so Strategic HRM can be based down from manpower planning that take place in a company, but SHRM takes a level further by going into details by developing frameworks that fit into the current situation of the company which means, each HRM is unique and have to be adjusted according to the company itself. so by using SHRM, employees will be managed accordingly to make strategic contributions that fit into the company's strategy, which are different among each other companies of course, thus giving the company more competitive advantage among others when achieved successfully.
There are 2 perspective that can be outlined on why academics and HR professionals embraced SHRM which are "rational choice" and "constituency-based". Rational choice means SHRM is embraced because it is the best step to give the company major competitive advantage among other by going into detail with each employee skills and company intellectual assets when doing the HRM. Meanwhile constituency-based means SHRM is embraced because it can further improve these HR professionals position in the company by giving their HRM adjustment that will make it look more strategic, which causes them to be respected more in the company.
In my opinion SHRM should be embraced as the best choice that can be taken to give the company more competitive advantage because it will be better fit to the current needs of the company and by doing so, will have a better success rate compared to constituency-based that just embraced SHRM just to make the HRM more strategic, but not as good as the SHRM that the company need.