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?"