Strategic human resource management concentrates on company functionality as opposed to personal efficiency. It likewise focuses on the function of HR management systems, perceived as remedies to organizational problems instead of autonomous individual HR management procedures. The most basic interpretation of the SHRM model is a connection between an organization's HR architecture and organizational functionality (Gerhart, 2005). The HR architecture is made up of the systems, procedures, expertise, and staff efficiency conduct that indicate the progress and administration of the organization's strategic human capital. An organizational efficiency that goes above average in terms of the HR architecture displays the quasi rents connected with that strategic resource (Becker & Huselid, 2006).
Becker & Huselid (2006) suggest that strategy implementation lacks its due importance within the current SHRM. They maintain that a new focus on strategy implementation as the central mediating notion in SHRM should be placed. In this context, the notion of “black box” represents the strategic reasoning involving an organization's HR architecture as well as its following efficiency. How does the reasoning of this “black box” reveal HR’s assistance to an organization's continual competitive edge? Particularly, Becker & Huselid (2006) claim that it is the match involving the HR architecture along with the strategic functionality, and business procedures that put strategy into action that serve as the foundation of HR’s assistance to the competitive edge. The challenge is that this should call for an enhancing degree of differentiation of the HR architecture equally inside a particular organization and among a number of companies (Lepak & Snell, 2002) .
Becker & Huselid (2006) emphasize the necessity for innovative measurements of intermediate outcomes and also the significance of evaluating HR’s influence in managerially essential terms. Even though there are a number of exceptions (for example, Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2005; Wright et al., 2005), basically there have been minor attempts to expand SHRM principles somehow to formally incorporate the procedure whereby the HR architecture genuinely has an effect on an organization's performance. For instance, Gerhart (2005) proposed that SHRM should shift nearer to the personal level by concentrating on HR’s influence on staff interaction and thought patterns.
The major emphasis on the nature of the HR architecture is the typical safe place for HR scholars. On the other hand, in order to move forward, there is a demand for additional theoretical effort on the “black box” involving the HR architecture as well as an organizational performance, and less focus on the “black box” inside the HR architecture (Becker & Huselid, 2006).
The resource-based view (RBV) of the organization has long offered a primary theoretical reasoning for HR’s prospective function as a strategic resource in the organization (Wright & McMahan, 1992). The concept that firms can develop a competitive edge, and consequently above-average business results, determined by beneficial and inimitable inside assets, provides a suitable explanation for HR’s strategic significance. The connection between the HR architecture with the majority of RBV notions continues to be overly abstract and oblique to direct either empirical efforts relating to the “black box” in SHRM or management application (Becker & Huselid, 2006). RBV advocates currently acknowledge that the potential to apply strategies is, on its own, an asset that could be a foundation for a competitive edge (Barney, 2001)
Which intermediate outcomes could be utilized to indicate strategy implementation? The solution could be strategic business procedures. Becker & Huselid (2006) claim that SHRM principles need to be expanded in order to give attention to successful strategy execution, as the major mediating variable, which connects the HR architecture and an organization's performance. This sort of emphasis on strategy enactment appears to be operationalized and specified by concentration on strategic functionality as well as activity systems mirrored in strategic business procedures. The term ‘strategic’ is stressed here, since not all business procedures can possess equal importance. Strategic value demands that these business procedures should be a source, possibly the only basis of the importance that consumers look for in the organization's services or goods.
Zajac et al. (2000), maintain that scholars need to generate normative statements with regards to what firms should do, as opposed to descriptive assertions related to what they did accomplish. Finally, firms that produce a good reputation for efficient diversity management within SHRM have the ability to bring in competent and gifted personnel from all social communities (Hartel, 2004) and this is extremely important in contemporary multicultural labour market.