|
|
Since there were demand and supply towards human resources, especially in the business world, whether or not it was for either supply and mobilization of simple manpower or effective use of expert manpower, it is generally agreed that the activities of effectively and efficiently making use of people’s skills and relevant ability to the work and ,going further, applying these things into practice have been regarded as an essential factor in competing with rivals and making more profit by it. With the advent of the term, it is true that the term has been gone through the process of redefinition several times by many scholars. What is more, people have had slightly different ,or sometimes quite different, evaluation and opinion about effective value and usefulness of it. This essay will deal with the question as to how the term ‘Human Resource Management’ has been perceived. It will look at its history and recent theories as well as making attempt to show its impact in Britain. In order to define and fully understand the term ‘Human Resource Management’, it is important to trace its origin and phases it passed through. The roots of this profession can be found in the nineteenth century when pressure for reform of working conditions from members of labour movement and work of social performers like Robert Owen and Rowntree, which had been called the movement towards ‘industrial betterment’ made possible emergence of the earliest attempts at welfare policies. At the beginning responsibilities of the first welfare workers were mainly in “dispensing benefits to the deserving and unfortunate employees”(Torrington et al., 1991: 3). The World War I pushed welfare workers to higher position, welfare services were made obligatory at Munitions factories; it was an industrial relations function in its modern sense that started to shape. The inter-war period characterised by the shift in the focus of the welfare officers from caring one to more organizational, to objectives such as staffing and training. In the 1920s and 1930s “in the large organizations, such as ICI…and Mark & Spencer, the first specialist personnel departments were formed”(Tyson and York, 2000: 55). Following new developments in works of thinkers like Taylor (1856-1915), Fayol (1841-1925) and Mayo (1880-1949) personnel managers became more aware of administrative processes and management itself (Torrington et al, 2002). Second World War saw an embrace of personnel management practices not only by war factories were it expanded in its staffing aspects, but also by many anxious companies, which wanted to have maximum productivity; rise of trade unions, which helped to acquire new skills by practitioners in bargaining and institution such as joint consultation committees were established (Bratton and Gold, 1999, 2003). During the next twenty years after Second World War personnel management grew once more in its position and became preoccupied with effectiveness of whole organisation, its focus changed from dealing mainly with employees towards dealing with management more than with employees (Tyson and York, 2000). Next stage of development of personnel management from the 1970s to the early 1980s is usually associated with planning or workforce planning boosted by new technology (Torrington and Hall, 1998). The most recent phase of these profession took place from the late 1980s when term Human resource management emerged in Britain. It is largely associated with “change of emphasis and attitude” (Torrington et al., 1991: 7) towards managing of human resource. For the last twenty five years academics and practitioners were arguing about origin and nature of human resource management and its definition. These are some definitions given to the human resource management at different time and by different authors: The main dimension of HRM [involve] the goal of integration [i.e., if human resources can be integrated into strategic plans, if human resource policies cohere, if line managers have internalised the importance of human resources and this is reflected in their behaviour and if employees identify with the company, then the company’s strategic plans are likely to be more successfully implemented], the goal of employee commitment, the goal of flexibility/adaptability [i.e., organic structures, functional flexibility], the goal of quality [i.e., quality of staff, performance, standards and public image].
|
