HRM as Hologram: A Polemic

Journal of Management Studies 36:1 January 1999 0022-2380 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC* TOM KEENOY The Management Centre, King's College, London ABSTRACT The polemical argument developed in this paper is an attempt to analyse the `problem' of HRM and suggest a way forward. The `problem' is identi®ed in terms of the intrinsic conceptual-theoretic, empirical, representative and institutional ambiguities which characterize the discourses and practices of HRM. It is argued that these stem from the epistemological limitations of modernist methodologies employed to `identify' and `®x' HRM. The proposed `solution' involves visualizing the phenomenal forms taken by HRM through the metaphor of the hologram and re-understanding HRM from a holographic perspective. This permits the well-known `contradictions' to dissolve and HRM is reconstituted as a complex holistic process refracting the politico-managerial changes attendant on `globalization'. INTRODUCTION `With our thoughts we make the world.' (Buddha) Since David Guest's (1987) repackaging of the US HRM literature for a reluctant and suspicious British audience, the concepts, practices and what some, carelessly, call the theory of HRM have been a continuing source of controversy, confusion and misapprehension. At the centre of this unfolding obfuscation lies an infuriating but curious paradox: despite mounting evidence of conceptual fragmentation, empirical incoherence and theoretical vacuity, HRMism[1] has gone from strength to strength. In short, the more researchers have undermined the normative, prescriptive and descriptive integrity of HRMism (e.g. Legge, 1995a, b; Storey, 1995a), the stronger it gets. Either it feeds on its own inadequacies, ambiguities and seemingly contradictory forms or we, the academics, are failing to grasp what it is and how it has evolved within the contemporary organizational, political and socio-economic landscapes.[2] The question that arises from this paradox is: what is it about the `entitiness' or the `facticity' of HRM which, at some level, gives it an identity, a coherence and a meaning which we, the academics, cannot see? What have we been missing? It will be argued that we can address this problem by `re-imagining' HRMism through the metaphor of the hologram ± as a ¯uid, multi-faceted and intrinsically Address for reprints: Tom Keenoy, The Management Centre, King's College, Campden Hill Road, Kensington, London W8 7AH, UK. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 2 TOM KEENOY ambiguous phenomenon. The argument is polemical in three respects. First, in order to avoid over-complicating the narrative, no attempt is made to review all the relevant literature. Secondly, much of the introductory argumentation proceeds by assertion. Thirdly, since the objective is to take the debate beyond essentialist de®nitions and modernist dualisms (e.g. personnel±HRM; rhetoric± reality; hard±soft HRM) which have dominated the construction of HRMism to date, the argument is necessarily partial and inevitably `rhetorical' (see Hamilton, 1997; Kamoche, 1995; Watson, 1994, 1995). In this respect, it is reliant on being persuasive `at the level of meaning' (Weber, 1949) for ± and this is the ®rst rhetorical device ± its validity depends on `being perceived'. If the argument does not resonate with the readers' experience of HRM, it will not work. HRM AS SOCIO-CULTURAL ARTEFACT It is appropriate to open the substantive analysis with `what we all take for granted' about HRMism. Ideologically, it has been projected as the alternative to pluralistic employee relations. And, both as a range of normative±descriptive discourses about how employees ought to be managed and as a variety of social practices designed to engage or re-engage employees in the organization (or, sometimes, disengage them from the organization), HRMism has been directed at the daily routines of people management, employment regulation and ± generically ± re-engineering work organization (Beardwell and Holden, 1997; Beer et al., 1985; Fombrum et al., 1984; Tichy et al., 1982; Towers, 1992). Predictably, its practical impact on employees has been enormously varied re¯ecting situational constraints, di€ering managerial interpretations and variations in the patterns of employee attitudinal and behavioural compliance (Legge, 1995a; Storey, 1989, 1992, 1995a). However, as with previous attempts to e€ect a better or more ecient `®t' between organizational and employee objectives ± such as Taylorism, human relations, the QWL and OD movements ± the creation of HRM as an operational facticity has been routinely associated with attempts to e€ect a signi®cant change in the organizational `ideo-culture'.[3] At a minimum ± no matter how employees experience HRM-type initiatives ± organizational meanings and the language used to reconstruct and re-present work organization and the employment relationship undergo a virtual transformation. Moreover, since contemporary managerial rhetorics usually insist the organization is launched on a perilous journey in a hostile environment (Dunn, 1990), the promise o€ered by HRMism is, invariably, in the future. Thus, not infrequently, the full implementation of the projected `employee-friendly' practices remains contingent on overcoming real, alleged or imagined external threats. As ever in social practice, outcomes are contingent; and there is an inevitable distance between the espoused `rhetoric' and the experienced `reality'. More generally, HRMism is a phenomenon which has been constituted and enacted by signi®cant social actors[4] ± including managers, employees, unions, politicians, consultants, academics and publishers ± all apparently intent on e€ecting changes in employment-related behaviours. As such, HRMism may be regarded as a socio-cultural artefact implicated in the `management of meaning' # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 3 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC (Gowler and Legge, 1983; Guest, 1990; Keenoy and Anthony, 1992; and, for a managerialist account, Peters and Waterman, 1982) against a socio-economic context in which there is increasing concern with the `e€ective' utilization of human resources (Boxall, 1996; Huselid, 1995). So much, perhaps, for the probable consensus on the general parameters of HRMism. But what is the nature of this artefact? THE IDENTITY OF HRM: FOUR SOURCES OF INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY Despite a powerful almost liturgical image, it has proved impossible to `®x' or `identify' HRM with any degree of con®dence. There appear to be four major interrelated reasons for this: a failure to agree upon what the term means; an inability to demonstrate that `HRM' has spread through British work organizations; serious diculties in establishing e€ective linguistic categories to describe what has been happening `under HRM'; and a perhaps transformative change in the `institutional locations' on which HRM is practised. These sources of intrinsic ambiguity merit brief elaboration. Conceptual±Theoretic Elision From the outset (Guest, 1987; Storey, 1987), discussion of HRMism in Britain has been bedevilled by the `brilliant ambiguity' of the term itself. Noon (1992), in an elegant attempt to explore the intellectual and ontological status of HRM, asked: `Is it a map, a model or a theory?' Utilizing a conventional transcendental realist epistemology (Chia, 1996) ± which assumes that reality exists independently of human observation and evaluates `theory' in terms of parsimony, logical coherence, falsi®ability and consistency with empirical data ± Noon's extensive analysis became increasingly frustrated by the confusions and contradictions evident in the academic discourse(s) of HRMism. Although, following Beer et al. (1985), he concluded that, at best, HRM should be seen as no more than a route map through the `territory of people management', his wry comment about the plausibility of the alleged transformative properties of HRM is instructive: `We may want the world to be ¯at, but it is round, has been repeatedly proven so, and it would be a brave theorist who would announce otherwise' (Noon, 1992, p. 24). The implication is that the discourses of HRMism portray an illusory world, a veritable `fantasy of the real' (du Gay, 1991). So, it appears that HRMism does not even encompass a set of coherent managerial practices; it is merely a map of what has turned out to be an everexpanding territory. Indeed, despite claims that HRM is a distinctive form of practice, in common usage, we seem to have reached a position where virtually anything to do with managing the employment relationship and the labour resource has come to be identi®ed as `HRM'.[5] Unsurprisingly, in such a context, there has been continuing confusion about the conceptual-theoretic identity of HRM. Leaving aside the suggestion that it is merely re-imaged personnel management, HRM has been projected as an adjunct to theories of strategic management, a theory of competitive advantage, a theory of general management, an alternative to pluralist personnel management, a novel form of people management associated with new forms of production-control # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 4 TOM KEENOY and/or manufacturing systems, and as a euphemism for `culture' change programmes. (And, in addition to these various identities, there are supplementary cultural variations: `Japanese' HRM, `East European' HRM and the European `model' or models of HRM.) Indeed, in its `hardest' form to date, HRM can even be portrayed as an element of business process re-engineering (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Legge (1995a) sought to overcome this confusion by di€erentiating between normative, descriptive, critical and behavioural `models' of HRM. However, it is signi®cant that, in her analytical deconstruction of HRMism, she chose not to pursue these distinctions but collapsed them into `rhetoric' and `reality'. In contrast, Storey (1995b) is only able to establish and defend his idea of the `identity' of HRM through a process of conceptual elision. Thus, building on his extensive empirical analyses and determined to avoid `abstract models', he de®nes HRM as: a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques. (Storey, 1995b, p. 5) While this is a descriptive-normative de®nition, it can also be read as a vivid ideogram which encapsulates the essentialist nature and normative aspiration which has characterized HRMism since it arrived in Britain, apparently fully formed (cf. Beaumont, 1993; Guest, 1987). Indeed, Storey goes on to describe his de®nition as an `idealized model' before advancing a series of alternative or supplementary conceptions. At some points, his `data' lead him to suggest that maybe HRM is `simply an elegant theory which has no basis in reality' or that, perhaps, `in reality', HRM might be a `symbolic label' for managerial opportunism. Subsequently, he retreats to the security (and ambiguity) of `HRM-style approaches' and provides examples of change which demonstrate `the HRM thesis' (although this thesis remains unspeci®ed). These various `identities' are further compromised by the `fact that HRM has . . . ``hard'' as well as ``soft'' dimensions'. At one level, Storey's chameleon-like conceptual-theoretic shifts re¯ect no more than the familiar stubborn refusal of the `empirical world' to meet our nominal preconceptions. However, more importantly, his various conceptions are all `representative' of what the term HRMism has been used to signify over the last ten years. Albeit unre¯ectively, what Storey's narrative seems to indicate is that the only way to sustain the facticity of HRMism is to adjust the meaning of the term to ensure it ®ts a variety of situational conditions (see also and compare Guest, 1987, 1995). At a deeper level, this continuous process of conceptual-theoretic elision is necessary to sustain the modernist construction of HRM. Without it, it would be impossible to `manage' the permanent tension and ambiguity between the `peopleoriented'±`soft'±humanistic±Harvard School conception of HRMism and the `market-oriented'±`hard'±instrumental±Michigan School conception of HRMism. As illustrated by Storey's de®nition above, the `dominant' discourse within HRMism collapses/integrates these apparently distinctive approaches. However, # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 5 when it comes to `empirical veri®cation', the integrity of HRMism can only be sustained by splitting them up again, modernist fashion, into `hard' and `soft' forms or dimensions. It is little wonder that HRMism is littered with contradictions; and no surprise that we cannot `identify' HRM ± `it' appears to be comprised of multiple, shifting, competing and, more often than not, contingent `identities'. Conceptual-theoretic ambiguity seems intrinsic to HRM. Empirical Elusiveness Given the absence of a coherent conceptual-theoretic de®nition, it is predictable that the distinctive empirical forms taken by HRM have also proved extremely dicult to isolate and identify clearly. Initially, their discursive identity and ontology was constructed by allusion to the archetypal `traditional' HRM companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard. Such companies had enormous appeal for they `proved' that an organization could compete very successfully at the highest level while at the same time not only share the rewards with their sta€ but also `genuinely' treat them as `valued resources'. In e€ect, they became icons of the potential future promised by the discourse(s) of HRMism. In particular ± given the political agenda which accompanied the enterprise initiative ± they demonstrated how to manage without unions and `living proof' that the unitary shibboleth was achievable. Their distinctiveness lay in non-unionism, personalized and individualized employer±employee relations and `strong' ideo-cultures. But, what `evidence' is there that such HR models have been adopted throughout British work organizations? The empirical pursuit of HRM has provided evidence of continuity, change and occasional novelty but, paradoxically, little that resembles the dominant `soft' image of HRMism. Several commentators (Guest, 1995; Sisson, 1993) have pointed out that, in so far as it is possible to identify clear examples of `real HRM', they are most likely to be found in foreign-owned enterprises and, among these, it is primarily found in high-tech companies operating in very tight labour markets. Otherwise, it seems that `strategic HRM' is extremely hard to ®nd; is likely to be driven by short-termism and management accountancy values rather than developmental humanism (Armstrong, 1989, 1995; Sisson, 1995) or ± at worst ± may not even be possible at all (Legge, 1995a). In the most focused analyses of the HR-strategy debate, Purcell (1989, 1995) and others (Miller, 1987; Stace and Dunphy, 1991) have demonstrated the analytical naivete of HR considerations driving corporate strategy. As is now well known, HR issues are, at best, merely a third-order consideration. If involved at all, personnel may implement business policy decisions although `the ideals of HRM' appear `unobtainable' (Purcell, 1995, p. 81) and `HRM seems to have little or no impact' (Sisson, 1995, p. 105) on personnel practice. Aside from the growth of low-paid, part-time and insecure employment, it is perhaps in the area of work organization that we have seen the greatest changes in `HRM' practice. Corporate restructuring, ®nancial constraint and increasing competition have all contributed to: the drive for various forms of employee `¯exibility'; the expansion of JIT/TQM programmes; a greater emphasis on managerial communications; teamwork, empowerment and employee participation initiatives; customer-care programmes; `culture-change' programmes; and organizational `re-engineering'. On the basis of the most exhaustive evaluation of HRM# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 6 TOM KEENOY type practices yet to appear, Legge was drawn to conclude: What evidence we have is of a patchy implementation of practices designed to achieve ¯exibility, quality and commitment, often constrained by the contradictions inherent in enacting these slippery concepts, and motivated more by the opportunities a€orded by high levels of unemployment and the constraints of recession and enhanced competition, than by any long-term strategic considerations. (Legge, 1995b, p. 47) With respect to day-to-day employee relations, Guest's summary account identi®ed four general outcomes: the `new realism' of marginalized unions; traditional collectivism (mainly in the public sector); individualized HRM in large companies; and what he calls `the black hole of no industrial relations and no HRM' (1995, p. 127). This latter category refers to the widely recognized increasing adoption of `hard' cost minimization or `resource-based' (Boxall, 1996; Purcell, 1995) solutions and Guest is drawn to conclude that `soft' HRM has been overtaken by `hard' economic necessity. In contrast, Legge's analysis proceeds on the assumption that HRM has never been anything but `hard'. She concluded that `the ``soft'' normative model of HRM appears as a mirage, retreating into a receding horizon' (Legge, 1995a, p. 339). This is a memorable image: it not only suggests that `soft' HRM has always been an illusion, but it is one which is fading fast. For Legge, it would seem, HR policy and practice has been going in the opposite direction to that projected in the `rhetoric'. But it is more complex than this, for it is not that Guest and Legge did not `®nd' HRM-type initiatives ± far from it ± but they did not ®nd what they went looking for: the promise of employee-centred employment relations. In summary, the cumulative empirical evidence on HRMism hardly indicates that the potential con¯icts embedded in the employment relationship have been overcome through the reform of employee relations and work organization accompanied by a cultural makeover of the prevailing organizational norms and values. However, despite the powerful evidence of fundamental continuity, everything has changed (Blyton and Turnbull, 1994; Clark, 1998; Ezzamel et al., 1996) ± not least the linguistic construction of the employment relationship. Representation: The Language Problems The `language of HRMism' is the third source of persistent ambiguity in relation to the `entitiness' of HRM. Elsewhere, it has been argued that the historical context in which HRMism emerged engendered both `an ideological recon®guration of the employment relationship (viz. from a grounded, structured pluralistic relation to an ahistorical, astructural unitary relation) and a conceptual reenvisioning of work relations in which ``nothing has changed'' but everything will be perceived di€erently' (Keenoy, 1997, p. 836). The social processes through which this has been attempted ± and, to some degree, accomplished ± involved the construction of a range of `new' linguistic categories and a transmutation in the `received meaning' of existing terminology. For example, `new' terms include: excellence, ¯exibility, multi-skilling, right-sizing, quality, customer care and empowerment; terms which have been `mutating' include: integration, commitment, teamwork, participation and communication; PBR has become PRP and organizational design has been supplanted by BPR. Some of these terms are all # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 7 the more troublesome because, although they are used to describe particular practices or arrangements, conceptually, they denote rhetorical managerial aspirations (e.g. ¯exibility, teamwork or customer care) and desired states of being (e.g. empowerment, integration or commitment). Perhaps curiously, while it is extremely diclut to `measure' such ambiguous and amorphous concepts, it has proved relatively easy to dispute their presence. (See, for example, the debates about ¯exibility, empowerment and commitment.) Nevertheless, even if, structurally, `nothing has changed', the discursive iconography of HRMism signi®es that the character of the employment relationship and what is expected of employees is `di€erent'. This `purpose' may help to explain why the language employed to represent HRM has proved very dicult to `®x'. It is not only intrinsically ambiguous and unstable but the `real' problem seems to be that the situated meanings of the `old' language are dissolving while the implicated meanings of the `new' language have yet to emerge (see, for example, Sisson's, 1994, p. 15, sardonic translation of `new' concepts into `old' language). Some have attempted to stabilize these ¯uid, shifting `identities' by resorting to crudely fashioned binary `oppositional constructs'. These include: ¯exible±specialization, loose±tight structure, core±periphery workforce, rhetoric± reality and, of course, strong±weak and soft±hard HRM. As noted elsewhere, `thus it seems possible to capture a range of apparently disparate but related phenomenal forms, within a ``single'' but more amorphous (or ``fuzzy'') construct' (Keenoy, 1997, p. 837). In consequence, it has proved almost impossible to create stable and shared `normal science' categories to represent and investigate the `empirical realities' of HRMism. In consequence, HRM appears as a combination of illusion and allusion because we have no words with which to control its identity. Alternatively, we have no linguistic categories which are suciently robust to `®x' HRM and thus be able to `take-it-for-granted' (cf. the relatively embedded linguistic categories of personnel management or industrial relations). Institutional Locations The last source of ambiguity is the changing character of the institutional locations in which HRM is practised. Foremost amongst these is `the organization' itself. While claims that we are moving toward `postmodern' and `virtual organizations' (Cooper and Burrell, 1988; Hassard and Parker, 1993) might seem premature, the seemingly perpetual re-con®guration of contemporary `organizations'; the emergence of a signi®cant but volatile `small business sector' and the continued growth in `non-standard' forms of employment (Crompton et al., 1996) are all indicative of a process of massive if not transformative change. Such developments, combined with the creation of internal but ®nancially `independent' business units and the growth of `outsourcing', subcontracting and `downsizing' suggest that it is no longer possible (if it ever was) to identify the social artefact of `organization' with any conviction. Organizational `structures' and `boundaries' ± the touchstones of modernist organization theory ± seem more precarious than ever before. Even some of the most `concrete' locations ± such as the public sector (Ferner, 1988; Maily et al., 1989) and, more recently, the ®nancial services sector (Sparrow, 1996; Storey, 1995c) ± have seen their organizations dissipated. Similarly, the institution of `employee' appears under increasing threat. For individual employees at all levels, the notion of `employment security' is no longer # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 8 TOM KEENOY salient and the continuing growth in temporary, part-time, subcontract and agency work appears irresistible. In general, the latter trends are probably more signi®cant than the more well-publicized `abnormal' forms ± such as high-tech homeworking and `net-working' (Brocklehurst, 1998; Felsted and Jewson, 1996; Stanworth, 1996). Just as these changing forms of the employment relationship impact upon individual identity (and commitments), so too other features of this institutional location are becoming more individualized and, perhaps, fragile. The once conventional notion of a `career' is being transformed into an individualized `portfolio' of transferable skills and competencies. A credentialled and varied CV has become the essential prerequisite of `employability'. In this respect, it seems, our (re)presentability is critical ± there is no `market' for `inexperience' and occupational categories are becoming `boundaryless' (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). `Flexibility' is the watchword: `work roles' are ever more di€use and ill-de®ned; and, with the emergence of `hot-desking', even `the oce' itself ± the employees' physical workbase ± is becoming a virtual entity. And, since we have no `place' at work, there can hardly be any `job property rights'. This progressive institutional dissolution of the `organization', the `employee' and the `employment relationship' is epitomized by the emergence of `zero-hours' contracts. As a social artefact, this construct symbolizes the distance we have come from `pluralism' and `personnel management'. For ± at moments in such an arrangement ± there is no employee, no work, no workplace, no organizational structure, no employer and certainly no union. But something continuous does exist: it appears to be a `contract' without obligation or concrete expectations, designed to ful®l a transitory moment of `market demand'. Arguably, it is the ultimate form of `¯exibility' and, perhaps, economic eciency. To anticipate the relevance of holographic thinking, the apparent emergence of such ¯exible, `spaceless', boundaryless entities which expand and contract organically in relation to the vicissitudes of `the Market' is symptomatic of the degree to which new organizational forms not only appear to mirror the Market but can be seen, perhaps, as ¯eeting expressions of `the Market'. They take `¯exibility' to the point where organization both exists and does not exist at the same moment: the virtual is real and the real is virtual. While such analytical conclusions may be overdrawn, the overall trajectory of change and ambiguity within these institutional locations seems undeniable. For example, the intellectual identi®cation of the `core-periphery workforce' represents an attempt to grasp or `®x' the ¯uid boundaries of contemporary managerial practice ± the ambiguity of the term itself embodies the uncertainties confronting managers. Insecurity, instability and ill-de®nition appear to be increasingly `normal' and ± by no coincidence ± ®nd re¯ection in and are (re)-institutionalized through the contradictory discourse(s) of HRMism. In Summary Most examinations of HRMism have utilized a transcendental realist methodology. The `real HRM phenomena', as `measured' by logical analysis, observation, interviews, questionnaires, surveys or case studies, is constructed out of a comparison between some rhetorical, normative, prescriptive, or descriptive account of HRM with the empirical forms adopted in the name of HRMism by managerial elites in particular organizational locales. Unsurprisingly ± indeed, given the four sources of intrinsic ambiguity, almost inevitably ± the emergent `facticity of HRM' bears # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 9 only a nominal resemblance to the prede®ned concepts and models projected as measuring templates. Despite this, the intellectual and empirical examination and reconstruction of HRMism has produced an ever-expanding collection of controversies, tensions and contradictions and a continuously developing range of empirical forms and explanatory models of what HRM is, might be or can do. In short, we can articulate what HRM `is about', identify it in practice, teach and research HRMism but it remains impossible to agree upon what the term means. Moreover, it would seem that the more it is investigated the less convincing it becomes. Alternatively, the more we know about it, the more it disappears from view. This brings us to the idea of HRM as hologram. OF METAPHORS AND HOLOGRAMS Although the ®gurative and epistemological role of metaphors in the intellectual reconstruction of social reality has long been recognized (Lako€ and Johnson, 1980; Ortony, 1975), it is only since Morgan's work that their analytical utility in organizational analysis has been explored in any depth (Grant and Oswick, 1996; Morgan, 1986, 1989, 1996; Oswick and Grant, 1996; Tsoukas, 1991). Despite understandable reservations about the analytical limitations and blindspots of metaphor (Bourgeois and Pinder, 1983; Mangham, 1996; Pinder and Bourgeois, 1982; Reed, 1990), it seems clear that, carefully chosen, metaphors can not only crystallize complex social facticities and open up new ways of thinking about particular phenomena but also may provide a pre-understanding of the phenomena in question (see, for example, Dunn, 1990; Grant and Oswick, 1996; Keenoy, 1991). It is also important to recognize that we do not pluck metaphors out of our imagination in an arbitrary fashion: to be e€ective, they have to resonate not merely with the `target object' but also with the `spirit of the time'. As Adam (1990, pp. 157±60) notes, technological innovation has long given rise to novel metaphors which have permitted new ways of seeing and of reconstructing social perception and experience. Clocks gave us `working like clockwork' while cybernetics gave us the `brain-as-computer'. In this respect, the design, mechanics and internal logic of technological artefacts may come to mediate, guide, rede®ne and reconstitute our understanding of a much wider range of social phenomena and experience. The central argument here is that visualizing[6] HRMism as a hologram ± that is, seeing it as a uni®ed `entity' which is holographic in nature ± permits us to reconcile the inherent confusions and contradictions associated with both the conceptual-theoretic identity(ies) and the empirical facticity(ies) of the phenomenon. In order to substantiate this argument, ®rst, it is necessary to elaborate brie¯y holographic technology and its implications for the way we go about understanding social `reality'. Holograms as Techno-Social Artefacts Holograms are projected images which, as we shift our visual ®eld in relation to them, appear to have contours, depth and, in some cases, movement. They may be regarded as the ®rst genuine virtual images. Unlike photography, holography # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 10 TOM KEENOY does not involve the use of lenses (and it is mistaken to regard holograms as three-dimensional photographs). The process involves encoding the contours of an object on a light-sensitive plate with a laser. Lasers, which are comprised of synchronized light waves, produce `pure' or `coherent' light beams. In order to make a hologram, the laser source light is split into two beams. One beam, the reference beam, is directed at the plate; the second is directed onto the object and ± rather than being re¯ected back o€ the object ± it envelops and scans the object before being reunited with the reference beam. `It illuminates the object ``in the round'' and from all aspects' (Adam, 1990, p. 159). In e€ect, the object disturbs or interferes with the phased light waves of the original `coherent' beam and, once the two beams are reunited, this creates an `interference pattern' within the beam. Unlike photography, where there is a direct correspondence between the object and what is recorded on the photographic plate, a holographic image is encoded holistically as an `interference pattern' throughout the whole beam. Thus what is recorded on the plate (the interference pattern) is a unique con®guration produced by the integration of the original `true' beam with the `disrupted' beam. On the plate itself, what is encoded appears as something like a cratered moonscape set out among an endless pattern of irregular ripples ± it is an incomprehensible but not incoherent image. The analogical signi®cance of this `recording' can be illustrated by comparison with a photographic image. A photograph represents the re¯ection of light as it `bounces o€' the object ± this is reconstructed from the ®lm negative which directly records the di€erential intensity of light falling on each part of the ®lm. Hence, the image is a one-to-one reproduction of the object. In contrast, a holographic plate records what might be called a di€erent `shade of light' from the original reference beam and this `shade' is distributed throughout the plate. Thus, the whole image is contained (or enfolded) within each part of the `recording' (or interference pattern). This is why the image can only be `read' (and reproduced as a projected hologram) by shining the original reference beam onto the plate. And, to come to what is the most remarkable feature of this technology, this is why, even if a holographic plate is broken into bits, it is still possible to reproduce the complete holographic image from one of the fragments (Adam, 1990; Briggs and Peat, 1984).[7] Holographic technology has opened up a new way of approaching questions of ontology and epistemology. For example, if we ask `what is a hologram?', it should be clear that no simple answer is possible. The facticity of a hologram appears to be comprised of two distinct, discrete processes ± one technical, one social ± which, although separate `activities', are entwined in each other: both must occur simultaneously for the hologram `to exist'. The technology which records and reproduces the interference pattern (i.e. the structural artefact of lasers, boxes and light-sensitive plates) provides merely the potential for a hologram (i.e. the interference pattern reconstituted as the ghostly image) to come into being. But it is slightly more complicated again. The hologram itself, the virtual reality, is a static phenomenon while the holographic illusions of depth, contour, shade, shape and, sometimes, movement are entirely dependent on the relationship between the observer and the observed: they only come into being in the process of interaction. Thus, human social action and perception are an integral part of the process necessary not merely to reproduce the hologram but to construct the image and # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 11 the illusions. The observer is implicated in the observed and, signi®cantly, vice versa. Thus, holograms could be described as `techno-social' artefacts with a complex ontology: their existential appearance depends upon two apparently distinct elements each of which is `real' but each of which exists in a di€erent realm. The structural artefact resides in the realm of laser-technology; the surface artefact in the realm of human perception. Holograms, it would appear, provide a clear demonstration that observation is, in itself, a creative act. But they also remind us we only see that which we are looking for ± the focal image within our visual ®eld. In order to see `the other side', the shaded and, perhaps, the deeper facets and ®ssures of the object's identity, we need to change our viewpoint. More generally, of course, holograms underline the point that what we see also varies according to where we, quite literally, stand. As we have seen, it appears to be much the same with HRM. THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM In some circles, the `techno-social' ontology of the hologram generated a fundamental reappraisal of epistemology and led to what has come to be called `the holographic paradigm'.[8] As Adam (1990, p. 158) observes, holographic technology provided an impetus to epistemological innovation for it `has shifted our understanding from causal, sequential, linear connection chains to interference patterns and from mechanical interaction, organization, and the transmission of information of individual parts to mutual implication'. In brief, if the one-to-one representation of the photograph is a metaphor for `social reality' as depicted through modernist epistemology, then the hologram provides a metaphor which depicts `social reality' as a multi-dimensional, multi-causal, mutually implicated and constantly changing facticity. This `holographic reality' is only accessible through a re¯exive epistemology which explicitly acknowledges the constitutive role of human beings in `recreating' the social world: it is as if we simultaneously perceive and project what we take to be `social reality'. In this view, `social reality' ± and, in the present context, the management of contemporary work organization ± is best seen as a process of `social accomplishment'; the `continuous product' of social action and interaction (cf. Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1979). But how does this help reconcile the manifest confusions in the debates about the nature of HRMism? What the holographic paradigm o€ers is a way of illuminating HRMism `in the round and from all aspects'. RECONSTITUTING HRMISM As noted above, the paradox of HRMism is that the more it is undermined by conventional academic analyses, the stronger it seems to have become. Viewed from a holographic perspective, this paradox is a consequence of having employed a limiting and occasionally blinkered two-dimensional epistemology to explore the facticity of HRMism. In particular, the twin methodological habits of fragmenting the phenomena in question and then trying to map each fragment against a prede# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 12 TOM KEENOY termined de®nition seem to be responsible for our failure to `see' HRMism for what it is. For most researchers, fragmentation is both necessary and inevitable. However, it is all too easy for a fragment ± such as strategic HRM, BPR or empowerment ± to become isolated and cut o€ from the `whole'. In consequence, in each of these facets, `HRM is something di€erent'. Each `location' on the map presents us with a discrete, particularistic and perhaps contradictory facticity; and even when we look in the same place at di€erent points in time it may appear inconsistent, di€erent or changed. As with the hologram, `now you see, now you don't'; and, just as we can change our stance to view another facet, so too, it would seem, can `empirical reality': nothing is ®xed. Moreover, our search is guided not by what we see or don't see, but by what we are looking for. To put the matter sharply, we have sought the re¯ections of abstracted conceptions of `HRM' in `empirical reality'; and, when that `reality' (as it must) fails the test, concluded that HRM does not exist, is mere `rhetoric', that it is fraught with contradictions or that it is not what it seems. (Unfortunately, all these conclusions are half-truths and this means that ± in pursuit of `the variance' ± we determine to collect `more data' in order to secure the other half of the `truth', thus merely multiplying misconceptions.) More generally, in holographic terms, such an approach explores the `explicate' realms of HRMism. These are the exposed artefacts which are amenable to `immediate measurement' or observation. Those which, in e€ect, `present themselves' for examination: the rhetorics, the ¯attened organizational structures, the productivity improvements, the empowered teams, the percentage of customers answered within three minutes, the new corporate culture or the downsized workforce. Of course, individually or collectively, in nearly all instances, these features are aspects of something broader, deeper and less visible; something which requires interpretation and generalization. Unfortunately, within twodimensional epistemology, interpretations which `go beyond the data' are frowned on and, thus, conclusions tend to be limited to the explicate realm. This may be deeply misleading. For example, if we assume the `soft' HRM model should inform business policy decisions then, clearly, strategic HRM has failed to materialize. However, there is an alternative and equally plausible reading of such `evidence': if the `real' strategic role of HRMism is to transform employee expectations of the employment relationship, generate individualistic orientations and marginalize unions then, arguably, `strategic HRM' has been `successful' and `e€ective'. Thus, the `fact' that HR issues are only ever a third order consideration may be both irrelevant and misleading. As Talbot (1991, p. 25) observes, `creating the illusion that things are located where they are not is a quintessential feature of the hologram'. Within the holographic perspective there is also an underlying `implicate realm' of interference patterns where the `parts are contained in the whole and the whole is contained in the parts'. This feature accounts for the powerful epistemological emphasis on multi-dimensionality, interconnectedness and the multi-causal origins of any social facticity. With respect to HRMism, it is no accident that its emergence coincides with the socio-economic construction of a deregulated global economy. This `grand interference pattern' is an impenetrably complex facticity and the cumulative socio-economic `knock-on' e€ects of its multi-directional # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 13 processes are utterly countless (and, indeed, endless). However, among them are the multitude of sometimes contradictory initiatives which can be collected under the label `HRM-type initiatives in Britain'. Of course, this is a commonplace understanding ± part of our taken-for-granted contextualizing of the debate about HRM. However, the analytical signi®cance of the part±whole relationships between all those `fragments' of HRMism has frequently been neglected. For example, returning brie¯y to Noon's `problem', the identity of HRM. His endeavour was predicated on the assumption that there ought to be a singular, even de®nitive `identity'. (That phenomena are possessed of ®xed, explicit and measurable identities is a hallmark of two-dimensional epistemology.) However, if we accept that the term `HRM' refers to the enormously varied explicate responses to the implicate consequences of globalization, then it is simply banal to suggest that managerial or intellectual actors would respond with a singular `solution' (or, for that matter, with either a `hard' or a `soft' solution) to those consequences. Paradoxically, it ought to be clear also that each of the multitude of `identities' which have accumulated within HRMism ± such as strategic HRM, a theory of competitive advantage, the alternative to pluralism, humanistic people management or resource-based management ± are particularistic solutions (or projected solutions) of how management is or might best `deal with' labour in the context of globalization. And the supplementary cultural and geographical `models' of HRM are simply variations on the same theme. The point is that all the apparently di€erent `forms' or `types' of HRM are implicated in each other and are parts of ± or facets of ± a more generalized facticity. In short, much of our ontological confusion about HRMism and the inability to `de®ne' HRM stem from having mistaken di€erent elements or aspects for the whole. On this point, it is also instructive to revisit Storey's (1995b) `rolling de®nition' which was cited above to illustrate conceptual-theoretic ambiguity. The process of conceptual elision through which he `defends' the `idea' of HRM can also be read as an implicit recognition of the holographic nature of HRMism. Each adjustment Storey makes to the operative de®nition merely reveals and exposes another aspect of the mutually implicated, multi-dimensional facticity which is `HRM'. In e€ect, his account confuses the parts within the whole and we end up with several `competing' wholes spread between HRM-as-symbolism and HRM-as-pragmatism. Signi®cantly, his formulation is only problematic so long as we expect consistency, coherence and continuity ± characteristics which are intrinsic to modernist constructions of `objective reality'. Indeed, this unre¯ective resort to holographic conceptions of HRM-type practices and processes is not uncommon. The routine adoption of those oppositional dyad constructs ± such as `loose±tight' structure, `¯exible±specialization', `core±periphery workforce' and `hard±soft' HRM ± indicates an implicit acknowledgement that key features of contemporary work organization portray themselves as paradoxical, multi-dimensional and mutually implicated phenomena. Ontologically, what is signi®cant about such relational constructs is that each component implies the actual, necessary or potential presence of its opposite and there is a clear indication that the `same facticity' may `take shape' in a variety of forms at the same time.[9] Thus, holographically, with respect to HRM practices, they are never `hard' or `soft': despite appearances, they are always both `hard' and `soft' (Truss et al., # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 14 TOM KEENOY 1997). For example, Tom Peters (Aspen Spafax, 1988), talking about the iconic `soft' HRM company, Hewlett-Packard, insists that H-P is the `ultimate tough environment'. He points out that, having provided employment security, empowered employees to take any problem to supervision (and expect to be listened to), provided a safe and equable working environment, given employees individual performance targets and individual pay rates ± in short, having given employees all the support necessary for them to perform at the level required by the company ± then, there are `no excuses if something goes wrong'. Similarly, analytically, the iconic `hard' company, McDonald's, despite a di€erent mix of `hard' and `soft' elements, operates a virtually identical policy: it gives employees all the support necessary for them to perform at the level required by the company. (That is, while there are surface variations in the `explicate' realm, what is happening in the `implicate' realm is remarkably similar despite a multitude of di€erent situational considerations.) While, intuitively, such proto-holographic `fuzzy' constructs make sense `at the level of meaning', they have yet to be embraced wholeheartedly. In common usage, there has been a strong tendency to treat each component of these dyads as distinctive, concrete and separate forms rather than as encoded, mutually implicated, interdependent `tendencies'. Hence, usually, the components are located at either end of a linear dimension which polarizes and separates the two elements: `hard' precludes `soft', `rhetoric' precludes `reality', `core' precludes `periphery' and vice versa (see also, Keenoy, 1997). The problem is that, once divorced from each other, the individual components become deeply deceptive representations. For example, Guest (1995) identi®ed the nether world of `no industrial relations and no HRM' as one of his categories of contemporary employee relations. Even though we might all `know what he means', as a category it is analytical nonsense. Taken literally, it excludes all the recognized ways of `regulating' employment and projects a world which is actually devoid of employment relationships. Of course, this is unintentional, but he is induced to adopt this construction because the only way he can preserve the conceptual integrity of `soft' HRM is to locate the growth of so-called `hard' policies and practices beyond the ambit of HRM itself. This is only necessary because he insists on a clear empirical distinction between `soft' and `hard'. Similarly, Legge (1995a, p. 154), citing critics of the ¯exible ®rm model, points to the `lack of clarity about the empirical referents of the terms ``core'' and ``periphery'' ' and, to illustrate this `problem of dual status', points out that an employee `may work as part of the core of a specialist consultancy ®rm, but count as part of the periphery of a large ¯exible ®rm that is utilizing her subcontracted services.' Precisely: that is an exemplary case of a `core-periphery' worker. Ironically, the apparent `lack of clarity' only arises because we insist on phenomena being one thing or another when, as in this case, it may be neither (or a bit of both) because the `sum of the parts' is not `the whole'. HRMISM AS HOLOGRAPHIC FACTICITY So, what might constitute `the whole of HRM'? As with a hologram, HRM changes its appearance as we move around its image. Each shift of stance reveals # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 15 another facet, a darker depth, a di€erent contour. As a ¯uid holistic entity of apparently multiple identities and multiple forms, it is not surprising that every time we look at it, it is slightly di€erent. This is why, conceptually, HRMism appears to be a moving target, and why, empirically, it has no ®xed (or ®xable) forms. It is important to note that this `visualization' goes beyond the conventional social scienti®c notion that we can see the same `object' from di€erent perspectives each of which constructs the phenomena in terms of a di€erent set of epistemological assumptions or social values. It is not just that di€erent frames of reference produce alternative accounts of the same phenomena ± a process which privileges the observer(s) in the act of interpreting an apparently mute, stolid and ordered facticity ± but that each phenomena may possess and can project a variety of mutually implicated identities ± a process which privileges the multiple `entitiness' of phenomena.[10] As noted above, just as the observer is implicated in what is observed, so too the observed is implicated in the observer, for social phenomena ± like the hologram ± exist in a variety of necessarily parallel realms. This is not as bizarre as it might sound. In observing, the privileged observer interprets the phenomena in terms of his/her preferred frame of reference. Therefore, what is `seen' as an interpretation of the perceived projection. And each `signi®cant observer' is likely to see a di€erent projection depending on where they are located. Thus, unsurprisingly, consultants, employers, managers, supervisors, employees, researchers and academics may hold di€ering `conceptual-projections' of HRM which are likely to refract their particular experiential engagement with `HRM'. But, the observed is also implicated in the observer and, in so far as we act in response to our perceptions, we actively constitute and (re)create HRMism. As noted above, it is as if we simultaneously perceive and project what we take to be `social reality'. We are both within the hologram and simultaneously the creators of the hologram. Indeed, the signi®cant actors are continuously reconstituting HRMism.[11] On occasion, this appears to take place almost ineluctably. Watson (1995), for example, reports the case of HRM-type practices being introduced in a company where the term `HRM' had never been formally employed to describe what was happening. Similarly, Edwards (1984) ± in a `pre-HRM' text ± generalized what now appears to be HRM-type developments in the British manufacturing industry as `enlightened managerialism'. Such ®ndings may be regarded as exemplifying the way interference patterns from the implicate realm ripple, almost anonymously, through concrete social practices to shape their `identities'. Thus it is possible for mutually implicated social phenomena to coexist in parallel realms: they have di€ering `explicate identities' which are interconnected expressions of some underlying implicate realm. This feature helps to explain the apparent `success' of contradictory or logically incoherent HRM-type practices. When managers or employees engage with the projected rhetorics of empowerment or culture-change initiatives (if only for pragmatic reasons) then, by enacting those entities, they may well be responsible for `creating them' (as well as sustaining them). As Storey (1992, p. 14) observes of such programmes, `the sheer degree of penetration of this mode of thinking seems likely, in itself, to have some real consequences in behaviour'. Thus, in so far as social actors behave in ways which assume and ± at the same time ± actively # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 16 TOM KEENOY create something called `HRM', it has a tangible, perceivable and experienced impact on socio-economic relations. Given its parallel forms, the e€ects are variable, unpredictable, inconsistent, perhaps contradictory and, probably, unrepeatable. Nevertheless, they do have a (dynamic) `situated' coherence which re¯ects the ways in which actors are choosing to engage with the projected/ perceived realities. Hence, it seems most accurate to regard HRM not as a concrete, coherent entity but as a series of mutually implicated phenomena which is/are in the process of becoming. Such a conception resonates with the historical `appearance' of HRMism: the apparent novelty of HRM-type practices lay in the, sometimes messianic, rhetoric of their discourses and the projection of novelty in itself. In retrospect, it seems that HRMism was more about `heralding' and `inscribing' a process of continuous change ± a process of becoming ± rather than about institutionalizing a `novel' approach to people management. Alternatively, to put this point another way ± and this is an important realist conclusion ± it remains impossible to conclude that HRM does not exist and impossible to conclude that it does exist: it seems that its `being' is in neither of these states. Holographically, HRM `exists' in so far as it is in the process of coming into being. It has not `been accomplished' and will never reach such a status because it is always in process of becoming. While we are not accustomed to conceptualizing social phenomena in this way, such thinking has a long history (e.g. Sorel, 1961; Whitehead, 1967). Moreover, it is already present within HRMism. For example, within the `quality discourse', it is axiomatic that the `pursuit of quality' is a continuous and never-ending process ± something which is never actually achieved (Deming, 1986; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1988). Similarly, the `new ¯exible employee' is a person who is continuously `developing' and `being developed' in order to meet whatever contingencies the unpredictable twists of the `market' throws up. More generally, this `becoming' theme is echoed by Dunn (1990) who employs the metaphor of `the journey' ± a quest without end ± to account for the essential appeal of HRMism. Such a conception even helps to explain the `problem' of unionized companies being more likely to take up HRM-type practices than non-unionized companies (Sisson, 1993). While, in contrast to HRMism, unions and industrial relations may be social artefacts which are in the process of `going out of being', within a holographic perspective, they will never disappear. Residual in¯uences and elements of industrial relations practice will always remain ± not least as more or less signi®cant traces in the speci®c forms of HRMism which are being adopted. Hence, HRM, industrial relations and personnel management are not alternative `approaches' but mutually implicated, socially constructed `processual-practices' ± ultimately, and perhaps paradoxically, they are di€erent aspects of the same `dynamic-entity'.[12] SOME HOLOGRAPHIC CONCLUSIONS The argument is that HRMism is best understood as a hologram. In so far as it has a `singular' identity, it could be described as the ¯uid, multi-faceted, mutually implicated social artefacts which are the `continuing-outcome' of the process of contextualized social accomplishment manifest in contemporary employment relations. With respect to the explicate forms taken by HRMism, `they' have # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 17 become the surface `cultural substitute' for corporatism and adversarial pluralism (which are themselves implicated in HRMism). In this sense, HRMism is no more than a collective noun for the multitude of concepts-and-methods devised (particularly post-1979) to manage and control the employment relationship. However, this `de®nition' also embodies a complex of `alternative' ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions which refract the underlying `implicate realm' of HRMism. First, it indicates a perspective which privileges and, indeed, celebrates, paradox, uncertainty, ambiguity, multiple identity and `becoming' (rather than `being'). There is nothing particularly novel about such emphases but, with the modernist search for a determinate, ®xable empirical reality, such concerns have tended to be marginalized. Secondly, by highlighting the mutually implicated nature of social artefacts, it permits us to embrace and dissolve (rather than resolve) the apparent contradictions and paradoxes of contemporary employment relations. Holographically, it is possible for employees to be both ¯exible and specialized, core and periphery; to be simultaneously committed and disengaged as well as dispensable; for policies to be both `hard' and `soft'; and for companies to optimize both low cost and high quality. Contradiction is merely the absence of logical coherence, not of rationale, practical harmony or pragmatic accommodation. Third, and intimately related to this last point, it is a de®nition which emphasizes the analytical signi®cance of the mutually implicated processes of discursive construction and social accomplishment. These are critical activities through which social actors (and not merely the `more powerful' among such actors) routinely reconstitute social `reality'. This suggests that the socio-economic hyperbole and rhetorics which have accompanied the `rise' of HRMism should not be treated as the `obverse' or `opposite' of `reality' but as component social actions within that `reality'. Words may speak louder than actions (Oswick et al., 1997). Fourth, the de®nition is sensitive to the general problem of linguistic instability and `representation' which has bedevilled more conventional conceptual-theoretic analyses of HRMism. Of course, such problems are a perpetual and intrinsic feature of any form of discourse. However, the critique which has emerged from the holographic perspective suggests that such problems are invariably the consequence of trying to `measure' or `®x' a multi-dimensional facticity into a twodimensional format. Fifth, there is the question of what might provide appropriate methodological guidelines for a holographic `empirical' study. This is a complex issue for, epistemologically, it is necessary to acknowledge the re¯exive, constitutive nature of the `research process' itself and the parallel `becoming' of social `reality'. Methodologically, we have to acknowledge that we are dipping into a `¯ow' which is carrying us along within it. However, there seems no reason to suggest that this would necessarily involve the abandonment of `conventional' modernist methodology. Rather, it will require a greater `empirical' and interpretative sensitivity to the relationship between the explicate and implicate realms; to the time dimensions; and to discourse, intersubjective accomplishment and the social reconstitution of prevailing `realities'. There exist a variety of, primarily, qualitative research methods which could meet such requirements. At a minimum, it would seem to require an # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 18 TOM KEENOY empirical awareness of the projected, perceived and experienced `realities' of the phenomena in question. More pointedly, it also requires analytical space to accommodate paradox, ambiguity, instability and `becoming' as normal and predictable outcomes within the ®ndings ± invariant relationships are anathema within the holographic perspective. Finally, and very very brie¯y, there is the question of ontology. What the holographic perspective seems to o€er is not only an alternative to the dualistic limitations of modernism but it also permits us to evade the limitless relativism found in some varieties of social constructionism (a term which is preferred to the deeply ambiguous `postmodernism'). For present purposes, we suggest that the `is-being' of HRMism is socially constituted (and simultaneously projected) as a combination of intellectual, educational, ideological, cultural and socially situated economic and organizational artefacts. Thus it is `being accomplished' in several interwoven realms; and the ontology or `is-ness' of HRM is comprised of all these mutually implicated realms. As indicated above, modernist epistemology tends to fragment this `reality' to a point where we are, arguably, actively misunderstanding the `process of becoming' in contemporary employment. One partial solution has been to divorce the discourses of HRMism from the lived experiences of HRM-type practices and treat them as an ideological overlay of material interests. Thus it has been possible to identify internal contradictions and account for the self-evident disparity between `rhetoric' and `reality'. Another partial solution has been to treat HRMism as a narrative, a `virtual' reality evolving (and being evolved) in response to both its own imagery and that of what we might call `cognate' images (such as `competition', the `market', the `customer'). Such an approach o€ers little but the twin promises of an unrestricted imagination and the in®nite regress of relativistic deconstruction. Every time we shift our stance, we see a di€erent reality, an alternative `truth' with, apparently, an equivalent status of all other truths. It seems we are left with merely those selfconstructed `fantasies of the real' whilst `knowledge' is reduced to a capricious linguistic arti®ce. The former solution privileges structural and material facilities; the latter, imagined and ideational facticities. Both privilege the observers' interpretative schema; and both are prone to subordinate the processual realm and marginalize the experiential realm. In contrast, the holographic perspective permits us to maintain a commitment to an `alternative' realism; a realism which is grounded in the belief that social reality has to be understood as a ¯uid, unfolding process of social accomplishment. The latter ± the explicate realm ± is both an acknowledgement of and a response to the underlying implicate realm; thus, in responding, we also in¯uence trajectories within the implicate realm.[13] In this respect, it is helpful to remember that, despite its precise technical structure, holographic technology draws our attention to the experiential nature of observation and the observational nature of experience. `Reality' is a fuzzy shimmer between these two moments. The `whole' is inseparable from the process of movement and, in this respect, the whole is movement; for as we move our perspective `within the ¯ow', so too the contours of the `object' move re-shaping, transforming or revealing more of its unfolding `identity'. Moreover, the whole is contained or implicated within the parts for all we need to do is alter our stance and another feature of the encoded and enfolded `reality' # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 19 reveals itself. Analytically, there is a qualitative shift of focus. Since the image is constantly in the process of `becoming', attention shifts from the `is-ness' and `not-is-ness' of the object to the continuous process of `is-being'. As Chia (1996, p. 259) observes, `Reality is always changing and becoming and each explicate ``entity'' is but a stabilized moment of the implicate movement of ¯ux and transformation.' NOTES *Numerous colleagues at seminars in London, Cardi€, Glasgow and Leicester helped to shape the arguments in this paper; ®ne tuning was provided by Barbara Adam, Martin Albrow, Peter Anthony, Karen Legge, Mike Noon and Graeme Salaman. Between them, Harry White of the Cardi€ Techniquest science project and Kevin Keenoy did their best to help me understand the theory and technology of holography. A personal research grant from the British Academy provided the space to work through the central ideas. My warm thanks to all of them. [1] `HRMism' is used as a generic term to signify all the various meanings and practices which have come to be subsumed within `HRM'. [2] Such rei®cation may be justi®ed for there are times when HRM does appear to take on a life of its own. [3] This term, `ideo-culture' is used to avoid becoming embroiled in the debates about `organizational culture' (Anthony, 1994; Meek, 1988). Ideo-culture refers to managerially initiated and managerially driven conceptions of `appropriate behaviour' which are either implicit in `new' workplace policies and practices and/or explicitly legitimized through `new' norms and values. `Ideo' to indicate that such conceptions emanate from managerial objectives and initiatives; and `culture' to indicate that such conceptions relate to `the way we do things around here'. [4] To skirt an unnecessary excursion into the conceptual-analytic character of the employment relationship ± which engenders power-relations (Blyton and Turnbull, 1994; Keenoy and Kelly, 1996) ± this term is used as a euphemism for in¯uential and/or powerful social actors. [5] A search of the Social Science Citation Index for one year yielded 167 references to HRM in the title of academic publications. These encompassed studies of HRMism in many countries ± including Latvia, Russia and Nigeria; across virtually all industrial sectors; and, apart from all the predictable topics, covered issues as diverse as mental load, resource capability, East±West joint ventures, utility analysis, professional certi®cation, networking in R&D, population pro®ling, welfare reform in the twenty-®rst century, project engineering, violence in organizations, continuing education, ®nancial markets and, intriguingly, an experimental study of `arti®cial intelligence in HRM'. In addition to all the main management, industrial relations, personnel, personnel psychology and training journals, material appeared in specialist journals for education, librarianship, services industries, tourism, politics, business history, local government, engineering education, operational research, hospital and health services, long range planning, expert systems, `society and natural resources', production planning and control, leisure research and social work. While by no means a representative sweep of the literature, it re¯ects the impact and spread of the discourses of HRM. [6] The term `visualizing' is preferred to `conceptualizing' since the former implies a ®gurative, three-dimensional facticity while the latter is associated with two-dimensional literal constructions. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 20 TOM KEENOY [7] Since HRM has always been a moving target, one ®nal technical detail ought to be added. The extraordinary economy with which holograms can be encoded means that multiple strips of holographic images can be mounted together to produce animated holograms. [8] The original thinkers who developed what has come to be known as the `holographic paradigm' come from neuro-science (Pribram, 1977) and theoretical physics (Bohm, 1980); there is a social scienti®c philosophical linkage back to Whitehead (1967). See also Chia (1996); Talbot (1991); Wilber (1982). [9] These `fuzzy' constructs refer to complex dynamic entities: they allow for the empirical possibility that phenomena may vary over time (e.g. a shift from a `soft' to a `hard' approach to people management) and across space (e.g. a core employee in one location may become a peripheral worker in another). [10] The archetypal example here might be the human being: during the course of our lifetime, it is estimated that we completely replace our cells seven times. Thus we can change all `our parts' several times over but, somehow, remain the `same entity'. A more prosaic example is the work organization itself which may be changing its personnel, structure and even what it `does' continuously. However, throughout all such transformations, it may retain the `same identity' despite this routine alteration of its `component identities'. [11] Legge (1995b) has argued that, among others, academics have a vested interest in constructing and developing HRM. This may well be the case ± material interests constitute one stimulus to social construction. But the argument here goes beyond this for material interests are, in themselves, socially constructed. The point is that social reality is not a ®xed or ®xable phenomena: it is a continuous process of social construction. [12] Social stability and change have long been a central problem in social theory. For example, Giddens (1979), in his theory of structuration, makes time (and habituation) do a lot of work in explaining the processes of social stability and change: once they have been around long enough, social practices `become' institutions and acquire a relatively `stable' identity. In contrast, a holographic ontology ®nesses this issue altogether by suggesting that there is no `®xed order' at all: all we have is `change' and `becoming'. Social accomplishment just moves at a faster or slower pace. Bohm (1980) addresses this problem by referring to the `holomovement' (rather than simply the `hologram', which has a static quality). [13] The most dramatic recent examples from HRMism are the `intervention' of Mrs Thatcher in the interference pattern of British capitalism and the `intervention' of Poland's Lech WalescËa in the interference pattern of democratic centralism. Both these social actors appear to have sent `causative ripples' reverberating back into the implicate realm and, in e€ect, may be regarded as having played a role in `changing history'. REFERENCES ADAM, B. (1990). Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. ANTHONY, P. D. (1994). Managing Culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. ARMSTRONG, P. (1989). `Limits and possibilities for HRM in an age of management accountancy'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge. ARMSTRONG, P. (1995). `Accountancy and HRM'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. Routledge: London, 142±63. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 21 ARTHUR, M. B. and ROUSSEAU, D. M. (Eds) (1996). The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. New York: Oxford University Press. ASPEN SPAFAX TELEVISION (1988). A Gilded Cage. London: Channel 4. BEARDWELL, I. and HOLDEN, L. (1997). Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Perspective, 2nd edn. London: Pitman. BEAUMONT, P. (1993). Human Resource Management: Key Concepts and Skills. London: Sage. BECK, U. (1992). The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. BEER, M., SPECTOR, B., LAWRENCE, P., QUINN MILLS, D. and WALTON, R. (1985). Human Resource Management: A General Manager's Perspective. Glencoe IL: Free Press. BLYTON, P. and TURNBULL, P. (1994). The Dynamics of Employee Relations. London: Macmillan. BOHM, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. BOURGEOIS, V. W. and PINDER, C. C. (1983). `Contrasting philosophical perspectives in administrative science: a reply to Morgan'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 4, 608±13. BOXALL, P. (1996). `The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the ®rm'. Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 3, 59±75. BRIGGS, J. and PEAT, D. (1984). Looking Glass Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster. BROCKLEHURST, M. (1998). `New technology homework: new identities, new forms of control?'. PhD thesis, London University: Imperial College. CHIA, R. (1996). `Metaphors and metaphorization in organizational analysis: thinking beyond the thinkable'. In Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (Eds), Metaphor and Organizations. London: Sage, 127±45. CLARK, T. (Ed.), (1998). The Experience of HRM. London: Sage. COOPER, R. and BURRELL, G. (1988). `Modernism, post-modernism and organizational analysis: an introduction.' Organization Studies, 9, 1, 91±112. CROMPTON, R. (1988). Changing Forms of Employment. London: Routledge. DEMING, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. DU GAY, P. (1991). `Enterprise culture and the ideology of excellence'. New Formations, 1, 13, 45±61. DUNN, S. (1990). `Root metaphor in the old and new industrial relations'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 1, 1±31. EDWARDS, P. (1984). Managing the Factory. Oxford: Blackwell. EZZAMEL, M., LILLEY, S., WILKINSON, A. and WILLMOTT, H. (1996). `Practices and practicalities in human resource management'. Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 1, 63±80. FELSTED, A. and JEWSON, N. with GOODWIN, J. (1996). Homeworkers in Britain. London: HMSO. FERNER, A. (1988). Governments, Managers and Industrial Relations. Oxford: Blackwell. FOMBRUM, C., TICHY, N. M. and DEVANNA, M. A. (1984). Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Wiley. GIDDENS, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan. GOWLER, D. and LEGGE, K. (1983). `The meaning of management and the management of meaning: a view from social anthropology'. In Earl, M. J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GRANT, D. and OSWICK, C. (Eds) (1996). Metaphor and Organizations. London: Sage. GUEST, D. E. (1987). `Human resource management and industrial relations'. Journal of Management Studies. 24, 5, 503±21. GUEST, D. E. (1990). `Human resource management and the American Dream'. Journal of Management Studies, 27, 4, 378±97. GUEST, D. E. (1995). `Trade unions and industrial relations'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 22 TOM KEENOY GUEST, D. E. (1997). `HRM and performance: a review and research agenda'. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263±76. HAMILTON, P. (1997). `The rhetorical discourse of local pay'. Organisation, 4, 2, 229±54. HAMMER, M. and CHAMPY, J. (1993). Re-engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins. HASSARD, J. and PARKER, M. (Eds), (1993). Postmodernism and Organizations. London: Sage. HUSELID, M. A. (1995). `The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate ®nancial performance'. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, 635±70. ISHIKAWA, K. (1985). What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice-Hall. JURAN, J. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality. New York: Free Press. KAMOCHE, K. (1995). `Rhetoric, ritualism and totemism in human resource management'. Human Relations, 48, 4, 367±85. KEENOY, T. (1991). `The roots of metaphor in the old and the new industrial relations'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, 313±28. KEENOY, T. (1997). `Review article: HRMism and the languages of re-presentation'. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 5, 825±41. KEENOY, T. and ANTHONY, P. D. (1992). `HRM: metaphor, meaning and morality'. In Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing HRM. London: Sage, 233±55. KEENOY, T. and KELLY, D. (1996). The Employment Relationship in Australia. Sydney: Harcourt Brace. LAKOFF, G. and JOHNSON, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LEGGE, K. (1995a). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London: Macmillan Business. LEGGE, K. (1995b). `HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge, 33±59. MAILY, R., DIMMOCK, S. J. and SETHI, A. S. (1989). Industrial Relations in the Public Services. London: Routledge. MANGHAM, I. (1996). `Some consequences of taking Gareth Morgan seriously'. In Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (Eds), Metaphor and Organizations. London: Sage, 21±36. MEEK, V. L. (1988). `Organizational culture: origins and weaknesses'. Organizational Studies, 9, 4, 53±73. MILLER, P. (1987). `Strategic industrial relations and HRM ± distinction, de®nition and recognition'. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 4, 347±61. MORGAN, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. MORGAN, G. (1989). Creative Organization Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. MORGAN, G. (1996). `An afterword: is there anything more to be said about metaphor?'. In Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (Eds), Metaphor and Organizations. London: Sage, 227±40. NOON, M. (1992). `HRM: a map, a model or a theory?'. In Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing HRM. London: Sage, 16±32. ORTONY, D. (1975). `Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice'. Educational Theory, 25, 45±53. OSWICK, C. and GRANT, D. (Eds) (1996). Organizational Development: Metaphorical Explorations. London: Pitman Publishing. OSWICK, C., KEENOY, T. and GRANT, D. (1997). `Managerial discourses: words speak louder than actions?'. Journal of Applied Management, 6, 2, 5±12. PETERS, T. and WATERMAN, R. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row. PINDER, C. C. and BOURGEOIS, V. W. (1982). `Controlling tropes in administrative science'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 4, 641±52. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 HRM AS HOLOGRAM: A POLEMIC 23 PRIBRAM, K. (1977). Languages of the Brain. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. PURCELL, J. (1989). `The impact of corporate strategy on human resource management'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge, 67±91. PURCELL, J. (1995). `Corporate strategy and its link with human resource management strategy'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge, 63±86. REED, M. (1990). `From paradigms to images: the paradigm warrior turns post-modernist guru'. Personnel Review, 19, 1, 35±40. SISSON, K. (1993). `In search of HRM?'. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 2, 201±10. SISSON, K. (1994). Personnel Management, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. SISSON, K. (1995). `The personnel function'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. Routledge: London. SOREL, G. (1961). Re¯exions on Violence. New York: Collier Books. SPARROW, P. (1996). `Transitions in the psychological contract: some evidence from the banking sector'. Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 4, 75±92. STACE, D. A. and DUNPHY, D. C. (1991). `Beyond traditional paternalistic and developmental approaches to organizational change and human resource strategies'. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 3, 263±84. STANWORTH, C. (1996). Working at Home: a Study of Homeworking and Teleworking. London: Institute of Employment Rights. STOREY, J. (1987). `Developments in the management of human resources: an interim report'. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations. 17. Coventry: IRRU, University of Warwick. STOREY, J. (Ed.)(1989). New Perspectives in Human Resource Management. London: Routledge. STOREY, J. (1992). Developments in the Management of Human Resources. Oxford: Blackwell. STOREY, J. (Ed.)(1995a). Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge. STOREY, J. (1995b). `Human resource management: still marching on, or marching out?'. In Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge. STOREY, J. (1995c). `Employment policies and practices in the UK clearing banks: an overview'. Human Resource Management Journal, 5, 4, 24±43. TALBOT, M. (1991). The Holographic Universe. London: Grafton Books. TICHY, N., FOMBRUN, C. and DEVANNA, M. A. (1982). `Strategic human resource management'. Sloan Management Review, 23, 2, 47±61. TOWERS, B. (Ed.), (1992). The Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. TRUSS, C. J., GRATTON, L., HOPE-HAILEY, V., MCGOVERN, P. and STILES, P. (1997). `Strategic human resource management: a conceptual approach'. Journal of Management Studies, 34 1, 53±74. TSOUKAS, H. (1991). `The missing link: a transformational view of metaphors in organizational science'. Academy of Management Review, 16, 3, 566±85. WATSON, T. J. (1994). In Search of Management. London: Routledge. WATSON, T. (1995). `In search of HRM: beyond the rhetoric and reality distinction or the dog that didn't bark'. Personnel Review, 24, 4, 6±16. WEBER, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. WHITEHEAD, A. N. (1967). Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press. WILBER, K. (Ed.), (1982). The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. Boulder, CO: New Science Library. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999