TRIARCHIC MODEL OF HRM

There are several perspectives in existence to explain the nature, purpose and underlying assumptions of HRM. These perspectives include

(i)   Performance based HRM driven by American practices,

(ii)   Relationship based HRM supported by new generation practitioners,

(iii) Learning oriented HRM promoted by academicians,

(iv)  Strategic HRM driven by economic models,

(v)   Reactive and proactive HRM models originated from industrial relations school etc.

All these perspectives have contributed for understanding of HRM as a systematic body of knowledge. However, each one of these provides only a singular view of HRM. Thomas Garavan, Patrick Gunnigle and Michael Morley from University of Limerick proposed a comprehensive view of HRM by integrating all the perspectives of HRD in a meaningful manner.

Top management in conjunction with HRM manager must determine the type of HRM model to be adopted in the organization. Usually organizations are not clear about the model they are pursuing. Sometimes, their HRM practices and principles do not function in an integrated manner and may be conflicting. Similarly, evaluation model does not function smoothly with the type of HRM model being executed. For example, evaluating effectiveness of capability driven HRM practices through Psychological contract or learning organization evaluation models disturbs the organizations. Therefore, organizations must adopt HRM model consciously that matches it most, on the basis of its internal and external environment enveloping nature, dominant culture, kind of human resource, type of technology, range of products and variety of customers. The supportive and compatible practices, implementation and evaluation methods in tune with HRM model must be chosen.