It is difficult not to reach a rather depressing conclusion concerning the interpreta-tion of future challenges facing HRM. According to the answers given the lenges emerging seem to be coming from within. The major development chal-lenge of HR is understood to be the role of HRM. This together with chalchal-lenges caused by HR processes constitutes two-thirds of the challenges recognized. A sceptical observer might say, that if HR/HRM remains to be the overwhelmingly biggest challenge for HR/HRM, and then the future of the function is not very bright.
Deeper scrutiny of the challenges recognized, reveals what seems to be a meta-dilemma in HRM between pursuing standardization and uniformity versus an-swering the needs of a complex and heterogeneous workforce (e.g. Hammonds, 2007). This dilemma can be found within answers given to the survey question analysed here. The topic of standardization is closely connected to the needs of measurement.
Processes reflecting the need for uniformity and the needs of measurement are noted in the comments below:
“More practices and courses of action are to be written in the handbooks, unification of certain processes (is needed)…”
“ … The added value of HRM work needs to be proved and measured.”
The following comments represents viewpoints emphasizing the need for multi-ple, varying and heterogeneous HRM approaches:
“HRM has to take into consideration better than before individual needs, and then balancing of common personnel policy and individ-ual needs will increase.”
“HRM has developed unified codes of conduct – how are we to solve the various different needs of various functions and individuals in these processes?”
The issues of change and change management attract only secondary comments in the analysis material. Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) propose that in complex systems – which organizations today either are or are becoming – the focus needs to be on the mechanisms and contexts of change instead of predominantly on variables.
These mechanisms are by nature non-linear, changeable, unpredictable in the long term (and sometimes in the short term), temporally based, and interactively and causally complex. Obviously HRM should produce solutions that fit into this real-ity, and the question can be asked whether prevailing mind-sets and practices are moving in some completely different direction.
HRM is not always liked and appreciated. Even though the strategic potential of the human resource function is often recognized, sharp criticism emerges: “The human-resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil – and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change” (Hammonds 2007). It has been re-ported that the reputation of HR is declining, the influence of HR does not seem to increase in the boardrooms, and the top management being unsure whether HR is able to tackle their one top concern – the people agenda (Berry 2008; Anon.
2010). After an analysis of viewpoints on the future challenges facing HRM, the problem seems to be still there, and maybe it will not go away without some new mind-sets and interpretations. The core problem may be in organizational reali-ties, as reflected in the following answers:
“The work tasks of HR still seem to be secretive, and often even the senior management imagines that HR does everything that is related to general activities.”
“HR trips itself in bustling around doing everything when it would be important to define what are the key areas where HRM supports the organization.”
“The role of HR is at present broad varying from salary management and employment issues to strategy building and deep understanding
of business. Myself, I see that there may be need for different terms under this HR-roof.”
When HR tries to do everything, its role becomes blurred, and it is simply impos-sible for HR as a body to have the competences required to complete all tasks available and imagined.. For these reasons it may make sense to try to see the role of HRM in the face of organizational realities differently. A fresh solution would be to view the challenges facing HRM through the perspective of paradoxes or dilemmas that the organizational body is expected to, and must, cope with.
The future challenges to HRM can be seen as arising from the dilemmas this or-ganizational body needs to resolve while facing the challenges in front of it. The recognition of organizational dilemmas (Säntti 2003) that are present in organiza-tional and management settings is relevant. For HRM, it may be that the solution to its meta-dilemmas lies in a split of responsibility within HRM. The challenge of dealing with solving future organizational strategic challenges and maintaining day-to-day operational focus can be viewed as one meta-dilemma for HRM. The question arises as to whether these two focus areas are too demanding to be ad-dressed by a single HRM body. The logic of corporate strategy and the logic of daily HR operations may be too far removed from each other to be sensibly han-dled under one roof. An alternative could be to separate strategic HRM from op-erational HRM by linking the first more closely with strategic planning, financial planning and other corporate management duties. This would more effectively – and more plausibly – bring the potential of strategic human resource management to the board room. Operative HRM could, with its own logics, mind-sets and competences focus separately on the routine functional demands of the organiza-tion.
References
Anon. (2010). Managing people in a changing world. Key trends in human capi-tal: A global perspective 2010. Human Resources Services.PwC Saratoga.
Benson, P.G. & Scroggins, W.A. (2011). The theoretical grounding of interna-tional human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 21.
Berry, M. (2008). HR fights back after report sparks fears over its future. Person-nel Today Apr 29, 2008.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal 15, 67–
94.
Christen, M., Iyer, G. & Soberman, D. (2006). Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Effort: A Reexamination Using Agency Theory. Journal of Marketing 70, 137–150.
Dan-Shang, W. & Shyu, C.-L. (2008). Will the strategic fit between business and HRM strategy influence HRM effectiveness and organizational performance?
International Journal of Manpower 29:2, 92–110.
Davidson, M.C.G. (2011). Hospitality HRM: past, present and the future. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23:4.
Whelan, E. &Carcary, M. (2011). Integrating talent and knowledge management:
where are the benefits? Journal of Knowledge Management 15:4, 675–687.
Gollan, P.J. (2010). New trends in international HR management debate. Strate-gic HR Review 9:5.
Guest, D. E. (2011).Human resource management and performance: still search-ing for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal 21, 3–13.
Hammonds, K.H. (2007). Why We Hate HR. FastCompany.com. Availabe in In-ternet: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/97/open_hr.html December 19, 2007.
Jauhiainen, J., Hihnala, H., Lähdesniemi, T., Suutari, V. & Viitala, R. (2010). HR Barometri 2010. Henkilöstöjohdon ryhmä – HENRY ry. Yhteenvetoraportti 9.11.2010. Available in Internet:
http://www.henryorg.fi/data/dokumentit/HR%20Barometri/HR-Barometri%20yhteenvetoraportti.pdf .
Kreissl, B., Lutz, J. &Giusto, D. (2008). How strategic is your HR department?
Canadian HRReporter 21:17.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T. E. &Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource manage-ment. Human Resource Management Review 21.
Smith, N.Q. (2011). A Strategic Approach to Role-Based Talent Management.
Training 48:4, 10–12.
Säntti, R. (2003). Possibilities and pitfalls in the development of organizational culture. In:Beairsto, B., Klein, M. &Ruohotie, P. (Eds.). Professional Learning and Leadership. Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training:
Hämeenlinna.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. ScienceDirect.
The Leadership Quarterly 18.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions. Harvard Business School Press.