HRM Policies Human Resources Play an Integral

HRM Policies

Human resources play an integral role in any organization. The allocation of human capital is critical to the overall success of the organization. Depending on the particular industry, talent and its subsequent retention is directly correlated to the overall profitability of the firm. In many instances, as is the case in our current economic cycle, improper human resource activity can have a profound effect on our overall society. Not only are jobs being lost at a rapid rate with unemployment at 9%, but also many jobs are being outsourced to low cost countries. Combine this with the fact that many businesses are reluctant to hire, and human capital retention becomes a major conundrum. By employing and retaining the correct individuals for the corresponding position, both the business and society benefit. For example, the most creative individuals will be placed in the positions that utilize their talent most effectively. This talent will thus be cultivated in the position allowing the individual to grow and develop. This development allows the individual to create products or solutions that another individual with less talent may overlook. This is primarily how Microsoft, Google, Intel, and IBM continue to generate new and innovate products decade after decade. They simply have the right people in the right places through the use of HRM. Through this paper I will juxtapose various forms of HRM practices within the United States and abroad with the merits of contrasting practices.

To begin, strategic HRM practices often entail many forms of models. These models have various strengths and weaknesses depending primarily on their application in various scenarios. One model in particular that will be discussed is that of the matching model. This concept is both simplistic and rudimentary in nature. However, it does provide a solid framework in which to develop strong HRM practices. The textbook definition of the matching principle is as follows, 'An organization's HRM policies and practices must fit with its strategy in its competitive environment and with the immediate business conditions that it faces' (1). This concept of integration can be further broken down into the following three aspects of strategic matching-

1) the linking of HR policies and practices with the strategic management process of the organization

2) the internalization of the importance of HR on the part of line managers

3) The integration of the workforce into the organization to foster commitment or an 'identity of interest' with the strategic goals. (1)

Point 3 above is of particular interest in the case of HRM. For one, many U.S. businesses are outsourcing work abroad. As geographic boundaries are dissipating, it is becoming increasing difficult to provide a workforce that is integrated. In regards to HRM integration within the matching model is important because a business wants to be consistent. American business wants a homogenous mix of workers who can acquiesce to the methods of that particular business. If this does not occur, the entire business will suffer due to a lack of consistency. Can you imagine how Wal-Mart would fair in our business environment if one store had very high prices while a store in the same town had low prices? It would send an inconsistent message to Wal-Mart's customers and ultimately the business would suffer. This is the exact same problem HRM managers face as they continue to outsource human capital abroad. With the matching principle however, HRM managers must foster commitment within the workforce by identifying common interests. In our global economy this will be difficult for a number of reasons. . To elaborate on this point I will venture back to early Chinese history and in particular, that of farming. In china, the main cultivated crop was that of rice. In fact, rice provided much of the economic prosperity within China and its neighboring countries for many years (2). Rice farming unlike its western counterpart of corn and wheat is very tedious and time consuming. In addition rice, requires much more attention to detail for the crop to manifest itself in a manner that benefits society. The difference between the amount of water and soil used could be the difference between a great harvest and no harvest at all. If there is no harvest, then many Chinese would simply not eat. In contrast, American farmers didn't necessary need to pay too much attention to every minuscule detail to the extent the Chinese had to (3). They simply planted crops. If farmers wanted to be more efficient, they simply bought more equipment to do the necessary job. I'm by no means downplaying the work of early farming pioneers in building the foundation of this nation. I instead applaud their efforts. However, when juxtaposed again the requirements to maintain rice crops, clearly, the Chinese had to conduct more tedious work. As a result, family coordination within China was deeply needed for success. Cooperation and coordination was needed on all levels for a grand harvest and economic prosperity. Slave labor would not work in China primarily because; you must have a vested stake in the harvest. If not, mistakes will be made that will subsequently ruin and destroy the entire crop. If the crop is destroyed by slave mistakes, the slaves are in no position to lose anything as they were already slaves to begin with. Now in America, slaves were used simply to provide manually labor due primarily because there was no need for coordinated effort on the party of the slave owner with the slave. The slave's duty was simply to provide a service. Once that service was rendered the slave would be either replaced or killed. There was no worry, as a slave could easily be replaced.