Overcoming HRM Barriers: A Strategic Approach to Effective Management

This report explores the barriers to effective Human Resources Management (HRM) and strategies to overcome them. It identifies key challenges such as specialization, ineffective line management, lack of strategic HR development, insufficient concrete actions, wrong actions, poor communication, and lack of transparency. The research aims to identify the main driving and dependent barriers, understand their interactions, and highlight their impact on organizational performance. The report draws upon both primary and secondary data, including questionnaires, textbooks, and CIPD reports, to provide a comprehensive analysis of these barriers and offer practical solutions for organizations seeking to enhance their HRM effectiveness. Desklib provides resources to help students understand HRM concepts.

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

and system wide collaboration in problem solving and management can put in place well-
coordinated cross functional engagement within the armpit of operational strategic planning.
This is supported by Santos- Vijande and Alvarez- Gonzalez (2007) 93 ISO 9000 certified
firms (manufacturing and service) in Spain Structural equation modelling there is a
significant positive relationship between HRM and administrative innovation
Structural barrier 2/ Hierarchy Inertia which means people who have power in I pyramid
type of structure will resist the idea of embracing change to effective HRM because they will
have to forego some of that power. Any Hr professional who subscribes to the quality ideal
accept it as an inevitable operational condition to accept a flatter organisation which is
technically linked. This is evidence by Kotter (1996) who argues that, as successful
organizations mature, their people become change averse. When they are required to
implement transformational rather than incremental change to meet the challenge of new and
increasingly global competition, they find it highly problematic.
Structural barrier 3: most organisations have a system whereby the compensation system is
attuned to individual performance. What this means is that there is no prevalent gains sharing
and profit sharing and this becomes a good excuse for management to avoid changing the
system and embrace quality work system. One way of addressing this is to restructure the
reward system to include a broader range.
Linguistic Barrier 1 In a system where effectiveness is advocated at every level it works
well by supporting uniformity and steers away from variation by using statistical process
control. Such a system is shunned by individuals who have an inclination towards innovation
and creativity. However the quality system addresses positive variations that focus on desired
outcomes this means that those individuals who are creative and innovative are not put in a
box but the quality system goes a mile further by controlling unacceptable variations.

Linguistic barrier 2: where a system is based on the quality control system there is an
inclination for resistance because it is regarded as an intrusion that limits individual work
style. The quality system addresses this barrier by allowing workers to identify and do what
is required to make the organisation successful as opposed to doing what top management
requires them to do in other words workers are empowered
Operational Barrier: It is a common thing for HR staff to resist the quality approach
because they may feel that there is not enough time to carry out their work and work on job
improvement simultaneously. But this is the way to quality assurance to be able to do the
work as well as improve on the way it should be done. HR Management need to have it
impressed upon them that once they start thinking statistically quality in HR improved and
can easily manage because it prevents the from overreacting by thinking that all variations
emanate from some special causes.
Attitude: Workers may just regard movement towards quality as a passing fad which will not
work because it focusses towards internal operations when it is supposed to focus on the
external environment and output. Supporting evidence is found in Samson and Terziovskib
(1999). As a result, there is now widespread disillusionment with HRQM, and many are
saying that `the bubble has burst'.
The study by Martinez- Costa and Martinez- Lorente (2008) 451 manufacturing and non-
manufacturing firms in Spain Structural equation modelling QM has a positive impact on
product and process innovation and on the company performance.
First strategic barrier is management system response.
Common sense dictates that we start at the Top i.e. deal with management as a barrier discuss
its impact and suggest solutions to this.

CIPD 2014 research revealed that £3.2 billion is spent on training managers in Britain alone
but 72% business organizations report a deficit in the management and leadership skills.
Effectiveness in leadership is manifested in the quality of leadership and the success of the
organisations they lead. Fast paced technological change in the onslaught of global
competition talent has become a key resource of any organisation. It follows that an
organisations success is directly linked to its ability to manage its human capital. CIPD
research shows that the need for leadership has changed following the global shifts in the
ways we work today. While organisations are seen to be better at understanding leadership at
the highest levels in the hierarchy, many are now seeking to devolve leadership down the
line, expecting more junior managers and employees without managerial responsibility to
treat the organisational agenda as their own. The barriers to quality leadership and
effectiveness stems from the challenges that leadership in organisations face nowadays
especially the thrust that many organisations are moving towards a flatter type of people
management ( Hamel, 2016) and this devolution presents a challenge to leaders used to a
spikey hierarchical leadership. CIPD, (2014) exploring the systemic barriers to leadership,
identified four groups of challenges present in some organisations today.
Where HR has a deficit in business related competencies it becomes hard if not impossible to
synchronise HR activities with those of the business (Heehan 2005). The corrective measure
to be taken in order to enable HR to give meaningful strategic contribution must familiarise
with the business organisations activities. It is suggested here that work rotation for HRM
top professionals with those from others units is encouraged. When HR is unable to measure
and carry out effective and comprehensive analysis of what their contribution has achieved
towards the organisations performance it often attracts lack of respect and commitment from
top management because in the world of top management data driven decision-making has
primacy over intangible analysis. According to (Khan,2014) one way of overcoming this

barrier is to make sure the positive results that come as a result of effective HR function, is to
make sure that effective communication of such positive results to the organisation is carried
out. On the other hand (Beer, 1997) pointed out another danger of HR personnel getting
engrossed in basic operational problems and are left with not enough time to formulate new
strategies to drive the business forward the resultant effect is that strategic HR planning may
not be effected correctly or not even be implemented at all. Although (Lawler and Morhman,
2003) agree with (Beer, 1997) view but they argue that a solution to this issue can be
achieved by outsourcing non- strategic operations and efficient utilisation of IT systems.
However (Ulrich, 1977) puts forward a strong argument that HR must confine or concentrate
on an operational role rather than allow HR department to be used as a landfill to line
management problems.
One would have thought that having an HR manager as part of the spearheading committee
would mean involvement of HR in the decision making but (Beer, 1997) observed that this
move would just mean HR was involved but does not warrant HR strategic involvement. The
main reason put forward for this was is that this is attributed to HR mangers lack of business
acumen. It is a fact that most HR personnel are drawn from many different back grounds but
a common factor is that they lack strategic management exposure, and according to
(Beer,1997) this leads to their failure to play a quality and effective strategical role. (Lawler
III and Morhman, 2003) supports this by saying that Corporate strategy matters are regarded
as complex and overwhelming and may not be easily understood by HR personnel who may
have had no exposure to them. On the other hand (Beer, 1997) goes on to mention that the
CEO deficit in understanding HRM may be a barrier to achieving effective quality to the
HRM function in the organisation because the CEO may give passive resistance to
implementation of HR recommendations. One factor that also is a barrier to HRM quality
effectiveness is that HRM may revert to the old school in measuring HRM success and value