management. Eight in-depth case studies were carried out,
involving questionnaires, interviews and focus groups in order to nd out
whether organizations were practising either form of HRM. We found that no
pure examples of either form existed. The paper concludes that the rhetoric
adopted by the companies frequently embraces the tenets of the soft,
commitment model, while the reality experienced by employees is more
concerned with strategic control, similar to the hard model. This distinction
between

rhetoric

and

reality

needs

to

be

taken

into

account

conceptualizations of human resource management.

Key words: Human resource management, Hard Model, Soft Model

in

INTRODUCTION
Human resource management (HRM) has frequently been described as a
concept with two distinct forms: soft and hard. These are diametrically opposed
along a number of dimensions, and they have been used by many
commentators as devices to categorize approaches to managing people
according to developmentalhumanist or utilitarianinstrumentalist principles
.The terms have gained some currency although, from a theoretical point of
view, the underlying conflicts and tensions contained within the models have not
been sufficiently explored and, from a practical perspective, available empirical
evidence would suggest that neither model accurately represents what is
happening within organizations). This leads us to question the value of these
dimensions for defining normative forms of HRM. In this paper, we firrst analyse
the conflicts and tensions both between and within the soft and hard models,
and then report on the findings of an in-depth empirical study which will enable
us to review and challenge the theoretical foundations upon which the soft and
hard models are based.

CONFLICTS AND TENSIONS BETWEEN AND WITHIN SOFT & HARD

MODELS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The soft-hard dichotomy had been defined as descriptive-functional or
critical-evaluative traditions. Soft HRM is associated with the human relations
movement, the utilization of individual talents and McGregor's Theory Y
perspective on individuals (developmental-humanism). This has been equated
with the concept of a high commitment work system, which is aimed at eliciting
a commitment so that behaviour is primarily self-regulated rather than controlled
by sanctions and pressures external to the individual and relations within the
organization are based on high levels of trust. Soft HRM is also associated with
the goals of flexibility and adaptability and implies that communication plays a

central role in management. Hard HRM, stresses the quantitative, calculative

and business-strategic aspects of managing the headcount resource in as
rational

way

as

for

any

other

factor

of

production

(utilitarian-

instrumentalism). Hard HRM focuses on the importance of strategic fit, where

human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategic
objectives of the organization (external fit), and are coherent among themselves
(internal fit), with the ultimate aim being increased competitive advantage.
These two perspectives on HRM are viewed as opposing: what is striking is
that the same term [HRM] is thus capable of signaling diametrically opposite
sets of assumptions. However, while explicitly acknowledging this dichotomy,
incorporate both when constructing their own HRM model or theory. Similarly,
four key features of an HRM approach as incorporating both soft elements such
as commitment, and hard elements such as strategic direction had been
identified. The incorporation of both soft and hard elements within one theory or
model is highly problematic because each rests on a different set of
assumptions in the two key areas of human nature and managerial control
strategies. The strategic dimension of the soft model, in contrast to the hard
model, is that control comes through commitment. Under the hard model, on the
other hand, control is more concerned with performance systems, performance
management and tight control over individual activities, with the ultimate goal
being to secure the competitive advantage of the organization. This implies that
the individual is managed on a much more instrumental basis than under the
soft model. There is a tension and conflict between elements of self-expression
and high trust contained within the soft model, and direction and low trust within
the hard model. Although hard and soft models of HRM therefore derive from
very different intellectual traditions, and incorporate diametrically opposed
assumptions about human nature and managerial control, both have been
incorporated within the same theories or models of HRM. The opposing nature
of the models underlying assumptions leads us to question the validity of
constructing models of HRM on the basis of both soft and hard elements. The
soft model of HRM is founded on the concepts of commitment, flexibility and

quality, although these are similarly ambiguous and open to debate. The goals
of quality, flexibility, commitment and integration presented in soft model of HRM
may well not be mutually compatible and, in practice, may be difficult to
achieve. The assumption that committed workers are necessarily more
productive has also never been proved. Conceptualizations of HRM along the
hard-soft dimension are plagued with inconsistencies and ambiguities. At a
theoretical level, the principal problem with using them together as elements to
construct a theory of HRM is that they are founded on opposing assumptions
regarding human nature and, consequently, the legitimacy of managerial control
strategies. Theories of HRM lack the requisite criteria of parsimony and
completeness also applies, particularly where such complex notions as
strategic integration, commitment and flexibility are concerned.

METHODOLOGY
The data presented in this paper are taken from a broad-ranging study of HRM
within eight case-study organizations in the UK. Within each organization, it is
focused on one business, unit or region so that we could obtain in-depth data,
rather than simply collecting broad-brush information across the organization as
a whole. In this review, Appendix 1 provides background information on the
companies studied. The fieldwork took place between mid 1993 and early 1995.
The case study method has been particularly recommended for analysis of
HRM. Adopting this approach enabled us to gather in-depth data to explore
HRM from a variety of perspectives within the same organization. The units
studied were all based in Britain,and were from different sectors. All the private
sector firms were in the top five in terms of profit in their particular sectors. The
advantage of this variety was that it could examined the HRM in a range of
settings. Conversely, there was no means of verifying the impact of sectoral
dfferences on our findings and, consequently, our conclusions are put forward
as propositions that merit testing further on a broader sample.The organizations

included were self-selected, in that the human resource director of each firm
was a member of the Leading Edge Forum group of companies which
sponsored the research and granted access to their organization.
One implication of the self-selection is that the level of interest and involvement
in HRM issues in the firms could be expected to be quite high, compared with
average organizations, and we could therefore have anticipated companies
such as those in our sample would have quite sophisticated HR techniques. As
we could see, this was by no means always the case. Clearly, this meant that
the research team had no means of selecting companies, and it was therefore
not possible to impose controls on the sample. However, despite these
disadvantages,it was able to have full control over the nature of the study.
Therefore it was felt that the data consequently represents a significant
empirical contribution in terms of their richness, depth, scope and rigour.
Prior to the main research project, a pilot study was carried out in one of the
organizations, Glaxo Pharmaceuticals. Within all the organizations, a selfcompletion questionnaire was mailed to a random 20 per cent sample of
employees at managerial level and below within the unit we were studying. In
total 4,290 questionnaires were issued and 2,220 returned, an average
response rate over the eight organizations of 52 per cent, which was considered
very good. Approximately 60 per cent of questionnaires in each organization
went to non-managerial staff (`operating core'), and the remaining 40 per cent to
management-level staff.
Table I gives the number of responses and response rates for all the
companies. The research included a focus group discussion with members of
the human resource department both from the unit of study and from the
broader organization, and a total of 287 hour-long semi-structured interviews
were carried out within the unit of study, with employees from all levels of the
firm, including the managing director, other directors, line managers, `operating

core' (i.e. employees with no direct supervisory responsibility), human resource

director and members of the HR department. This figure includes the 12
interviews in each firm that were carried out as part of an `Unwritten Rules of
the Game' study on behalf of the consulting group Arthur D. Little, who were
also sponsoring the research.

FINDINGS
Ealier, we differentiated between soft and hard models in term of two criteria.
Underlying perceptions of human nature and managerial control strategies. In
particular, we shall make refrence to the views and experiences of the
employees to contrast company rhetoric with individual perceptions.
Human Natures

The soft perspective implies that individuals are viewed as a resource worthy of
training and development.

Peoples perceptions of development would be that it is inadequate. But of

course they are looking at being developed as generalists.

Control Strategies
We are concerned with whether the organization adopt a strategy of control
through commitment or control through a tight strategic direction hard model.

Flexibility & Adaptibilty

Finally we examined the concepts of flexibility and adaptability.The Shaping our
Future communications programme stressed values such as flexibility,
specialization, development, adaptability, responsibility and teamwork.

Thus, although the soft model may emphasize individual development and
commitment, the underlying principle behind this is still bottom line
performance.

DISCUSSION
The data from the above study shown, there were no single organization
adopted either a pure or hard approach to Human Resource Management
(HRM). Soft HRM has 2 aims: (I) improved competitive advantage (II) individual
development. Thus the second element was missing in the organization studied
for instance in the case of career development, it was emphasized on
individuals to manage their careers, but this in return did not give a promising
feedback. This situation was reflected from the low scores obtained from most
organization on the organizational commitment question. On the other hand,
training was carried out and the aim was to ensure individuals had their
necessary skills to carry out their jobs in such a way to increase organizational
performance.
Perhaps, from this study was concluded that in all the organization, there is a
mixture of both hard and soft approaches. This study did not show any evidence
of the organization developing or adhering any particular guidance in HRM,
instead there were speculated evidence of a combined guiding strategy,
inherited policies and practices, new initiatives and responses to internal and
external pressure.
Theoretically, models of HRM should not contain elements of both hard and soft
approach but based on the data provided from the study, the need to retain a
relationship between HRM rhetorical level which is hermeneutical man and
commitment- based strategic control and also reality which is based on
concepts on modern man and tight strategic direction towards organizational
goals to sound empirical and theoretical.