Is there a strong business case for the strategic approach to HRM, or is it more the case that academics and HR professionals have embraced SHRM out of self-interest?
My own journey into the world of SHRM began not in the library, but in a mid-sized logistics company where I worked briefly before starting my academia journey. There, the HR department was caught in a bind—overwhelmed by paperwork, disconnected from business planning, and largely reactive. They were excellent administrators, but rarely seen as partners in growth. It was only when a new HR director arrived—someone trained in SHRM principles—that things shifted. Suddenly, HR was in the boardroom. Workforce planning aligned with business expansion. Talent development became proactive. Turnover declined. That experience, as anecdotal as it might seem, became my first field case—evidence that SHRM wasn’t just academic theory but a powerful tool for real business transformation.
Of course, in academia, we tend to interrogate everything—especially our own tools. Some critics argue that SHRM has gained traction not solely because of its effectiveness, but because it elevates the status of HR professionals and lends theoretical weight to a field once dismissed as ‘soft’. There is merit to this view. The language of ‘strategic alignment’, ‘capability building’, and ‘human capital’ certainly helps HR speak the language of the C-suite. And yes, as academics, SHRM gives us a rich playground to develop models, metrics, and strategic frameworks—tools that help justify our research grants and institutional recognition.
But must these motivations be mutually exclusive from impact? I don’t think so. The scholarly embrace of SHRM may have elements of self-interest, but the same can be said of any discipline evolving to match the tempo of industry. What matters more is that SHRM offers organizations a framework to think systemically about people: aligning talent with business needs, preparing leaders for tomorrow, and embedding culture into strategy.
As I delve deeper into my research, I’m convinced that the real strength of SHRM lies in its dual utility. It serves both as a practical tool for businesses navigating complexity, and as an intellectual structure for researchers and practitioners to rethink the value of human resources. The case for SHRM, then, is not one of either/or—it’s both a strategic necessity and a professional evolution. And perhaps, that’s what makes it so enduring.
:)