This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The definition of HRM is contemporary & problematic as it changes time to time, place to place depending up on the Requirements i.e, Economy, demands of labour & materials incorporated along with the Worker's Safety & their Social Welfare. This is because there is no generally agreed framework for understanding andAnalysing the HR function. Only competition of models is there.
In practice, the HR function within organisations in the World is entirely flexible, Organisations principally driven by the external contexts of the existing age & are often changes within short periods of time. In fact the past history of HR in the Developed Countries projected that the priorities had been changed and focused its activities by re-inventing itself continuously. This had been largely in response to external socio-economic factors beyond the immediate control of HR practitioners or senior managers. For such reasons different definitions, frame works and models can be seen in the basic fundamental texts and in the wide range of articles examining and executing the functions, roles and antecedents of contemporary HRM in Organisations.
For the purpose of Identification of readers it is necessary to have some Idea of the understanding, the difference in frameworks and intellectual underpinnings of HRM to understand and analyses the major external and internal contexts within which HR professionals operate today. It is these dynamic contexts which provide a continuing theme throughout the text.
Marching ton and Wilkinson (2008), defines HRM Curtly as the management of employment. Another standard text provides non agreeable definition of HRM but distinguishes between 'soft' and 'hard' versions of it.
These writers, drawing upon Guest (1987) and Storey (1992), claim soft HRM 'recognises employees as a resource worth investing in, and tends to focus on high commitment/high involvement human resource practices.' Hard HRM 'identifies employees as a cost to be minimised, and tends to focus on "flexibility techniques" and limited investment in learning and development' (Beard well and Clayton 2007, pp671, 675). Box all and Purcell (2008) regards HRM in the English-speaking world as all those activities associated with the management of Employment relationships in the firm.
Human resource management and its external contexts from personnel management to HRM
The term HRM is used in two ways. They provide a useful distinction between.
The first is a generic term used to describe the body of management activities which have been traditionally labelled 'personnel management'.
Generic HRM seeks to achieve four key objectives: Staffing, Performance, Change in Management and Administration. These organizational objectives are delivered primarily by personnel/HR specialists or personnel/HR generalists. HRM as a distinctive approach to managing people delivers organizational objectives by HR professionals in collaboration with line managers.
Personnel management is driven by Specialist and Professionally Experts. Its features include: a short-term, ad hoc time perspective; a pluralist, collective approach for managing employment relations; bureaucratic, centralised, organisational structures; and cost minimisation evaluation criteria.
The second is regarded as a distinctive approach to HRM and suggests a specific philosophy towards carrying out 'people-oriented organisational activities'.
It has been identified that a number of 'Stereotypical' features distinguishing the personnel management tradition (generic term) from the distinctive HR tradition (distinctive approach).
Distinctive approach, 'new' HR tradition (people-oriented organisational activities) is largely integrated with line management. Its features include: a long-term, strategic time perspective; a unitary, individual approach managing employment relations more organic devolved, flexible organisational structures; and maximum utilisation of human resources
Interestingly identify six main periods or 'themes' in history of personnel management and its transition into contemporary HRM. Indeed, it has been perceptively observed, delivery of the personnel/HR's function always been flexible and adjusted its dominant Values historically 'as macro circumstances change'.
The apparent over shadowing of personnel management by the distinctive HRM tradition lies in its function as 'a rhetoric about how employees should be managed to achieve competitive advantage [rather] than as coherent new practice' Consulted Keenoy (1990) Critic of new HRM,
HRM is more rhetoric than reality and simply supports ideological shifts in the employment relationship, driven by market pressures (Can view as 'a wolf in sheep's clothing').
In Britain, Torrington et al (2008) describe the first theme in the exclusion of personnel Management and HRM as 'social justice'. It incorporated under limitation amongst a few enlightened employers in nineteenth-century. Employers promoted a welfare approach to managing people by attempting harmonically working conditions and avoid adversarial industrial relations. Second, in the first half of the twentieth century, 'humane bureaucracy', influenced by managerial practitioners and observers such as Taylor (1911), Fayola (1916)and Mayo (1933) came to the fore in management practices. Taylor's 'scientific management' principles adopted a work study, incentive-based approach to managing people. This was followed by the 'human relations' school, originating.
Introducing HRM, organisations and management
Experiments aimed at fostering good 'human relations', high morale and efficiency at work & later on 1960s effected:
First, in response to strong trade unions 'negotiated consent' was fostered by personnel and industrial relations managers, containing union power and managing workers by representative and collective agreements.
Second, focus was on 'organisation 'provided by personnel specialists. They did this by developing career paths, opportunities for personal growth and workforce planning.
Third, 'HRM'theme, focused on performance management, planning, monitoring and control, flexibility and employees as individuals, emerged and grew in the Hinglish spoke world from 1980s to 2000s.in response to globalisation and liberal economic policies.
Fourth theme observers claimed 'new HR'in2005. Driven by employer demands for competitive advantage, is characterised by a 'new trajectory' in response to significant long-term trends in business context. It is global perspective, issues of legal compliance, the emergence of 'multi-employer' networks (or 'permeable organisations'), engagement of individual employees emotionally at work, and customer-centered focus in business. This trend seems to shift away from the 'management of jobs' by organisations to the 'management of people' within them (Lepak and Snell 2007).
The HR literature, Beard well and Clark (2007) identify five comparative models of personnel management and HRM.
In each case, practices and theories of managing people within each of the personnel
Management and HRM traditions differ. In outline,
I.Planning perspective: Personnel management in the planning perspective is reactive and marginal to corporate plans.
ii. People management perspective: In the people management perspective, people are a variable cost, subject to compliance and organisational control.
iii Employment relations perspective: In the employment relations perspective, personnel management accepts that self-interest dominates at work and that conflicts of interests among stake holders are inevitable. Personnel management in the
iv Structure/systems perspective: structure/systems perspective imposes control of staff from the top and control of information flows downwards.
V Role perspective: In the role perspective, personnel management is specialised, professional and driven by personnel specialists.
HRM views people as social capital capable of being developed and committed at work.
In the employment relations perspective, HRM supports coincidence of interests among stakeholders and de-emphasises conflict in the workplace. HRM in the Structure/systems perspective promotes employee participation and informed Choice by staff, with open channels of communication to management aimed at building employee trust and commitment. In the role perspective, HRM is largely integrated into line management.
Human resource management and thereby external contexts 7
The recent literature clarifies that Global Countries does not agree upon the definition of contemporary HRM or the practices Incorporates an issue which is fully detailed in Chapter 5. Following two observations can be seen;
First, HRM in the Britain & Other places is historically 'path dependent'. This explains meaning, activates how-?, Social structures or model of behavior in the present institutions are limited by what had happened in the past -?even though past incidences may no longer apply.
Second, as Guest (1997, p266) argued, this lack of consensus about HRM arises from the 'absence of a coherent theoretical basis for classifying HRM policy and practice'
Guest identifies three broad categories of general level theory about contemporary HRM after Examining the Key Literature in Area. Noticed;
Strategic theories, such as those, Miles & Snow (1984) and Schuler and Jackson (1987); Descriptive theories, such as those of Beer et al (1985) and Kochan et al (1986); and Normative theories, such as those of Walton (1985) and Pfeffer (1994).
Each theoretical category originates in different sets of assumptions about HRM. These
are contingency theory, systems theory and motivation theory respectively.
These theoretical schools have common contemporary HRM is deemed to be distinctive in some way or the other from traditional personnel management debates & reflected later in this book. A summary of the main features of personnel management and HRM is provided in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 From personnel management to HRM:
A summary of the Personnel Management traditions & the Human Resources Management traditions;
Personnel Management traditions
Human Resources Management traditions
Driven by employer needs to treat people
fairly in organisations
Driven by employer needs for competitive
advantage in the marketplace
Operates in relatively stable market
Operates within competitive markets and a
Is a traditional approach to managing
people, with a strong administrative
Is a distinctive approach to managing people,
with a strong strategic purpose
Is short term, with an ad hoc perspective
Is long term, with a strategic time perspective
Adopts a pluralist frame of reference to
organisation and people management
Adopts a unitary frame of reference to
organisation and people management
Negotiates with trade unions where they
Manages employees individually rather than
Is delivered, monitored and policed by
Is delivered by HR professionals in
collaboration with line managers
What do you understand by the 'strategic theories' of HRM, 'descriptive theories' and 'normative theories'? Which approach is the most useful for HR practitioners and why?
The Harvard model of HRM
Analytical framework of the 'Harvard model' comprising of Six basic Component Offered by Beer et al.
Human resource management policy choice
Long term consequences
A feedback loop through which outputs flow directly into the organisation and towards Stakeholders. The Harvard model for HRM is shown in Individual and Organisational Performance before Model is Discussed, It needs to discuss how-?, according to Guest; HRM differs from orthodox personnel management and to identify the major assumptions or stereo types under pinning personnel and HRM. Accordingly the Stereo Type is Distinctively different from Orthodox Personnel Management because it Integrates Human Resources into Strategic Management. It achieves commitments to organizational targets,
The Perspective is Unitary with a Focus on the Individual, it works better in Organisations as an 'Organic' Structure, and it emphasis on full and Positive Utilization of Human Resources. It activates in contrasting Stereo Types. Hance HRM is 'better' is only assumption. Guest states 'It fails to record Variations of accounts in Context which considers limit of approach to Managing the Work Force' (1987, p.508)
Founder of HRM were Harvard School of Beer (1984) who developed Box all (1992) calls the Harvard Frame Work. The framework is prepared for Solving the Problems of Historical Personnel Management which caused when managers and leaders developed views & wish to see workers involved in the development of the enterprises & Undertakings, in which HRM policies and practices would help them to achieve those Targets. Without a central philosophy or a long term strategic vision-which can be provided only by HRM managers, that is likely to remain a set of autonomous activities, each guided by their own practice and tradition. They also stated that HRM involves all Management decisions and actions which affects the nature of the Relationship between the Organisation and its Employees-its human resources. According to the Harvard school HRM have two characteristic features.
First, line Managers and Executives generally accept more responsibility for ensuring the alignment of competitive strategy and employee's policies & their welfare for seeking efficiency.
Second Employee has the mission of setting policies that oversee how employee's activities are developed and implemented in ways that make them more reinforcing mutually & to achieve maximum Efficiency.