An updated typology

“In the beginning, we kept the arbitrary model which characterises what generally happens in small companies. This remains very informal without any real criteria, with people they know or close friends or family being hired, training on the job and random assessment”, the author asserts. This adjective was a problem because it had too many connotations. Consequently, it was replaced in the new edition with ‘discretionary’, which relates to the idea that human resources management is the responsibility of a single person.

Another example: bureaucratic organisations have become mechanistic. While the initial idea was to associate them with a series of rules and procedures, some people, “including engineers”, were offended because, once again, there was a negative connotation associated with it.

For François Pichault, these adaptations are far from being simply cosmetic. “We have to avoid words that provoke a negative reaction and, above all, any ambiguities.”

Apart from that, in addition to the two existing theories (the first one is considered contingent, i.e. it explains HRM in relation to certain contextual elements such as the size of the company, the type of market in which it operates; the second one is more political and is linked to the balance of power between, for instance, the director, the shareholders, the union leaders, the managers who resist, etc.), there is a third one: conventions. “An example that is easy to understand”, François Pichault explains, “is that of a new employee who arrives delighted in a company; they sign their contract on the first day and realise that they aren’t aware of a number of codes, such as what time work finishes. At 5 o’clock, they look around and see that everyone is still busy and that the car park is still full. Therefore, they stay at the office.”

In this case, the individual is looking for reference points, called conventions, which are more or less formalised, and more or less explicit. In fact, the more individuals comply with the convention, the more it will determine their behaviour: “it becomes a basis.” This theory of conventions sheds new light on human resources management.

Good practices, an inadequate expression

Taking the best in terms of human resources management to apply it to its own structure is obviously very tempting. Nevertheless, this mainstream view isn’t correct. In the literature on the subject, there are dozens of lists of universally applicable good practices and some of them are contradictory. “It is clear that there isn’t even any substance to good practices in this area and that in the end, every author has their own view of things."

Indeed, this idea of good practices relates to the belief that there is only one way to organise human resources management. “And it is exactly this that we are fighting against. Instead, we recommend that SME with five employees shouldn’t commit to useless job descriptions, formalised interviews, salary scales, etc. It has no meaning. On the other hand, if the SME is growing and 200 or 250 people end up working there, then the issue may be raised.”

The book by François Pichault and Jean Nizet covers this whole range of possibilities.