This document summarizes and compares four models of human resource management (HRM): 1. The Fombrun, Tichy & Devanna model emphasizes the interrelatedness of HRM activities, organizational strategy and structure. It defines three levels of managerial work and argues HR systems should align with organizational strategy. 2. The Harvard model views employees as human resources with their own needs. It outlines four HR policy areas and their relationship to organizational commitment, congruence, competence and cost effectiveness. 3. Guest's model defines HRM in terms of six dimensions: strategy, practices, outcomes, and their relationship to behavior, performance and financial results. It positions HRM as strategic rather than traditional

1. HRM Models
1. Fombrun, Tichy & Devanna model
The Fomburn, Tichy and Devanna model of HRM: The early HRM model developed by
Fombrun (1984) emphasizes the interrelatedness and the coherence of human
resource management activities. He wrote that three core elements are necessary for
firms to function effectively:
• Mission and strategy
• Organization structure
• Human resource management
HRM cycle: selection, appraisal, development and rewards aim to increase organizational
performance
They defined strategy as a process through which the basic mission and objectives of the
organization are set, and a process through which the organization uses its resources to
achieve its objectives. They also made a distinction between the three levels of managerial
work:
• Strategic levels: policy formulation and overall goal setting
• Managerial levels: concerned with the availability and allocation of resources to carry out
the strategic plan.
• Operational levels: day-to-day management
But their most important conclusion was that the HR systems and organizational structures
should be managed in a way, which is congruent with organizational strategy.
This model, however, ignores the stakeholder interests, situational factors and notion of
strategic choice.

2. 2. Harvard model
Harvard Business School generated one of the most influential models of HRM. The Harvard
interpretation sees employees as resources. However, they are viewed as being fundamentally
different from other resources - they cannot be managed in the same way. The stress is on
people as human resources. The Harvard approach recognizes an element of mutuality in all
businesses, a concept with parallels in Japanese people management, as we observed earlier.
Employees are significant stakeholders in an organization. They have their own needs and
concerns along with other groups such as shareholders and customers.
The Harvard Map or model outlines four HR policy areas:
1 Human resource flows - recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal and
assessment, promotion, termination, etc.
2 Reward systems - pay systems, motivation, etc.
3 Employee influence - delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power
4 Work systems - definition/design of work and alignment of people.
Which in turn lead to the 'four C's' or HR policies that have to be achieved:
• Commitment
• Congruence
• Competence
• Cost effectiveness

3. 3. Guest model
David Guest's (1989, 1997) model of HRM has 6 dimensions of analysis:
• HRM strategy
• HRM practices
• HRM outcomes
• Behaviour outcomes
• Performance outcomes
• Financial outcomes
The model is prescriptive in the sense that it is based on the assumption that HRM is
distinctively different from traditional personnel management (rooted in strategic management,
etc.).
It is idealistic, implicitly embodying the belief that fundamental elements of the HRM approach
(essentially those of the Harvard map) such as commitment have a direct relationship with
valued business consequences
However, Guest has acknowledged that the concept of commitment is 'messy' and that the
relationship between commitment and high performance is (or, perhaps, was - given the age of
this material) difficult to establish. It also employs a 'flow' approach, seeing strategy
underpinning practice, leading to a variety of desired outcomes.
As defined by this model, HRM differs from personnel management in the following ways:

4. To summarize:
4. Warwick
This model extends the Harvard framework. It maps the connections between the outer and
inner contexts and explores how HRM adapts to changes in context.