Control, as customary, is seen on the side of management. Employees, however, can have a grip of this control (for instance, in the salary they are receiving) if they have strong union to course the whines to the top management, by their mere behaviour at work, and the performance per se. When employees do not seem to understand and agree with management’s objectives or whenever they feel so low of themselves, misbehaviours such as time wasting, absenteeism, diminishing quality and productivity, and sabotage are likely to occur in the workplace.
Misbehaviour is a social thing in response to a stimulus. In this concern, management’s act is the stimulus which may or may not cause these misbehaviours to occur. Thus, these changes in employees cause the top management’s principle to become malleable in order to adapt to the scenario. This relationship, indeed, is a two-way process. Commitment to the organization is never easily attained as the human and natural tendencies to protect the self interests prevail (Edwards, 2003).
A focus on firm-level issues related to managing people is typical of a SHRM research. The behavioral perspective, as espoused by Jackson et al (1989) and Schuler and Jackson (1987) is among the popular theoretical models used in the SHRM literature. This focuses on employee behavior as the mediator between strategy and firm performance. This entails that corporate strategy is determined largely by the behavior of the people that comprises the firm itself.
It assumes that the purpose of various HRM practices is to elicit and control employee attitudes and behaviors. This means that, in the context of SHRM, these differences in role behaviors required by the organization’s strategy require different HRM practices to elicit and reinforce those behaviors. All in all, there are three implications of behavioral perspective.
There are: first, that this theory is quite specific in relation to the hypothesized role behaviors required by different strategies; second, that studies should focus on the types of HRM practices, which are effective in eliciting these role behaviors, and; third, that the assumption of the behavioral perspective is that strategies lead to HRM practices that elicit employee role behaviors that lead to a number of outcomes that provide benefits to the firm. Due to the fact that HRM practices comprise the principal methods used to regulate performance, in totality, they actually manifest control (Schuler & Jackson, 1987).
Any process that helps align the actions of individuals with the interests of their employing firm is referred to as control (Tannenbaum, 1968). A variety of typologies have been devised largely to determine and differentiate the control systems (Eisenhardt, 1985; Govindarajan and Fisher, 1990; Ouchi, 1980; Tannenbaum, 1968). The work of Snell (1992) and Snell and Youndt (1995) focused exclusively on bureaucratic mechanisms. This focus restricted the attention to formal HRM practices such as staffing, training, performance appraisal, and rewards.