Limitations to HRPBs’ Applicability

 

Logically, according to the universalistic view of HRBPs, it can be perceived that these practices should be applicable to all organizations in all occasions without any limitations because these practices are not required to be adapted to the organizational perspectives and are readily available off the shelf. Researchers have extensively debated this argument and concluded that the ground realities deny such an assumption, postulating that adoption of HRBPs is not an easy task (Pfeffer, 1994). A comparison of the bell curves in Purcell’s (1999) study shows that the number of companies which adopted some forms of HRBPs Best Practices in Human Resources; Their Validity, Limitations and Benefits: A Critical Overview Mohammad Tariq SADAT 10 have not increased during several years. Similarly, Pfeffer (1998) argued that only oneeighth of the firms have been able to successfully implement a small number of HRBPs.

 

As internal resistance, studies have identified employees, managers, and change agents to pose significant problems to HRBPs’ adoption (Kane et al., 1999). Management may discard HRBPs due to misinterpretation, lack of knowledge and training, unawareness or erroneous estimations (Snape et al., 1995) or they may have low priority for HRBPs or they may lack long-term view (Gennard & Kelly, 1995; Kane, 1996) or they might not be committed (Kane, 1996). On the other hand, employees and change agents may be unmotivated in implementing HRBPs perceiving them not invented here (Grant & Oswick, 1998). For example, in my previous organization, the HR manager use to give some basic pieces of training such as operation manual, gender policy, child protection, and fraud management for the each and every new commerce.

 

Likewise, Mirvis (1997) examined that why some organizations are more successful in implementing HRBPs than others. He divided organizations into leaders, fast followers, slow followers and the laggards. Based on his survey Mirvis (1979) found that only 11% of the firms qualified to be leaders who innovated new practices and took the risks involved in implementing them. Fast followers were the next 39% of the firms who immediately adopted the new practices to beat the competition. Slow followers were another 39% who adopted HRBPs later on when they proved to be beneficial and finally the last 11% were the laggards who waited until they were forced to change.

 

HRBPs Best for Everyone

The promoters of HBPs argue that based on stakeholder theory (ST) (Guest, 1997) these practices are beneficial to everyone. According to this theory, all stakeholders are rational actors, thus their actions are driven by their interests, so ideally, organizations adopt HRBPs to increase their profitability, shareholders approve them to reap higher market value, management accepts them as they can practice better control, suppliers are benefited from improved relationships, customers are severed with enhanced quality, governments gain more in taxes, employees earn higher wages and the community’s concerns are met through organizational corporate social responsibilities (CSR) (CLMS, 2013)­­­

 

However, this utilitarian claim is not viable for two main reasons; first because it opposes the main argument of the HRBPs which indicates that these practices are not required to be aligned with the organizational factors (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2009,). Therefore, either HRBPs are required to be adjusted according to organizational stakeholders as they are influential to ensure competitive advantage or they need to maintain their rigidity leading to unitarism and standardization (Sherer &Leblebici, 2001). Moreover, standardization and sheer imitation might lead to convergence of HR practices in organizations negatively affecting organizational competitive advantage and loss of creativity.

 

Obviously, ensuring employee benefits through HRBPs is one of the most controversial issues, as from one side, the promoters of HRBPs argue that practices such as; internal promotion, incentive compensation, performance appraisal, employment security, flexible work schedules and grievance procedures increase motivation, commitment (Pfeffer, 1998; Youndt et al., 1996; Huselid, 1995;) and job satisfaction (Dyer & Reeves, 1995) of all employees. Despite all that, employees as an influential stakeholder have not been part of HRBPs studies (Gerhart et al., 2000) except in some studies where their perception was sought (Guest, 1997; Wright et al., 2003).

 

 

Hence, a number of studies rejected the general utility of HRBPs to employees, postulating that they can only offer tangible benefits to core workers not peripheral workers (Purcell, 1999), to larger organizations, to employees at the senior levels and to non-blue collar workers (Guest & Conway, 1998:10), as well as to HR practitioners offering them “a place at the table” and to HRM profession earning it prestige in the business organizations and business schools (Boselie et al, 2005:67). Likewise, others have blamed HRBPs for ignoring the active inputs of employees (Ezzamel et al., 1996:1121) for causing work stress and intensification, less job security (Kaufman, 2010) and loss of employee voice (Marchington & Grugulis, 2000).

 

 

 

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005) ‘Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research’, Human resource management journal 15(3): 67-94.

CLMS. (2013) ‘Managing Human Resources-LM7505’, Center for Labor Market Studies.

Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995) ‘Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go?’, International Journal of human resource management 6(3): 656-670.

Ezzamel, M., Gwilliam, D., & Holland, K. (1996) ‘Some empirical evidence from publicly quoted UK companies on the relationship between the pricing of audit and non-audit services’, Accounting and Business research 27(1): 3-16.

Gennard, J., & Kelly, J. (1997) ‘The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRM function’, Industrial Relations Journal 28(1): 27-42.

Gerhart, B., Wright, P., MAHAN, G., & Snell, S. (2000) ‘Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?’, Personnel psychology 53(4): 803-834.

 

Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (1998) ‘Of believers, atheists and agnostics: practitioner views on HRM’, Industrial Relations Journal 29(3): 178-193.

Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (1998) ‘Fairness and work and the psychological contract’, Institute of Personnel and Development London; UK

Guest, D. (1997) ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’, International journal of human resource management 8(3): 263-276.

Guest, D. (1997) ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’, International journal of human resource management 8(3): 263-276.

Kane, B., Crawford, J., & Grant, D. (1999) ‘Barriers to effective HRM’, International Journal of Manpower 20(8): 494-516.

Kaufman, B. (2010) ‘SHRM Theory in the Post-Huselid Era: Why It Is Fundamentally Misspecified’, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 49(2): 286-313.

 

Kane, R. (1996) ‘HRM: changing concepts in a changing environment’, International Journal of Employment Studies 4(2): 115-177.

Lengnick-Hall, M., Lengnick-Hall, C., Andrade, L., & Drake, B. (2009) ‘Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field’, Human resource management review 19(2): 64-85.

Marchington, M., & Grugulis, I. (2000) 'Best practice'human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion?’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 11(6): 1104-1124.

Mirvis, P. (1997) ‘Human resource management: Leaders, laggards, and followers’, The Academy of Management Executive 11(2): 43-56.

Pfeffer, J. (1994) ‘Competitive advantage through people’, California management review 36(2), 9-28.

Pfeffer, J. (1998) ‘The human equation: Building profits by putting people first’, Harvard Business Press.

Purcell, J. (1999) ‘Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac?’, Human resource management journal 9(3): 26-41.

Sherer, P., & Leblebici, H. (2001) ‘Bringing variety and change into strategic human resource management research’, Research in personnel and human resources management 20: 199-230

Snape, E., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Redman, T. (1995) ‘Managing human resources for TQM: possibilities and pitfalls’, Employee Relations 17(3): 42-51.

 

Haak, Tom. “10 HR Trends for 2022: From Adaptation to Transformation.” YouTube, 22 Nov. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0cdbesQ0tk.