An employment contract can not cover all aspects of the employer, employee relationship (Truss, et al., 2012). It can only specify what tasks are required by the employee and for what reimbursement. An employee handbook lays out a set of principles that are expected of an employee and in turn address the type of corporate environment it is attempting to create.

Contractual Rights, as an employee are different from Statutory Rights, and again are diverse from whether an employee is committed or engaged to an organisation. (Beardwell & Claydon, 2010) highlight Lagge’s (2005: 105-06) unitary theory that “communication, motivation and leadership” are crucial factors in generating commitment from employees. One of the key elements to HRM and SHRM is employee buy-in, it is not enough for an individual to be competent at their job, they must also contribute to the overall strategic goal. Dynamic, innovative etc. The employer, offers the employee the platform to accomplish this. I believe that is (as least one, if not a foundational piece of) the “cost” of an employee employer relationship.

HRM may set the parameters of how an organisation recruits, retains and develops resources, but it must be in collaboration with Line managers. HRM do not manage other departments (they may steer them, but that is the breadth of their influence).

Would you agree or disagree that it is the corporate culture that dictates the style of Line management, encouraged by a reactive (instead of proactive) HRM, with poor resource planning and engagement approaches?