Barriers to Effective Human Resources Management

What are the barriers Human Resources Management? How can they be overcome?
(Avoided)
Abstract
Human Resources management has subspecialties i.e. recruitment, selection, placement,
training and development, compensation and benefits, labour relations and Safety (Petrick,
and Furr, 1995). On the other hand achieving effectiveness in all these functions of human
resources management is the ideal and fundamental thing because if it is achieved leads to
the success of a business organisation. Terms like continuous quality improvement,
managerial and corporate reengineering and total quality management are all aimed at
achieving quality in the HRM (Voehl, 1995, Spencer Jr., 1995, Oakland, 2007) Increasingly,
organizations are recognizing the strategic importance of quality and quality management. It
is now a common social belief in the business fraternity that effective quality management
can enhance competitive capability and can be a source of strategic advantages in the
business environment. (Business Week, 1992). From a social Philosophy perspective quality
is a dynamic state associated with products, services, people, processes and environment that
meet customer needs expectations and help produce superior value (Goetsh and Davis, 2010).
Quality is in an ever changing state and this research is based on an interpretivist paradigm
because social reality is subjective and is shaped by our perceptions (Collis and Hussey,
2014). This research will use qualitative data and explore the complexity of achieving
effectiveness in the HRM by identifying barriers to achieving effectiveness, their impact and
how they can be overcome (Van Maanen, 1983).
Aim

This research aims to contribute to knowledge by identifying the main driving barriers and
the dependent barriers and help to understand the common interaction between the barriers
and to highlight the impact on organisational performance.
Objectives
To research why the following are barriers to effective HRM and how they can be overcome
or avoided:
 Specialisation
 Barrier of HRM to effective line management.
 Lack of strategic HR development this occurs the traditional HR which is broken into
identifiable functions like selection, appraisal, development and rewarding,
(Fombrum et al, Tichy and Devanna, 1984) fails to undergo an evolutionary process
to become a fully strategic partner and develop to become SHRM which is identified
as a macro-organisational approach to function in a large organisation (Butler et
al,1991) The functions of SHRM become identifiable as strategic selection, strategic
development , strategic appraisal , strategic rewards (Fombrum et al, 1984, Galbraith
and Nathanson, 1979)
 Lack of concrete actions of HR function the new competitive reality faced by all
organisations is to create value to both investors and employees and (Ulrich, 1997,
Yeung and Berman, 1997) point out that the HR function is the pivotal department to
implement strategic responses to these pressures lack of this concrete action by HR
creates a barrier in creating such an ideal organisation.
 Wrong actions of HR function occurs when inappropriate practices and policies by
HRM malpractices threaten professionalism, ethical behaviours and transparency.

(Sakr Ashour, 2004) this in turn leads to lack of direction, lack of staff accountability,
weakened integrity in the HRM
 Bad communication
Internal communication system among different functions of the departments allows
the organizations to attain the set organizational goals (Hindi et al. 2004). Businesses
without an effective and proper communication system would stumble, if it has no
proper directions or guidelines to follow. Individuals and groups in an organization
get connected with each other through a communication phenomenon. Moreover, an
appropriate organizational structure can be determined as a result of a proper and
effective communication system (Mumby and Stohl, 1996).
 Lack of transparency as a barrier to effective HRM occurs when there is lack of
clear and detailed instructions and defined limits especially during changes or
integration in an organisation and can cause insecurity and paranoia in employees
which in turn impacts the organisations overall performance (Ghoshal and Tanure,
(2004)
.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Human Resources Management defined by Tocher and Rutherford (2009) as the set of
activities and functions aimed at developing and maintaining the labour structure of the

business organisations is a strategic tool that provides hope for combating the challenges
posed by the relentless driving forces for change Petrick and Furr,(1995). The global
competition and rapid technological change talent is becoming the most important resource
for any organisation Taipale, (2016). It follows then that any organisation’s success will
depend on its ability to manage its human capital i.e. acquire, maintain and develop talent
Taipale, (2016). The strategic role of HRM is stressed by (Becker and Huselid, 2006) that HR
function should be that of business partner in driving the success of the organisation by being
part of top hierarchy decision making to be effective. But the HR function is not attaining this
strategic ideal role because of barriers Dyer, (1996) that may to a large extent confine HR to
an administrative role.
The existing literature has been largely confined to HR function as an administrative role but
little empirical research has been carried out on the strategic role of the HR function for it to
be effective and the barriers to effective HRM are mostly strategic in nature. This research is
carried out using combined primary and secondary data. The primary data was obtained
through self-administered questionnaires and the secondary data library based using
textbooks and CIPD reports. The data will be synthesised and analysed in an endeavour to
bring out coherent discourse on the mentioned barriers, on their existence, how they can be
overcome and ascertain if they can be avoided.
Background to Research
Noon (1992) gives a deep chronology of the development of HRM status through age which
explores HRM with a broader lens which answers the question on whether it is a Map, a
model or a theory. According to Noon the USA Harvard version came into existence as a
modest map for 1981 MBA (Beer et al, 1984) this is supported by (Poole, 1990) at the launch
of the “International Journal of Human Resources Management” who described it as the most

familiar and influential road map to manage human capital within the fraternity of scholars
and business communities. The aim of the Harvard scholars was to develop a model which
availed a prescriptive agenda that enabled a descriptive analysis of managing human
resources which managers would find useful (Beer et al, 1984) On the other hand the UK
version whose foundation to a large extend is the Harvard model was tweaked and developed
by (Guest, 1989) into a theory which enabled testable propositions that would lead to a
cocktail of effective prescriptive policies in HRM. The resultant effect of is that to some
practitioners and academics HRM is a well grounded theory with practical implications but to
others it remains an uncertain and imprecise notion (Noon, 1992) which also leads to a barrier
within the minds of line managers who think it’s a passing fad. Supportive evidence is found
in (Armstrong, 1987) who gives an example of some organisations from a practitioners
perspective that have simply changed the name plaque on personnel managers door to read
human resources manager. (Sparrow, 1991) contributes to the discourse by giving a robust
example by pointing out that some illustrative organisations like Marks and Spencer in UK
have always utilised HRM type of policies but persist in describing the practice as personnel
management. It is evident from such diverse views that overall there is generally lack of
clarity as to what HRM is to both academic and practitioners which in turn is a basis of some
of the barriers in HRM as this discourse will elucidate on some barriers. Noon,(1992 p17)
noted the difference between the UK approach to HRM and the American whereby he
observed that some writers on the subject simply changed book titles from Personnel
management to HRM with minimal changes to content and yet the American approach is
more liberal and uses the titles interchangeably (Sisson,1990). What appears to be apparent in
the UK is that HRM is a fusion of such disciplines like Industrial Relations, Personnel
management and organisational behaviour (Sisson, 1990), whose confusing pedigree can be
traced back to organisational development in the seventies, (Iles and Johnston, 1989) which

emerged when NCR Corporation created a separate personnel department in 1890s (Legge,
1989, Springer and Springer, 1990).
There is need to establish on HRM as a theory the purpose being that element of a theory
have to exist and Noon, (1992) utilises the work of (Dubin, 1978, Cohen 1980 and
Bacharach, 1989) to support the elements of HRM as a theory. According to Noon, (1992) a
theory is comprised of units whose interaction enables researchers to put forward a
proposition of their relationship. It follows then that the propositions can be conceptualised as
abstracts but must be represented by variables at empirical or observable level with
boundaries by known values through epistemological reasoning. According to the Harvard
map HRM can be measured through the four Cs (commitment, competence, congruence and
cost effectiveness) which come from Management policies Noon, (1992).
The main drivers of the ever accelerating change in the business terrain are globalisation,
technological advancement and the use of artificial knowledge. The rate of acceleration in
changes due to technological advancement will keep accelerating and with it brings change.
Globalisation has turned the world into a global village and it has opened all markets, which
also means access to resources especially scarce ones like talent through ease in mobility.
This phenomenon has increased the war for talent fiercer whereby every organisation can tap
into the global talent pool. Although existing research acknowledges barriers to effective
HRM to research very little empirical research has been done to shade light and give
knowledge on the mutual factors inherent in the barriers.

Literature Review
The existing literature has identified some of the ten most common barriers to effective HRM
and they are strategic in nature. This review will mention the barrier and then look at the
literature and sources of relevant information establish its reliability, validity authenticity and
currency. Use of current surveys undertaken by CIPD and statistics on the state of the Labour
market from the Office of National Statistics as well as primary data from interviews by the
writer will be used in this research.
The first strategic barrier is “Management system response” Voehl, (1995). This argument
is supported by Petrick and Furr (1995) who stated that differences in priorities by
management over their attitude in foregoing power, perks and investors risk of losing
financial returns in the short term in pursuance of investing in effective HRM for customer
satisfaction and increased market share.
The Second barrier is the “Educational system response” this is related to resistance to
HRM by senior management and this calls for HR professionals to have extensive business
acumen and the education system may equip senior functional managers with the necessary
knowledge.
Specialisation barrier
The writers tutor chronicled an example of his life experience while working as Personnel
Officer at Lucas Diesel Systems Officer and the welfare officer tasked an ex-social worker
with the recruitment of engineering graduates without any requisite of both HR education and
experience. The task was a disaster which resonated for years after with engineers from the

company rubbishing HR as an ineffective and incompetent department due to the fact that
The Personnel Manager had assigned the ex-welfare officer a task which was way above her
head.
This is supported by (Luc Galoppin, March 20, 2008 ) who pointed out that HR is a favourite
scapegoat in almost every organisation throughout the globe because they are perceived to be
adding value to product or service because they have got a clue about what “value-chain” is.
HR specialist staff whose remit is staffing, compensation and benefits, training and
development may resist to roped into doing any other duties that deviate from this narrow
specific remit. Specialisation gives professional status too many individuals in the HR field
and for them to give up some of these functions to line and team managers and employees
and take up training for new roles may cause them psychological discomfort. This is
supported by Kochan and Osterman (1994) (in their "Mutual Gains" model), and even more
explicitly by Pfeffer (1994). On the other hand the educational system can address this barrier
by providing training and development so that they are enabled to confidently take new roles.
Specialisation barrier number 2 some Hr specialists will resist by saying that continuous
improvement and participation is already in place so any other change towards quality
assurance is not necessary. This being true though the change is necessitated by the fact that
in most organisation cross functional system improvements rarely exist. The social system
will overcome this barrier by attaching attractive reward system to any broadening of roles by
to HR staff.
Structural barrier 1/ Management systems Response: a high level of divisionalization in
an organisation has the problem of creating group or department affiliation as opposed to
identifying with the organisation. This is addressed by interdepartmental, interdisciplinary