Allereerst verkent dit artikel het begrip human resource management en wordt vraag de beantwoord wat de bouwstenen van het vak zijn. Daarna wordt kritisch ingegaan op HRMdenken vanuit een complexiteitsbenadering. Vervolgens worden zeven perspectieven geschetst om naar HRM en met name naar de interactie tussen mensen in organisaties te kijken.
In the emerging sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) literature, advocating to ‘rehumanize’ and pluralize HRM, dialogue is put forward as a silver bullet to cope with paradoxical tensions and pluralist workforces. This conceptual paper aims to add to the sustainable HRM literature by examining the position and application of dialogue within sustainable HRM, using ideas and concepts from dialogue literature and complexity thinking. We applied core concepts of complexity thinking (i.e., self-organization, nonlinearity, attractors, and emergence) to deepen our understanding of the positioning of dialogue, the position of power, and the emergence of intended and unintended outcomes. Moreover, through the distinction between intentional and continuous dialogue, the intentional, dynamic, and emergent nature of dialogue was explored. Connecting, sensing, grasping, and influencing the local patterning of continuous dialogue is important for positioning dialogue within sustainable HRM, and intentional dialogical practices can support this. More specifically, based on our literature review, we present a conceptual model that furthers our understanding of (1) conceptualizations of dialogue as both intended and continuous; (2) the role of power in dialogue; (3) how stability and novelty emerge from dialogue. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the developed perspectives on dialogue for future research as well as management practices.
A qualitative study of HRM programmes in eight different organizations was set up in order to identify factors, called implementability levers, that contributed to the implementability of those programmes. Three types of those levers were found, related to, respectively, the proces of the programme implementation (example: the involvement of line managers in the programme development), the content of the programme (example: the adaptibility of the programme) and the programme’s context (example: the accessibility of the HRM department for involved line managers). Levers in each of the categories appeared to have, as regards their impact on the programme’s implementability, a bright as well as a dark side: they tended to promote, in some specific way, as well as to hamper, in another specific way, the implementation of programmes. Taking care of programme implementability thus shows up as a doable, but puzzling, change management-like task of HR managers.
