The Emerging Popularity of Human Resource Management

What were the socioeconomic departs in the 1980s which contributed to the emerging popularity of Human Resource vogue? Does the supposition of Human Resource Management present a radical mutation or is it a mere repackaging of personnel office management? Introduction During the 1980s, a new management concept referred to as Human Resource Management (HRM) became very fashionable. At that time, many a(prenominal) academics questi onenessd whether HMR was simply a renaming of the previously know personnel management (PM) tool, or whether it was, as some claimed, a radically different philosophy and approach to management of people at take shape (1).Firstly, it seems appropriate to define HRM. However, the definition of HRM this has been widely debated, and so for our purposes, we will put on Stephen Bachs view that it mass be viewed as the date of biticular strategies and approaches towards management of understandable labour. We must also mete extinct what we mean by socioeconomic, which we female genitals state as the birth amongst economic activity and social life. In this essay, the similarities and unlikenesss between HRM and PM are analysed in an attempt to see whether on that point is more to HRM than clean rhetoric.Socioeconomic Changes Towards the end of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s, both the US and UK economies experienced recessions of relative magnitude. Both governments sought new economic solutions, and take policies cognise as Thatcherism and Reaganomics, that contained monetarism and free market economics. One of the consequences of this radical time period was the reforming and reshaping of what many described as the conventional model of industrial dealings (2).These new policies inevitably led to the empowerment of employers, and resulted in substantive death of trade union power at that time and as yettually became the turning point of the era of trade unionism. There were a number of consequences as a result of this reshaping of the economy probably the largest of note was that there was a bowl overable decline in a number of the mature underlying industries, such as Steel and Coal, which was balanced by the increase in the Service sector (this is still apparent today as 70% of UK GDP comes from the service sector (3)).This period of decline in many Basic industries coincidently ushered in a time for new technologies found on hi-tech products, moreover assisting the aim of both governments to deregulate and step up market contention by means of free market economics. With anti-union legislations and privatisation at the result of the Conservative party philosophy, as Thatcher pushed to remove the power of the Socialist / communist trades unions, the result of which led to the encouragement of firms to introduce new labour practices and re-order their corporal bargaining arrangements (4).This gave companies the opportunity to develop direct relationships with employees, and hence reduce further the power of trade unions. These direct relationships are what some people to consider as one of the unsoundeds of HRM. On a more global scale, this was an important period in the development of globalization that saw rival intensify from overseas. Japan rapidly became one of the major exporters of very competitively priced manufactured goods to the US undercutting many domestic suppliers.This development, unsurprisingly, effectivenessd US companies to consider their cost structure in an attempt to see off this external competition. Companies quickly began to investigate the productivity of its workforce. One of the outcomes of this, which is judged to be one of the cornerstones of HRM, was to supply to develop harmonious relations between employers and employees. The belief was already there that synergy could be created from the employee/employers relationship.Furthermore, it became apparent that an environment free of conflict could service of pr ocess unite an organisation so that individual employees could commit themselves to organisational success. This Unitarianism perspective became one of the antecedents of the development of HRM. Toward the end of the 1980s as more and more academics go along to produce a wealth of literature on the subject of HRM, it became open air that there was a recurring theme for those companies that appeared to perform super puff up in these market conditions.It became obvious in these increasingly dynamic markets that companies that were proactive to market change were able to do so as a result of motivated workforce. The question that was begging to be asked was how they were able to this so well? The answer was through involved management styles that were instilling a culture in the workforce that was proactive rather than reactive. This is one of the delineate differences that will be referred back to later. It was suggested that these had been brought on by the intense competition a nd pressure, which eant a competent PM was more necessary than ever. There were several(prenominal) other socioeconomic changes that all acted as antecedents to the development and reshaping of PM that became known as HRM. These included increasingly strident demands of shareholders, ever-changing work force (flexibility, part time largely through the employment of women), a changing age structure of the workforce, the young moving in the direction of hidden and service sectors, hence less prone to unionisation and finally increasingly mechanised manufacturing processes through new technologies.Differences between HRM and PM The second part of this essay looks at whether HRM was in actual fact a raw idea or whether in reality it was a re-labelling of PM. Looking through a variety of literature on the subject, it immediately becomes clear that it is extremely hard to find a definitive line to draw between HRM and PM. Legge for example mentioned he felt their wasnt a huge difference between the two and in fact drew on some very clear similarities. However he does manage to point out some diverging aspects.While Torrington saw the development of HRM as solo adding a further dimension to the multi faceted role (5) therefore comprehend HRM as an ongoing process in the evolution of PM. As a result he finds it hard to label HRM as a rotatory model. There are those experts that do agree in the novelty of HRM. Its these authors that remind us not to play down the effects of HRM, mentioning that composition many of the techniques in HRM are similar to those in PM, it is the philosophical background of HRM that makes these techniques so much more effective.The model of HRM unfortunately is not resembling and is made up of several different theoretical approaches therefore it becomes even harder to define clearly. This is perhaps what has muddied water so much in the debate of HRM and PM. Perhaps the easiest was to try and find an answer to this question is to co mpare the differences versus the similarities. Firstly the differences Storey puts particular emphasis on the strategical spirit (1) and day-and-nightly mentioned how HRM decision and formulations of policies should take place on strategic take aim at bottom an organisation.Meanwhile PM can be condemned for its limit consideration of business objectives during decision making. Another major concept that is fundamental to HRM (particularly in Soft HRM) which cannot be identified in PM is the universe culture and values on an organisation level. The intention of this aspect is to calculate towards employee commitment towards achieving organisational goals. This commitment can be seen as a trumpeter of motivation and performance (6).Furthermore we can consider the aspects of confabulation within HRM, whereby it rejects collective bargaining and attempts to set up direct channels of communication with individuals. By operating in this manor, HRM attempts to meet the individual needs of the employee so that they can then go on to contribute to the organisation. Consideration of the proactive versus reactive argument can also identify differences (with HRM viewed as proactive and PM viewed as reactive). Proactive workforces enable organisations to pre-empt changes in markets.However they can only be implemented if the workforce is sufficiently motivated. The final major difference that can be identified is the emphasis that HRM places on cooking and development, that PM does not seem to identify with in the same way (5). When we contemplate the similarities of the PM and HRM we can consider Legges work (he viewed the clearest change from PM to HRM to be the re-labelling process). He established three primary(prenominal) aspects than run through both forms of management. He stated that both accent the importance of integration.Both sought to deliver the castigate people to the right jobs (he saw this as the principal role of the management of people in an organisation). Both PM and HRM gave people- management to line managers. Guest also discusses personnel development and functioning on a strategic level. However the supra theses partially contradict what many other authors thought (6). In conclusion, we can accept that while HRM and PM contain significant similarities, we have to get laid that they differ in terms of their meaning and emphasis.Perhaps cultural aspects and strategic considerations would be the most important alteration, when converting from one theory to the other. Perhaps it would be wrong to say that HRM was a completely novel idea, especially when so many of the procedures and techniques overlap. However it is correct to say that HRM took many of the principles of PM and use them to a different philosophy and way of thinking, and in doing so, inherently took the continuous evolution of PM to what we today call HRM.