Why do some people argue that Human Resource Management (HRM) is more rhetoric than reality? And explain why there are doubts whether HRM`s objectives are achievable?
There is a worldwide glut of MBAs, especially in finance & accounting, HR, and marketing. You are not even going for an MBA in HR. Are you citizen of EU country? Then you have a chance to apply for jobs throughout EU. Otherwise, you have little to no chance of getting any employment visa, even with masters + experience in your country of citizenship. For many countries, the field does not qualify for visa. MBA does not qualify for employment visa, either.
This is a big question!!!! And I think with multiple interpretations. Certainly much more than I can answer here! But heres a brief overview (ill be back if I remember anythin else!)
When people ask me, what is the difference between HRM and personell, I say that HRM is strategic and personel is transactional, and to link that with your question it could be argued that HRM is the rhetoric and personell is the reality.
You could also suggest that HRM relies a lot on theories and idealism. Where strategic goals are not necessarily achievable because they do not take into account the human factor, except to say in a broad, theoretical sense.
the 'rhetoric' of HRM is obvious. Theories and models can be bought out to explain and justify almost anything, and of course these 'models' are not necessarily applicable across all industries
It is more rhetoric because everything is standardised and measured, and does not take into account basic instincts - eg gut reaction to a dilemma, persona etc. Performance is montiored against grafts and 'norms' and does not take fluctutaton into consideration. You do not need flair, observation etc as measurement is against a standard - e.g. all you need to become an HR manager is the ability to follow pre defined task and not necessarily observe the reality of a situation.