Personal Blogs

Annotating a moderately cited but relevant paper on the above topic by Greenwood and Freeman (2011), the authors point to HRM research as being seen increasingly through the lens of positivism. Positivism encompasses scientific methods of research that are underpinned predominantly by what is quantifiable and what is more measurable. These research approaches are what Greenwood and Freeman refer to as the prevailing epistemological, and theoretical context through which HRM is characterised (2011:271) and a lens which it is consistently framed through, primarily as “explicitly normative”. Furthermore, Dieronitou (2014) argues that the consequences here are that HRM’s positivist approach is “top-down” (in terms of knowledge creation) and “deductive in nature” (2014:6). By top-down, the author implies an emphasis on “ontology” which is prioritised in the author's figurative research “hierarchy” at the expense of what Dieronitou (2014) refers to as research "methodology”. 

HRM is seen by many as both normative and positivist. Positivist frameworks have however been linked to ethics, both in financial ethics (Aragon, 2010) and more so contemporarily through contributions to stakeholder theory and HRM (Greenwood, 2002).

Stakeholder theory when compared by Greenwood and Freeman (2011) to the pluralist industrial relations school (2011:275), is said to have grown in eminence in recent years, which is true. As Ferrary, (2009) argues, HR’s stakeholders are “parties” who possess “resources” that are required by the organisation to exist. Ferrary writes, “the framework of stakeholder analysis enables escape from a purely instrumental approach to HRM and avoids reducing our understanding of conflicts within companies to mere antagonism between employees and employers” (2009:31). It should be noted that Ferrary later cites Durkheim’s century-old text on value creation in the context of organisational studies.

Lastly, I will end on this revelation. In the paragraph entitled “Sustainable HRM: Is it a potential solution?” the CIPD (2019) according to a factsheet defines sustainable HRM as an ethical form of practice and delivery focused overarchingly on internal relationships, employee development, and cooperation. The author argues that sustainable HRM “recognises performance outcomes, that are broader than financial outcomes”. The CIPD’s eleven bullet point definition in this factsheet is surely a small make-peace to what may be a widespread belief that the normative and positivist approaches to HRM research in the literature are pervasive.

Enjoy your weekends.

References

1.     Aragon, G. A. (2010) ‘Normative and Positive Approaches to Financial Ethics’, in Financial Ethics. [Online]. United States: Oxford University Press

2.     Dieronitou, I. (2014) “The Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research”, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(10), pp. 1-17

3.     Ferrary, M. (2009) “A Stakeholder’s perspective on Human Resource Management”, Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), pp. 31-43 [Online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40294903

4.     Greenwood, M. R. (2002) “Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics. [Online] 36(3), pp. 261–278

5.     Greenwood, M. and Freeman, R. E. (2011) “Ethics and HRM: The Contribution of Stakeholder Theory”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 30(3/4), pp. 269-292

-------------

This post was written by Alfred Anate Mayaki, a student on the MSc in HRM, and was inspired by the work of the CIPD's Ed Houghton (2019) in a factsheet entitled "Sustainable HR: A 'green' fad, or a realistic model for change?"

Thank you to Hilary Scarlett for taking the time out of your schedule to speak to me about your amazing journey towards your current aspirations (for all but 20 minutes) and thank you for sharing with me how we can help answer important questions with your book on the subject of change.

It was great meeting up with cognitive neuroscientist, author, and scholar Hilary Scarlett yesterday on Zoom. I told her how I used to work opposite two very capable project consultants who each led on change. I also sat beside a very well-paid BA. As I introduced my questions, I noted that what impressed me about these respective roles was the fact that they were concerned with change concurrently with operative business; these people worked on endlessly whilst the business of the department trotted alongside. So, I sort of got the impression that the business was constantly moving and always evolving. Jiras were being filed seamlessly, and Pega requests were being signed off, without interruption.

Now, as you guys know, I recently wrote in an OU blog post that stated “in the postmodern literature on organisational change, the subject is often thought of as an ontology" (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). I asked Hilary if she would agree that neuroscience is at the forefront of the multi-disciplinary movement to help better understand organisational thought? I didn't quite get the reply I was looking for.

I then told Hilary that one of my main influences was the work of Cambridge University's Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, Barbara Sahakian in a study she pioneered alongside co-author, CfEL's Professor Shai Vyakarnam entitled: "The Innovative Brain", which was published in Nature (Sahakian, et. al., 2008). Hilary's response was amazing. She gave me insight into a few prominent perspectives on change and explained that in her time as a Languages undergrad and Psychology graduate, she herself was introduced to a paper on neuroscience which convinced her that was the industry she wanted to pursue. We ended our brief conversation shortly after. 

Now, there is a widely cited academic article that focuses on the role of “context” in OB discourse (Gary Johns, 2006). Succinctly put, "context" is seen by Johns as: “the surroundings associated with phenomena which help to illuminate [sic] phenomenon, typically factors associated with units of analysis above those expressly under investigation” (Capelli and Sherer, 1991:56). Alongside this widely cited article are several other articles which reference the work of Gary Johns (2006), and which present the influence of this nature of “context” on the field of HRM. 

I shall leave us all with a question based on this premise: How relevant are cognitive models of analysis such as the Maslows and the McGregors on the emergence of HRM as an interdisciplinary field or as its own research domain? More or less important than our respective realities? 

References

1.      Cappelli, P. and Sherer, P. D. (1991) "The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach",  Research in Organizational Behaviour, 13: pp. 55–110

2.      Chia, R. (1995) "From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis", Organization Studies, 16(4), pp. 579-604

3.      Johns, G. (2006) "The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behaviour", The Academy of Management Review, 31(2), pp. 386–408

4.      Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) “On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change”, Organization Science, 13(5), pp. 567+

--------

This post was written by Alfred Anate Mayaki, a student on the MSc in HRM, and was inspired by the work of Barbara Sahakian (2008) in a Nature article entitled: "The Innovative Brain".