Keywords

Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) can be considered in both civilian and military organizations as a set of activities and responsibilities related to personnel and aimed at the optimal deployment of employees to contribute to the performance of the organization. HRM includes activities such as recruiting, selecting, hiring, training, remuneration, fringe benefits, assessment and development and outflow or dismissal of employees, as well as the welfare and health of subordinates (e.g., Boselie 2014; Dessler 2021). In short, the process from inflow to outflow is central to HRM. In this process each line manager is responsible for HR management. That responsibility consists of allocating personnel, i.e., placing the most suitable person in the right position and then orienting, training, assessing, and compensating the person to improve job performance (e.g., Dessler 2021). They direct employee development so they can perform their jobs with dedication and efficacy, be motivated, and experience job satisfaction (e.g., Boselie 2014). Ideally, both employer and employee are satisfied and know what they gain from each other (Boselie 2014). For military organizations, this not only includes caring for its active but also for its post-active personnel: something military organizations are obliged to do because military organizations have a special duty of caregiving to (former) employees. For instance, when people have served in the military, they usually qualify for veterans health care. For example, in the Netherlands, the Veterans Act was passed in 2012 and became effective in 2014. This law regulates the recognition and care of veterans and their relations (Overheid.nl 2020).

In most organizations, HRM departments and HR specialists support the line managers. These specialists assist in recruiting, hiring, training, evaluating, and promoting and rewarding personnel, as well as employee safety and health at all levels, among other things. Today, there are many trends that require HR specialists to take a more strategically important role in organizations. All kinds of influences from the environment are causing HRM to change. These influences include technological change, increasing workforce diversity, a new generation of young people and their motivation, the labor market, globalization, and economic influences.

In this chapter, we examine the challenges military organizations face today with respect to their HRM policies and the effect of the organizational context and strategy on these policies. First, we start with an overview of the evolution of HRM and how it is understood today. We explain some key definitions and discuss the main HRM models. Since HRM policies and activities in general vary from country to country, we also go into some comparison between them. Furthermore, we pay attention to HRM policies and activities in the military context and look at the main differences between armed forces of different countries in this aspect. We will end this chapter with the challenges military organizations face today and the resulting implications for organizational performance and military professionalization.

The Development of HRM

After the Industrial Revolution, around 1750 in the UK and the early 1800s in the rest of Europe, the mode of production changed from hand-made goods to machine-made goods, a change that was accompanied by large-scale organizational and social changes. Machine production led to tasks being broken down into simple, small steps, and managers and supervisors became necessary to manage large-scale production. First-line supervisors were given full responsibility for the workforce (hiring, division of labor, wage determination, grievance handling, and firing). Several developments during this period eventually led to the rise of modern human resource management.

First of all, during that time companies began to take the employee welfare seriously in response to the autonomous position of first-line supervisors (e.g., English UK armed forces even introduced the skill and IQ testing at this time, along with other human factors research) (e.g., Chukwunonso 2013). Second, Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management (1914) tried to make the production process more efficient through (1) vertical division of labor (strict separation of executive work by the workers and the controlling/regulating work by staff departments); (2) horizontal division of labor (splitting up complex and difficult tasks into as small tasks as possible); (3) time and motion research: there is one best way, and when found it should be used by all workers; and (4) the introduction of performance pay (linking pay to the level of individual work performance and motivation) (e.g., Chukwunonso 2013).

However, the Hawthorne studies in 1924 by Elton Mayo demonstrated that workers were very receptive to their managers’ attention and felt that managers were sincerely concerned about their work, implicating that psychological factors were important. This insight resulted in the appearance of the Human Relations Movement of Elton Mayo, which paid attention to the social function of work and stated that workers can only be productive if they are seen as members of the group.

It was this same period that Hugo Münsterberg (1913), one of the pioneers of applied psychology, extended his research to industrial/organizational and other business settings, and psychological applications such as testing, screening, and training became more and more important in relation to organizational problems of that period. Labor shortages, high employee turnover, and increased production during World War II created a need for proper personnel administration with more attention to the psychological applications. Developments in recruitment and selection became increasingly important not only in military organizations but also in other organizations. The main emphasis was on recruitment and selection and then on training, enhancing soldier morale and commitment, discipline, occupational health, and pay policies (e.g., Chukwunonso 2013; Kaufman 2014). Personnel departments with a personnel manager emerged to take on such activities. Personnel management performed an administrative and maintenance function, including all management activities directed toward the employees. These activities were not really interrelated yet because there was no common goal, but there was a focus on work relationships, and the well-being of employees became important. As a result, workers became more articulate and better educated and made greater demands on their jobs. Job design and job enrichment made their appearance, and employee participation also increased.

Revisionism followed the Human Relations Movement in the 1960s and emphasized both technical and social organizations and the democratization and humanization of labor. Self-conscious people were central and required the organization to pay attention to their interests. Revisionism assumed that human beings are naturally oriented toward development and responsibility, and the attention to these aspects in labor relations increased (e.g., Boselie 2014).

In the 1990s, Porter (1990) introduced the New Economy: a shift from a production-based economy to a more service-oriented economy (see Boselie 2014; Chukwunonso 2013; Kaufman 2014). The economy consisting of physical tasks, task design and work design, and high unionization evolved into a service industry with sectors such as information technology (IT), telecommunications, and finance characterized by high knowledge intensity and web-based organizations, and a larger volume of data became available for decision-making. HRM systems for e-recruiting, selecting and recruiting military personnel, developing training strategies on-line, psychometric testing, and other data systems have developed rapidly since then (e.g., Boselie 2014; Chukwunonso 2013; Kaufman 2014). Although the old economy still exists in developing countries, work in modern and especially Western organizations has changed, and adaptation to change has become a dominant challenge in many organizations (Boselie 2014).

In recent years, important trends relevant for the field of HRM are further IT developments and digitalization, environmental or climate changes, and labor market trends to which organizations have to adapt. For example, there is an increasing attention to sustainable HRM (Müller et al. 2018) and green HRM (O’Donohue and Torugsa 2016). These trends in the new industry, the so-called “Industry 4.0” (e.g., Kamble et al. 2018), also lead to new directions in HRM, but have not yet been studied very systematically. However, one implication is that employees need to be trained differently if companies want to move in this direction and expect green attitudes or green values from their employees (e.g., Dumont et al. 2017). A method of continuous learning is needed, while employers are responsible for the sustainability of the work of their employees. To that end, a relevant training system is important in establishing the capabilities of the workers of the future, leading to a culture of well-trained people with digital competencies (Dumont et al. 2017).

In conclusion, the HRM sector is one of the most important functions in organizations and has evolved into today’s broad field of HRM, worlds apart from the much narrower human resource management of earlier days, which in turn emerged from institutional welfare work, scientific management, business psychology, human relations, revisionism, and other domains.

Definitions and Conceptions of HRM

Human resource management (HRM) is short for “management of human means of production.” It is a widely used synonym for “human resources policy,” “strategic human resource management,” or “human resources services.” In organizations the term HRM often refers to the departments responsible for supporting, advising, and facilitating primary HR activities (recruitment, selection and training, rewarding, appraisal, sustainable employability), so-called personnel management. However, sometimes HRM is something more than personnel management; the term then takes on a normative meaning. HRM denotes the function responsible for the selection and recruitment of staff, training, performance assessment, career development, disciplinary proceedings, pre-retirement advisory work, equal opportunity policies, and pay bargaining with a particular attention to employees (e.g., Boselie 2014). Some other authors reserve the term HRM for “a distinctive approach to employment management that seeks competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly engaged and capable workforce, using a range of cultural, structural, and personnel techniques” (Storey 2007: 7). According to proponents of HRM in this sense of the word, HRM has a certain influence on organizational success (Boselie 2014) as there will be “competitive advantage by people” according to Pfeffer (1994); the employees of an organization determine its success. Higher productivity can be created when employees are managed according to HRM principles (Boselie 2014); therefore employee management is an important factor for achieving the organizational goals (Boxall and Purcell 2011). HRM can thus be a source for gaining competitive advantage and reinforcing organizational change.

Guest (1987) has already noted that HRM also includes HR specialists and line managers. These professionals need to be trained, for example, to reward fairly, or to network, depending on their HR roles and competencies. According to Boselie (2002) HRM covers management decisions that relate to policy and practice, together shape the employment relationship, and aim to accomplish the goals of the individual, organization, and community (Boselie (2002) cited in Boselie 2014: 5). Even though the contrast between personnel management and HRM is not completely fair because it compares the everyday practice of personnel management with an ideal of what HRM could be, it can be maintained that HRM stands for a management perspective that advocates the need for a coherent HR system consisting of various human resource policies to support the organization’s strategy (Buchanan and Huczynski 2004). HRM in this sense is sometimes referred to as strategic HRM (SHRM) to give additional emphasis to the context of the organization and the alignment of HRM activities to the core strategy, focusing on the long-term perspective of HRM.

These last two definitions hint at the fact that HR policies have to form a consistent whole. Employees should receive a clear message of what behaviors are considered important. Selection, promotion, and reward criteria should point in the same direction, for instance. Upon completion of the selection process, newcomers need to be institutionalized in a manner appropriate to the organizational culture, and this should be in line with the firm-specific training and reward system. When there is an internal or horizontal fit between HR systems, it means that different HR functions are integrated and do not happen separately from each other but reinforce each other.

With such a fit, employees are likely to receive consistent feedback. This is important, as employees should receive a clear message of what kind of behaviors deemed valuable – and which not. This is what is commonly called internal consistency. On a higher plane, the organization’s entire HR policy should be chosen  to support the strategic objective and in turn be coherent with the strategy and context of the organization: the so-called external consistency (or external vertical fit; Boselie 2014). The strategic fit means that there is no one right approach, but organizations should look at what is best for them.

Main Theories

Just as there are multiple approaches toward HRM, there are various theories and perspectives that have emerged from multiple disciplines (including psychology, organizational management, sociology, leadership, etc.) and from scholars of different backgrounds to provide theoretical insights or provide practitioners with models for the practical application of HRM in the organization (see also Boselie et al. 2001; De Lange et al. 2019; Kaufman 2014).

In accordance with Delery and Doty’s contingency theory (1996), mentioned by Boselie et al. (2001), factors such as firm size, age of the firm, the use of technology, the intensity of capital, the extent of unionization, ownership, sector, and site determine which HRM policies will work and which will not. This theory assumes complex relationships between the HRM variables themselves, between HRM variables and key output measures, between HRM variables and contingencies, and between output and contingencies. HRM can only be effective if HRM variables are coherent with other dimensions of the organization and with the external context (e.g., Boselie et al. 2001). Following the contingency theory, a “one-size-fits-all” perspective is not suitable since the effect of HRM policies depends on both the external and internal settings in which they are applied (Boselie 2014).

The configurational perspective is according to Delery and Doty (1996) somewhat similar but adds complexity. This perspective claims that the closer an organization’s HR practices are to the appropriate prototype model (for organizational strategy), the stronger the success. For example, processes in the automotive industry are indicative of the configurational viewpoint (MacDuffie (1995), in Boselie et al. 2001).

In a more universalistic view to HRM, on the contrary, terms such as “best practice” and “high-performance work practices” are central (Boselie et al. 2001). This theory states that (1) that there is a linear correlation between HR practices and organizational success, (2) that the best practices are generalizable and effective, and (3) that organizational success is best quantified in terms of key financial metrics such as profits or in terms of market share and sales levels (e.g., Pfeffer 1994; Huselid 1995). This perspective implies that HRM has a direct effect on organizational performance, whereas contingency theory suggests interactions rather than simple linearity (e.g., Harney 2016; De Lange et al. 2019).

Boselie et al. (2001) state that Guest (1997) distinguishes between strategic theories, descriptive theories, and normative theories. Strategic theory addresses the relationship between extraneous conditions and HRM policies and practices, and it assumes that strategy, policy, and practice are well aligned to achieve the best (Guest 1997). The Michigan model (Fombrun et al. 1984) is an example of such a strategic model (see Figure 1). According to Guest (1997; in Boselie et al. 2001), strategic theories are too simple in describing HRM; they are not strong in detailing the underlying process that associates HRM with performance and are too focused on economic aspects such as profit.

Figure 1
figure 1

Overview of the Michigan model: The Human Resource Cycle (source: Fombrun et al. 1984)

Full size image

Descriptive HRM theories (e.g., Harvard model by Beer et al. 1984; Kochan et al. 1986; De Lange et al. 2019) on the other hand attempt to extensively describe the scope and categorize inputs and outputs in an open system framework. The Harvard model (see Figure 2) is based on the human relations school and concentrates on team work, communications, and individual talents (associated with the so-called soft method). While the descriptive approach is a realistic one, it lacks a clear link between HRM and organizational performance, stated by Guest (1997).

Figure 2
figure 2

Overview of the Harvard model: Map of the HRM Territory (source: Beer et al. 1984; Figure 2-1, p. 16)

Full size image

Finally, normative theories tend to be more prescriptive in their stance, arguing that enough knowledge exists to form a basis for a prescriptive best practice or that a range of values specifies the best practice. However, these models concentrate primarily on the internal features of HRM and neglect the broader organizational strategic aspects (e.g., Guest 1997; Legge 2005; Pfeffer 1994).

HRM in Different Contexts: Two Models of HRM in Practice

Globalization and international cooperation have made it increasingly clear that different countries can have different methods and perspectives regarding HRM. Partly because of this and the development of HRM as a theory, it is understandable that there are also differences in how HRM practices are applied in countries and continents (e.g., Boselie 2014; Dessler 2021). The degree of attention to those differences, and the conclusions drawn from them, is in part a matter of conceptual approach to the topic as there are significant conceptual differences between HRM practices within countries (China and Japan, the USA, the UK, and European countries). They vary in business environments, organizational structures, motivational programs, communication strategies, and culture (Dessler 2021). In this chapter, we only discuss the differences in HRM between the USA and European countries (Research on HRM developments and HRM applications in practice in Asian countries is also relevant, but is beyond the scope of this chapter and deserves a separate article.).

With respect to the different views on HRM practices and the various objectives of HRM studies in the USA and Europe, respectively, most authors juxtapose two models of HRM: the European, German, or Rhineland model (dominant in European countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and Austria) and the US or Anglo-Saxon model (dominant in the UK and the USA), in which a variety of stakeholders is important (e.g., Albert 1991; Brewster 1995).

The Rhineland model has its roots in continental European thinking, and for European researchers, HRM has many more stakeholders, so the concept of stakeholder is widespread in Europe and the many stakeholders are committed to HRM issues. It differs from the Anglo-Saxon model, because it has its basis in a socio-economic system that is rather different from the Anglo-Saxon one, which is more based on deregulated market-led capitalism and aims at a variety of shareholders (Brewster 2007).

Europeans have often criticized the focus of HRM in the USA which tends to be more corporate (see, e.g., Brewster 1995; Legge 1995). Most studies in the USA on HRM analyze the organization or in some situations the sub-organization (e.g., the financial unit). However, HRM in European countries is understood more broadly, and the work of HR specialists, the trade union movement, national legislation and labor markets, and institutional and cultural differences are not perceived as exogenous influences but as part of HRM issues (e.g., Brewster 2007). HRM can be implemented and analyzed at various levels, and it is not only about the organization but also the HRM policies of the European Union (EU), for example, or certain sectors or public authorities have the attention in scientific discussions. Within the EU, national governments have to deal with reducing unemployment and promoting work flexibility (see, e.g., Dessler 2021; Porter 1990).

In the Anglo-Saxon model, the emphasis is on the individual, and there is a limited sense of community. The emphasis is on goal rationality, while in the continental European model, the emphasis is much more on communality and collectivism than on the individual. Also, in the Anglo-Saxon model, there is a less developed legal basis on which organizations that want to cooperate can trust each other. According to the American model, people operate in an atmosphere of distrust when it comes to relationships between organizations. This is in contrast to Europe where a more elaborate legal system exists. This legal system is based on common principles, and loyalty, reasonableness, and fairness are important aspects (e.g., Boselie 2014; Brewster 2007).

Another difference is that there is more emphasis on the concept of people, planet, and profit in the Anglo-Saxon model. Financial parameters are often leading in this model (Boselie 2014). In relation to this, the American perspective assumes a shareholder perspective and therefore focuses more on the profits of the organization. With respect to organizational profits, the US model has lesser consideration for other stakeholders such as customers, national government, local government, employees, line managers, top management, and unions, whereas in Europe working communities have broad support for unions and other forms of employee representation in their workplaces, although the extent of this varies from one country to another (e.g., Brewster 2007; Communal and Brewster 2004). In some countries, the right to join a union to protect one’s professional interests is taken for granted, and in recent decades, the number of countries recognizing unions has increased (Heinecken 2017).

The focus on profits in the American model can be considered “short-termism,” while the Rhineland model has a “long-term” approach, based on institutionally controlled markets and a stability in the relationship between firms and their banks, and is under less pressure from the Anglo-American short-term financial system (Sibbel 2017). A short-term emphasis also plays a role in innovation, and the US model focuses primarily on high-risk innovations. Countries with liberal economies and high-tech industries such as corporate finance, telecommunications, biotechnology, and computer software experience significant innovations (e.g., Brewster 2007; Hall and Soskice 2001). In contrast, the Rhineland model concentrates much more on long-term projects, such as the development and implementation of improving innovations. At the same time, the introduction of such innovations is effective in long-term production technology, equipment, and goods. This includes intensive involvement of company employees and other stakeholders.

In terms of responsibilities and governance perspective in the Anglo-Saxon model, there are also more hierarchy and detailed plans that must be meticulously executed. There is often centralization of responsibilities in the planning and control process. There is an emphasis on control and rationalization of processes consisting of a standardized, routine, and “one-size-fits-all” method (e.g., Boselie 2014; Rosenthal 2000). This model has traditionally embraced more the theory of “management’s right to manage,” while in Europe, the work council will normally have some degree of power in management decision-making (Brewster 1995).

In contrast, the European system is based more on coexistence and cooperation in society, with an emphasis on revenue sharing. Consequently, European organizations often have decentralized responsibilities and powers, with an emphasis on cooperation between different organizational units. Teams, team building, and a high degree of self-regulation in teams are central. Recruitment is based on the qualities of managers, and the qualities of staff are also important. The European model also pays more attention to absence rate, engagement of personnel, motivation, job satisfaction, trust among personnel, personnel turnover, and the work atmosphere (e.g., Boselie et al. 2001; Boselie 2014; Dessler 2021).

The Rhineland model that emphasizes labor relations and personnel issues can still be considered the prevailing European model – although there are Anglo-Saxon influences emerging in Europe (e.g., Dessler 2021) – in which there are both EU directives (laws) and national labor laws to which companies must adapt their HR practices. This means that there are also differences between European countries because although the directives are binding on all member states, each country can implement them as deems appropriate (Dessler 2021). For example, some laws on severance pay are applied differently in European countries, and sometimes the guidelines are the same. In the Netherlands, employees on permanent contracts receive 1-month’s salary for each year they have worked when fired, while in the USA or the UK, it is very easy to fire an employee because the legislation is different (e.g., Dessler 2021; Sibbel 2017). In Scandinavian countries, there is more respect for the individual and more of a holistic and humanistic approach, where trust and care for people are central compared to other European countries. Therefore we can state that European companies are much more constrained by national policies and legislation on working hours, minimum wages, and public holidays, whereas in the Anglo-Saxon model, there is less government interference and legal oversight, and there is more emphasis on freedom and flexible work practices, in line with the strong culture of private entrepreneurship in the USA (Boselie 2014; Dessler 2021).

Finally, there are differences in the perspectives of personnel evaluation between the European and US models. The evaluation of personnel must be done in an unbiased way, with management emphasizing the measurable aspects when setting goals and assessing performance (e.g., Boselie 2014). Assessment and appreciation within the American culture are traditionally more performance-oriented, and employees are therefore accustomed to being evaluated on their output. The performance management and reward system in the USA has long reflected this: it establishes strict criteria and targets linked to group and individual performance, focusing primarily on productivity or financial performance indicators (e.g., Pfeffer 1994; Huselid 1995). In Europe, the evaluation systems are usually not so competitive (e.g., Boselie 2014).

Organizational “Fit” and Best Practices in Military Organizations

The above implies that the HRM approach of an organization should also be consistent, at least to some extent, with domestic norms and values regarding the employer-employee relationship. An organization’s strategy not only influences which HR policy should be adopted; however, existing HR policies also determine which strategies are feasible – and which not. According to the strategic fit, there is no right action, but rather what is best should be considered for each organization. A successful approach can only take place if people also change their attitudes, behavior, and cognition. This requires good and flexible management of employees, also in the military. In 1997, for example, the US military, HRM system was primarily designed to motivate personnel through conventional personnel management processes (promotion selection, retention screening, evaluation, mainly extrinsic individual rewards, and a strong hierarchy). A study in the USA demonstrated that more differentiation was needed to react and adapt to external factors to optimize the “fit,” and therefore it was recommended that the powerful system of intrinsic rewards and motivation not be undermined by hierarchical authority (Robbert et al. 1997). Also in the Netherlands armed forces, the flexible HRM system was recently found to be not so flexible at all when it comes to flexible working arrangements and retention of talented personnel, because many personnel leave irregularly and there are many vacancies (Ministry of Defense 2020). The system is no longer a good fit, given the contemporary external and internal challenges facing the military.

Thus, different scenarios for the future of the military have different implications for HR policies and instruments, such as recruitment, development, professionalization, and outsourcing. Factors to be taken into consideration include (1) society’s norms and the public responsibilities of the organization, (2) governmental pressure and expectations regarding HR policies, (3) legal responsibility of the organization and the privileges of its employees, and (4) situation in the local labor market, e.g., the degree of labor mobility and the potential of new staff on the labor market (e.g., Boselie 2014). At the background of all this hovers the question what it means, as far as personnel policies are concerned, to be a publicly funded and politically controlled organization. The approach that stresses the importance of consistency to an organization’s strategy and environment is sometimes characterized as a high-performance approach (Boselie 2014).

Some authors, however, believe that what works and what not is by and large independent from such external factors, favoring the best practices, or “one-size-fits-all” approach instead. This is then called the high commitment approach. In his The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First (1998), Jeffrey Pfeffer identifies seven best practices that will benefit every organization. These are:

  1. 1.

    Sophisticated selection

  2. 2.

    Extensive training

  3. 3.

    High wages linked to organizational performance

  4. 4.

    Team working and decentralization

  5. 5.

    Communication and information sharing

  6. 6.

    Narrow status differentials

  7. 7.

    Employment security

Seeing that some scholars claim universal validity for these practice, an important question is, of course, to what extent militaries in fact can implement such “best practices” that have been mostly developed in the civilian sector. Interestingly, it seems that most of these practices (practice 6 is the obvious exception) are – or were until recently – present in most military organizations. However, most militaries have adopted these best practices because they suit the organization’s strategy and they are related to a high-performance approach and a high commitment strategy. The strategy of the military requires highly committed employees. In practice, adopting these best practices has led to most militaries resembling an internal labor market (ILM) (Baron and Kreps 1999). This means that external recruitment is mainly used for entry-level jobs and senior positions are filled by promotion from within the company. Internal labor markets reduce recruitment and training costs, especially in organizations where many organizational and job-specific skills are required. Moreover, an internal labor market creates loyalty and commitment among personnel (Baron and Kreps 1999). In general, such internal labor markets are better suited for stable environments than for dynamic environments, and we see that, as the result of a changing labor market and a more dynamic environment in general that pose new challenges for the military, militaries have come to adopt HRM policies that are at odds with the principles of an internal labor market. From a training perspective, the longest possible contracts are best. Shorter contract are better for financial and operational reasons. The latter reasons are now deemed more important.

In relation to contracts, training perspective, and the best practices in dynamic environments, it is also important to mention that HRM policies and practices can gain by organizational learning. Organizational learning is an ongoing cycle of improving organizational structures, processes, and practices to reflect new knowledge, insights, and experience that enable organizations to increase performance and adapt to changing conditions (e.g., Cummings and Worley 2015; DiBella and Nevis 1998).

Learning organizations have the ability to learn how to change and continuously improve themselves. In a learning organization, employees take responsibility for changing the organization and learn how to do it better. Organizations built to change include strategic processes, design elements, and managerial practices that effectively support change and allow the organization to respond to a rapidly changing environment (e.g., Cummings and Worley 2015). Therefore it is important for HRM professionals to be able to identify, acquire, and share information to promote learning among employees and create a culture of continuous improvement (e.g., Cummings and Worley 2015). Especially for the military, this is very important; armed forces must be able to analyze, assess, and respond to rapidly changing operational conditions. To do this, they must ensure that their personnel are adequately trained and up to date. In the military context, organizational learning is emphasized by learning models that relate, for example, to the best practices or lessons learned (e.g., Dyson, 2021). In general, learning models involve exploring and collecting data from both external and internal sources, holding an open dialogue to exchange different perspectives, and then applying the new knowledge to create solutions to problems.

Although there are interesting discussions on the organizational learning aspect in military organizations (see Hasselbladh and Ydén 2020, 2022; Soeters 2020), it is evident that the armed forces must continually use new techniques of adaptive learning to improve personnel policies, decision-making, and adaptiveness to the changing environment.

HRM in Military Organizations in Practice: A Comparison Between Countries

The variance in HRM methods in diverse countries in general and the best practices in military organizations, as described above, have an impact on the everyday HRM practices in contemporary military organizations. The differences between the HRM systems of military organizations of different countries have been the subject of many studies in the UK, the USA, and, to a minor degree, continental Europe (e.g., Boselie et al. 2001). Understanding these perspectives is vital in developing effective HRM policies and practices for military personnel. HRM policies and practices of today are based on the developments the military has experienced in various countries.

Mittelstadt’s research on the welfare state and HRM in the US military (cited in Olsen 2016) considers the historical development of these systems and their impact on military personnel and their families. A welfare state refers to a government’s provision of social services and support to its citizens, usually through programs such as healthcare, education, and housing. Mittelstadt (2015) argues that the welfare state and HRM in the US military have evolved significantly over time, reflecting changes in political and social attitudes toward the military and the changing needs of military employees and their families. From 1940 to 1973, all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 25 in the USA were required to register with the selective service so that they were available if needed (Zubova 2021). From 1973 there were such a large number of volunteer recruits available that conscription was abolished (e.g., Zubova 2021). These volunteers were recruited and retained by providing their families with various benefits, services, and support mechanisms (e.g., health care, housing allowances, educational and retirement benefits). These benefits were previously limited to officers and career personnel but were later extended to subordinates for recruitment purposes (Mittelstadt 2015). Today, the US military still offers various benefits, including signing bonuses, healthcare plans, housing allowances, educational benefits, retirement plans, and other incentives to attract personnel.

Some European countries also (recently) have an all-volunteer army. On the other hand, some Western countries have reintroduced conscription – but now in a more inclusive variety. For example, Sweden has reintroduced conscription from 2017 (Persson and Sundevall 2019), now also for women (but on a voluntary basis) mainly due to the threat from Russia but also because it welcomes a growth in the percentage of women in the organization. Overall, the number of women in European armed forces is still between 8% and 15% (Manigart et al. 2018; Persson and Sundevall 2019; Resteigne and Manigart 2021). Dutch conscription for women was initiated in 2021, although conscription itself is still suspended, as it has been in the Netherlands since 1997. In practice, this means that conscripts are no longer called up for military service. But every young person (aged 17) still receives a letter at home stating that the person is subject to military service (e.g., Quanjer and Kok 2020; Zubova 2021). Other countries in Europe that have compulsory military service are Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Austria, and Greece (Zubova 2021).

As mentioned previously, the general US HRM perspective centers on the profits of organizations, with little or no concern for other stakeholders such as unions, while in Europe unions are quite normal. This also applies to military unions. Due to the abolition of conscription in several countries which has often been accompanied by major budget cuts, the total number of military unions has expanded in recent years. The emergence of military unions in a country also depends on factors such as its history, culture, politics, and external threats (e.g., Heinecken 2017). The purpose of unions is to ensure the well-being of military personnel without undermining military effectiveness or national security. Thus, dissatisfaction and uncertainty among military personnel about declining budgets and status in society, changing employment contracts are important reasons for the formation of unions. Social developments also play a role, such as changing culture, individualism, changes in acceptance of authority, and recruitment issues (Heinecken 2017). Today, military personnel are already accustomed to unionization and see the military as a job rather than a vocation.

In the UK and the USA, military unions have long been thought to disrupt military discipline and obedience and to be incompatible with the main mission of the armed forces: to protect the internal and external security of the nation. Unions would undermine the chain of command and the esprit de corps by creating an “us versus them” situation (Heinecken 2017; Mittelstadt 2015). This was refuted by the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark; these are countries with a long history of military unionism (e.g., Heinecken 2017; Hummel 2015), and they regard a job in the military as an “ordinary” profession, in which military personnel stand up for their own interests. Military personnel are therefore increasingly regarded as “citizens in uniform” (e.g., Hummel 2015). Military unions are forbidden in the UK, the USA, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Turkey, Greece, and Canada. In the UK, for example, military personnel are free to join civilian unions. Also, in France and Italy, alternative (internal) structures have been set up to address the grievances of military personnel, and an increasing number of countries, including Spain, Portugal, the UK, and the USA, are allowing military to form professional associations, but not unions (e.g., Caforio 2018; Hummel 2015).

The recruitment process in European countries for both voluntary and compulsory military service is generally centralized, with strict medical and fitness requirements, while the USA takes a unified approach and relies on advertising and incentives to attract potential recruits. The US military has a rigorous selection process with aptitude tests, physical fitness, and background checks, but with some flexibility to meet the needs of each individual military service (Centralized Selection Process Guide 2021; US Military 2018). Applicants undergo extensive interviews, medical examinations, and security screenings before being selected. Comprehensive training and development programs have been developed to enhance skills and knowledge and improve job performance. While the US military focuses more on vocational training and leadership development, European forces typically emphasize formal education, language training, and cultural awareness as part of their career development programs. They also offer more opportunities for international assignments and exchanges, while the USA emphasizes combat readiness and combat experience (e.g., US Military 2018).

The US military has a robust performance management system that sets clear expectations and includes regular evaluations, feedback, and recognition for outstanding performance. Performance reviews are used to determine promotions, rewards, bonuses, and disciplinary actions and include a rating system and rewards for exceptional performance (Boselie 2014). In European countries, the emphasis is more on collectivity in terms of rewards, and leisure and work-life balance seem more important than the desire to earn more money (e.g., Boselie 2014).

Military salaries and benefits vary widely within the EU, depending on national policies and economic conditions. In general, European militaries offer lower salaries but more generous social benefits, such as health care, housing, and pensions. In contrast, the US military offers competitive salaries and benefits, but these can vary depending on rank, years of service, and duty station.

The US military and European militaries recognize the importance of work-life balance and, as already mentioned, offer various programs to help their personnel. These programs include family support services, child care, counseling services, and leave policies. Employee relationships are important for a positive work environment. European military organizations have established policies to promote ethical behavior, diversity, and inclusion (e.g., Reis and Menzenes 2019), having made significant progress in recent years in promoting diversity and inclusiveness (e.g., Reis and Menzenes 2019). The US military is also committed to diversity and inclusion but faces challenges in implementing reforms, particularly around sexual harassment and assault (e.g., Reis and Menzenes 2019; Yeung et al. 2017).

In conclusion, HRM practices in the military are fundamental to promoting an effective and efficient organization. The military invests heavily in recruiting and selecting potential candidates, training and development, management of performance, the compensation process and benefits, and work atmosphere and employee relations. These practices help ensure that personnel are ready for their jobs, can perform at a high level, and remain motivated and engaged.

Challenges for Today’s Military Organizations

In general, the differences in HRM in practice between contemporary European military organizations and the US military are largely a result of their respective historical, cultural, and political contexts and subsequent HRM perspectives. However, both continents face similar challenges in terms of labor market trends, technological developments, trends in training and education, workforce diversity, and the employment of external contractors. In light of these challenges, militaries have to turn to new methods of recruiting and retaining their personnel. For those countries practicing general conscription, the recruitment of military personnel is relatively straightforward; personnel shortages are met by temporarily incorporating more conscripts (Moelker et al. 2005). What is more, conscription brings a large number of young men (and sometimes women) in contact with the military. Earlier, however, we mentioned that many societies abolished conscription in light of the changed security situation after 1989, which in turn led to missions far away instead of defending one’s own territory. Such a strategy shift affects HRM policies: in general, it requires a smaller but better educated all-volunteer force. Familiarity with the armed forces among young people has subsequently dramatically decreased in many societies (Moelker et al. 2005).

In an all-volunteer force, the military organization has to do much more in order to find qualified and motivated personnel (Moelker et al. 2005). To that end, a military organization composed of volunteers must compete with other (civilian) organizations to obtain a good and more talented work force. In view of the importance of the organization’s reputation, labor market communication is now more important than it was in earlier days (e.g., Op den Buijs and Van Doorn 2023; Thelen 2020). Military organizations have to find ways to present themselves as an employer that has something to offer to potential talented employees: interesting jobs that offer varied tasks and challenges in a dynamic environment, possibilities for study, and attractive and competitive conditions of employment (Moelker et al. 2005). Another important challenge concerning the labor market is a shift in motivation of young people to seek job opportunities in the military.

Motivating Young People

As a result of these trends, there are in many societies an insufficient number of young people available on the labor market to fill the organization, and this is worsened by the fact that the willingness of young candidates in the labor market to opt for a job in the military has decreased in recent years; apparently, the military does not always offer the kind of jobs young people today are looking for. Traditional motivators such as salary and other benefits are no longer the most important factors. More important are a good work-life balance and options for training and development. In addition, young people mention “a good work atmosphere,” “helping other people,” and “working with diverse people” as specific motiving factors, while the military’s image partly depends on offering equal opportunities for men and women (Manigart et al. 2018; Moelker et al. 2019; Rones 2017; Op den Buijs and Van Doorn 2023). While patriotism used to be a very important reason to join the military, recent studies show that young people today generally score low on patriotism as a motivating factor (Manigart et al. 2018), with women scoring significantly lower than men (e.g., Op den Buijs and Van Doorn 2023). Nevertheless, we see that in certain situations, such as the war in Ukraine, patriotism can suddenly flare up again and temporarily lead to more enlistments in the military (e.g., Ministry of Defense 2022).

Other changes relevant to the labor market include rising levels of education (leading, for instance, to more highly educated women), the loosening ties of employees with a particular employer together with an increased labor mobility as a result, changing employment relationships (Buchanan and Huczynski 2019), and the deliberate search for a balance between the work and private life, especially in a context of peace. This work-life balance is of concern of the new generation of young people. Women have a preference for part-time work, especially when they have children (e.g., Salladarré and Hlaimi 2014). This is also important for partners of military personnel, but also vice versa, because we see more and more differently composed families. The career of women has become more important, and there are families with two military parents who have to take turns going on mission. This, as well as the missions they have returned from, can be a burden to the family (Moelker et al. 2019). A subsequent mission can be a barrier for military women and men alike when they have caring responsibilities for children, and this may even be a reason to leave the military organization (Andres et al. 2011; Vuga and Juvan 2013).

In the end, the staffing of military organizations depends on the circumstances and fluctuations on the labor market to a certain extent, and dealing with unpredictability is the main challenge military planners face. Reliable and timely information about supply and demand on the labor market is therefore of vital importance. That is why military organizations have to keep a close eye on their position on the labor market. To be effective in this, military organizations must invest not only in labor market communications but also in data or workforce analytics (big data) – something that is already happening – to find the personnel and to improve the training and development of their talent (Tsai et al. 2015; Buchanan and Huczynski 2019). New effective and efficient ICT systems can help in providing rapid, measurable benefits on qualities of motivated personnel and readiness of the armed forces (e.g., Buchanan and Huczynski 2019). These conditions are important for workforce analytics, and of course there are ethical issues involved, such as employee data privacy. There are concerns that data on qualities and motivation of personnel can lead to a breach of privacy. Legislation in Europe such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; European Commission 2018), for example, covers all data processing (such as input, data transmission, output, stored data) and should protect employees and organizations. Military organizations must be careful and transparent when analyzing, storing, and securing personal data in HRM systems (e.g., Hamilton and Sodeman 2020; Tsai et al. 2015).

Talent Management

In some parts of the organization, military personnel will become a bit more like civilians wearing a uniform, as said before. The work in the military has become increasingly technological in recent years – think of the use of drones, new weapons systems, but also developments in the field of cyber and artificial intelligence – and this requires a different kind of qualified personnel. In other words, the military needs “talents” for all kinds of technological and technical jobs, but we see this development in other civilian companies as well, and everyone is fishing in the same pond of potentially qualified personnel (for more on this “war on talent,” see Soeters 2020). In the labor market, it is hard to find workers with exactly the skills and qualifications that the military needs. And if employees are found and hired, it is vital to find ways to retain them and make the most of their talents. This refers to strategic talent management, which ensures that the necessary talent is attracted, retained, developed, and motivated to work toward the organization’s strategic objectives (e.g., Boselie 2014; Effron and Ort 2010).

Talent management aligns individual capabilities with the needs of the armed forces and optimizes human performance and engagement (the best soldier at the right position at the right time). It integrates acquisition, development, employment, and retention strategies. HR departments have an important role by developing and implementing training programs, providing coaching and mentoring, collecting feedback, and measuring results of the talented employees within the organization. For example, the US army personnel system provides a more personalized management system that could help motivate and retain young people and better prepare them for leadership roles (Arnold 2015). Also, the Netherlands armed forces are gradually implementing a new HRM system to be completed by the end of 2024 that focuses on talent management and considers the employee’s needs and talents by offering career perspectives both on the internal and external labor markets (Ministry of Defense 2021).

In earlier days, military organizations, as described, were internal labor markets where personnel were trained internally and on the job (Baron and Kreps 1999). For military organizations, however, the focus has shifted to an external labor market due to various environmental influences, with personnel management becoming much more important than it was. It is also more important than ever that personnel policies are in line with societal norms (e.g., Boselie 2014). This is above all important when dealing with personnel that for whatever reason have to leave the military organization; the old idea that a military career is a career for lifetime is no longer true in many countries. This is one of the reasons why militaries increasingly offer new military personnel the chance to acquire more qualifications than are needed just for military purposes. As Moskos et al. (2000) stated some time ago, the military profession increasingly resembles other occupations in many ways.

Diversity and Inclusion

The trends described above make that military organizations have to ensure that there is enough interest among potential qualified recruits to work for the military. And for many militaries, it is vital right now to find these talents because there are many vacancies in Western militaries (For example, in 2020 there were 9000 vacancies in the Netherlands armed forces out of a total population of 54,000 working in the armed forces; the outflow of military personnel was greater than the inflow (CBS 2021; Ministry of Defense 2019).). Due to the described demographic trends on the labor market, many Western military organizations, for example, are not only transitioning to talent management but also toward attracting and retaining diverse groups in the military organization (minorities and women; e.g., Manigart et al. 2018), and the focus is also shifting to increasingly scaling up with reservists or working with external contractors of companies.

In most societies the most notable trend is that the contribution of women to the labor market is on the increase (>50% women; CBS 2021), and militaries have to adapt to, and benefit from, this changing situation, not only because of the personnel shortages that many militaries experience but also because of legal and societal pressures. There are also operational reasons for employing diverse groups. Interaction with the local population of host countries may be easier because women and minorities have a different approach in this regard, which can lead to advantages in operational situations (e.g., King 2021; Richardson et al. 2011). Not surprisingly, there is a positive relationship between all-volunteer forces and the participation of women in military organizations. A study by Carreiras shows that the “representation of women is higher in countries that have voluntary systems of military service or consider transition from conscript to all-volunteer forces and face actual or potential recruitment shortages. Inversely, countries based on conscript military systems and no recruitment difficulties tend to have the lowest representation of women” (Carreiras 2004: 229).

To incorporate more diverse groups into the armed forces, the groups must be fully accepted and integrated into the organization (Bosman 2008; Richardson et al. 2014; Richardson et al. 2011; Yeung et al. 2017). Military organizations have recently accepted more diverse groups (e.g., Norway, Sweden, the UK, the US; Resteigne and Manigart 2021). In 2018, the first Dutch woman appeared in training in the Marines, and since then women have also been hired in the submarines. This is an encouraging development and may lead to a better acceptance of diversity and a broader recruitment tactic which is good for the image young people hold of the military. The bottom line is that both parties are satisfied when it comes to a working relationship (e.g., Boselie 2014; Graf and Kuemmel 2021).

However, inclusiveness is not just a matter of hiring more members from diverse groups; the culture in the organization (e.g., the tolerance and attitudes of the serving staff) must also change to achieve awareness and recognition of diversity issues (e.g., Op den Buijs and Van Doorn 2023; Spijkers et al. 2023). The management of diverse groups of employees requires an attitude of change from personnel, supervisors, and management. For example, the acceptance of diverse groups in organizations requires different leadership styles and a cross-cultural and gender perspective.

The integration of diverse groups is still a major source of tension in the USA and in some European military organizations because stereotypical gender images among serving military personnel are difficult to break down and to change. These images can lead to incidents of unacceptable behavior. There is some success in reducing unacceptable behavior and incidents in the military, but according to Reis and Menzenes (2019), the incident rate is still too high in the US military and many other European countries, and strong specific policies to prevent this behavior are still lacking.

The inclusion and integration of diverse personnel will not be easy, given the size of the military organizations and the prevailing culture and sub-cultures. Historically, military organizations haven been often the first institutions to implement new developments in management and organization, but in these aspects, there is still a world to win.

Reservists

Another aspect of diversity and labor market trends within the military context that can be challenging concerns the so-called reservists. In Western countries, given changes in organizational strategy and personnel shortages, they have become increasingly important. A reservist simultaneously performs a military and a civilian function, and the primary role is to be available when the military needs extra troops (Williams 2005). This allows for rapid scaling up or down.

In countries with a recruiting system for the selection of volunteers, reserve forces consist of civilians who maintain their military capabilities through periodic training (Williams 2005). Reserve troops are considered part of a permanent military force, and reserve forces allow a nation to decrease its peacetime military expenditures  while maintaining a force prepared for operations. There are a few studies on reservists and their health, readiness, work-life balance, and other dual employment experiences (e.g., Kirby and Naftel 2000; Rein-Sapir and Ben-Ari 2021). HRM activities should incorporate the reservists and deal with their dual employment.

Private Military and Security Companies

In relation to personnel shortages in the military, another trend is evident: the increasing externalization of human resources through Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). Private companies can be a challenge or benefit to military organizations, and PMSCs have been used for nearly 150 years by various armed forces around the world to solve personnel shortages (Schaub Jr. and Kelty 2016). PMSCs are profitable organizations whose members are paid to execute military or security tasks in conjunction with or for other military units (Schaub Jr. and Kelty 2016). In response to the tight labor market, PMSCs are considered as valuable for providing additional skills and services in peacetime. For example, US forces have contracted with several PMSCs for a variety of national security-related tasks or to provide base security during times of personnel shortages. The armed forces are also more frequently deploying PMSCs in international military conflicts and operations. During operational activities, PMSCs can provide a range of services, from training and logistics assistance, convoy escorts, and catering at military bases (e.g., Schaub Jr. and Kelty 2016; Ranganathan 2016), and since the wars in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it has become quite common for these private companies to be deployed even in core military combat functions.

However, there have also been negative experiences with contractors. For example, British forces were unable to protect their main contractors conveying food and gasoline in Pakistan and Afghanistan, so these companies had to cooperate with local armed security companies, resulting in the deaths of many contractors. This number was even higher than the military casualties in operations TELIC and HERRICK (Cusumano and Kinsey 2016). PMSCs have also raised ethical questions in other operational situations. However, PMSCs do not always have the necessary documents to regulate their activities, and PMSC personnel are not always properly trained; this can undermine discipline, morale, and rules of  conduct in militaries (Ranganathan 2016). There are also known scandals and incidents (Ranganathan 2016), such as reckless shooting of civilians, abuse of detainees, as well as sex trafficking and economic exploitation or violations of human rights. Thus, it is important that military organizations ensure that PMSCs operate in accordance with laws and rules in the context of HRM (Cusumano 2016).

Conclusion

In this chapter, we outlined the evolution of HRM, its definitions and main theories, and general country differences in HRM and between military organizations and we described some challenges in the field of HRM for military organizations. Many Western military organizations face the difficult task of recruiting qualified personnel in a labor market that is tight (most armed forces today have many vacancies), increasingly diverse, and has an aging population (see also Manigart et al. 2018). Recruitment has become one of the critical success factors. Once the military has succeeded to attract the right people, it must find ways to motivate these employees to excel at their job in a challenging context that puts pressure on their personal lives, without necessarily being able to offer them, for instance, job guarantee in return. Here we must also keep in mind that new developments constantly emerging. The further digitization of HR processes, the constant changes in the labor market and motivating factors of young people, and the advances in technology (e.g., cyber and artificial intelligence), workforce changes, and the development of more private military companies will continue to pose new tests. From a human resource management perspective, this poses quite some challenges, and some of the most important ones have been outlined above. For more specific information on these and other related topics, we suggest reading the relevant chapters of this handbook. The tasks of the armed forces, meanwhile, place heavy demands on military personnel. Over the years the range of these tasks has broadened, and the areas of deployment have become more varied. The work has thus become more challenging, and the operations military personnel conduct are no longer the same as they were some years ago. Where, when, with whom, under what circumstances, and for what tasks military personnel will be deployed in the future is uncertain.