How explain Guest's model of hard-soft loose-tight dimensions of HRM?

Answer 1

The soft-hard dichotomy in HRM exists primarily within normative, or prescriptive, models of human resource management, rather than in what Legge (1995 b) terms the descriptive-functional or critical-evaluative traditions. The earliest examples where this terminology is used are in the work of Guest (1987) and Storey (1987; 1992). Guest (1987), in seeking to define HRM, identifies two dimensions, soft-hard and loose-tight. Similarly, Storey (1992) plots existing interpretations of HRM along the two dimensions of soft-hard and weak-strong. Although these two commentators draw heavily on the work of American HRM academics in drawing a distinction between the two forms-the Harvard model for the soft version (Beer et al, 1985) and the Michigan model for the hard version (Fombrun et al. 1984)--the terms 'soft' and 'hard' have not been used in the American literature, and the debates surrounding them have taken place exclusively in a British context (Hendry and Pettigrew 1990).

Guest (1987) and Storey (1992) in their definitions of soft and hard models of HRM view the key distinction as being whether the emphasis is placed on the human or the resource. Soft HRM is associated with the human relations movement, the utilization of individual talents, and McGregor's (1960) Theory Y perspective on individuals (developmental Humanism). This has been equated with the concept of a 'high commitment work system' (Walton 1985b), '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' (Wood 1996: 41). Soft HRM is also associated with the goals of flexibility and adaptability (which themselves are problematic concepts, as we shall see in more detail later), and implies that communication plays a central role in management (Storey and Sisson 1993).

Hard HRM, on the other hand, stresses 'the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing the "headcount resource" in as "rational" a way as for any other factor of production', as associated with a utilitarian-instrumentalist approach (Storey 1992: 29; see also Legge 1995 b). 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) (Baird and Meshoulam 1988; Hendry and Pettigrew 1986), with the ultimate aim being increased competitive advantage (Alpander and Botter 1981; Devanna et al. 1984; Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1990; Miles and Snow 1984; Storey and Sisson 1993; Tichy et al. 1982; Tyson and Fell 1986).