Figure 1: The Harvard model of HRM (Greenberg, 2021)
The model was initially developed in 1984 by Michael Beer and additions by Paauwe and Richardson in 1997. It is one of the most flexible, and holistic approaches to HR currently in use (Leskin, 1985).
The Harvard model for HRM is an HR model comprised of five components. A model is a simplification of reality, and it can help us visualize what we need to do to get the desired outcome. The five components are as follows:
Human resource flows – recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal and assessment, promotion, termination.
Reward systems – pay systems, motivation, etc.
Employee influence – delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power.
Work systems – definition/design of work and alignment of people. These lead to the ‘four Cs’ or HR policies that must be achieved:
Beer et al. (Leskin, 1985) argue that the above ‘four Cs’ do not represent all the criteria that human resource policymakers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of human resource management. Why not? What else could be considered? But we can consider them to be reasonably comprehensive.
- Stakeholder interests – These stakeholders include shareholders, management, employee groups, government, etc. These interests define the HRM policies.
- Situational factors – These influence the interests. Situational factors include workforce characteristics, unions, and all the other factors in the yellow box in the above diagram.
- HRM policies – Both situational factors and stakeholder interest has an influence over HRM policies. These include the core HR activities, such as recruitment, training, reward systems, etc.
- HRM outcomes – When everything goes well, HRM policies lead to positive HRM outcomes. These include employee retention, cost-effectiveness, commitment, and competence.
- Long-term consequences – Finally these positive HRM outcomes will lead to long-term consequences with regard to individual, organizational, and societal.
Human resource flows – recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal and assessment, promotion, termination.
Reward systems – pay systems, motivation, etc.
Employee influence – delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power.
Work systems – definition/design of work and alignment of people. These lead to the ‘four Cs’ or HR policies that must be achieved:
- The overall competence of employees
- The commitment of employees
- The degree of congruence between employees’ own goals and those of the organization
- The overall cost-effectiveness of HRM practices
Beer et al. (Leskin, 1985) argue that the above ‘four Cs’ do not represent all the criteria that human resource policymakers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of human resource management. Why not? What else could be considered? But we can consider them to be reasonably comprehensive.