Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the different models Essay

critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the different models of Strategic Human Resource focussing - Essay ExamplePersonnel Management involved hiring the scoop employees, keeping employees productive, monitoring employees in their operations, payment, motivation and development of employees (Biz Bite Consulting Group, 2011). Personnel focusing was mainly focusebd on ensuring that workers made to provide the go around results and this was done in a very obscure manner that was independent of central organizational goals and objectives (Becker and Gerhart, 1996 Thomson, 1999). This meant that employee matters were simply grouped under this aspect of the billet and it enabled the business to remain in control of affairs in government activitys. Also, personnel watchfulness involved a building block that ensured that employee matters were dealt with and employee challenges were revolved. It existed as a necessary social unit but not a vital component that was manipul ated by management to meet the overall goal of the organisation. Strategic human resource management, on the other hand, evolved to go personnel management with the goals of the organisation (Thomson, 1999). In other words, the personnel management unit is designed and ran in such a trend that it contributes directly to the long-term organisational plan and goals (Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978). This integration meant that the strategy of the organisation was combine into the personnel department and this department was ran to meet organisational strategical goals. In uniteing the old personnel management unit of a business to the strategic units and levels of businesses, there are quadruplet main methods and approaches that are use to link the two systems. They are 1. universalistic Approach 2. Contingency Approach 3. Resource- found Approach and 4. Institutionalist Approach Each of these four approaches to strategic human resource management comes with various strengths and weaknesses. This paper examines each of the approaches and undertakes a critical compendium of all of them. This will involve an examination of the main theory that underlines the approach and an assessment of the merits and demerits of each approach. Universalistic Approach to Strategic Human Resource Management. The universalistic approach assumes that there is one best way of carrying carrying reveal the human resource management function strategically (Pfeffer, 1998). In other words, the management swing time to crystallize a system of managing people that they consider to be foolproof and appropriate to the organisation in all circumstances. The best way of doing human resource management becomes a universal nock of rules that are used to run the human resource management unit as a strategic business unit that works to meet strategic goals of the organisation. There are three yard measures that are used in defining the best way. These yardsticks come up as a result of the need to define what is best and what will eventually become the universally accepted human resource management system. The first yardstick is a commitment based system which involves the choice of a strategic human resource management system that helps employees to become more committed (Guest, 1987). This way, the basis for choosing a system of implementation is to find out what best enhances employee commitment. The second yardstick is the concern for employee motivated system (Wood, 1999). I doing this, what is defined as the best human resource management system is judged by how sensitive it is to the needs of employees. The third model is kind of opposite to the second model. This is a concern for work model. In other words, the universalistic approach is based on the ability of an HRM model to make employees provide the highest level of outcome and results for the