Welcome to your ultimate human resource management information


What is human resource management?

Human Resource Management (HRM) is both anThe debate regarding "human resources" versus
academic theory and a business practice. Ithuman capital thus in many ways echoes the
is based on the notion that employees aredebate regarding natural resources versus
firstly human, and secondly should NOT benatural capital. Over time the United Nations
treated as a basic business resource. HRM ishave come to more generally support the
also seen as an understanding of the humandeveloping nations' point of view, and have
aspect of a company and its strategicrequested significant offsetting "foreign
importance. HRM is seen as moving on from aaid" contributions so that a developing
simple "personnel" approach (or was supposednation losing human capital does not lose the
to) because it is preventative of potentialcapacity to continue to train new people in
problems, and secondly it should be a majortrades,  professions,  and  the  arts.
aspect of the company philosophy, in which
all managers and employees are champions ofAn extreme version of this view is that
HRM-based  policies  and  philosophy.historical inequities such as African slavery
must be compensated by current developed
Human resources has at least two meaningsnations, which benefitted from stolen "human
depending on context. The original usageresources" as they were developing. This is
derives from political economy and economics,an extremely controversial view, but it
where it was traditionally called labor, oneechoes the general theme of converting human
of three factors of production. The morecapital to "human resources" and thus greatly
common usage within corporations anddiminishing its value to the host society,
businesses refers to the individuals withini.e. "Africa", as it is put to narrow
the firm, and to the portion of the firm'simitative use as "labor" in the using
organization that deals with hiring, firing,society.
training, and other personnel issues. This
article  will  address  both  definitions.In the very narrow context of corporate
"human resources", there is a contrasting
Modern analysis emphasizes that human beingspull to reflect and require workplace
are not predictable commodity "resources"diversity that echoes the diversity of a
with definitions totally controlled byglobal customer base. Foreign language and
contract, but are creative and social beingsculture skills, ingenuity, humor, and careful
that make contributions beyond "labor" to alistening, are examples of traits that such
society and to civilization. The broad termprograms typically require. It would appear
human capital has evolved to contain thethat these evidence a general shift to the
complexity of this term, and inhuman capital point of view, and an
macro-economics the term "firm-specific humanacknowledgement that human beings do
capital" has evolved to represent thecontribute much more to a productive
original  meaning  of term "human resources".enterprise than "work": they bring their
character, their ethics, their creativity,
Advocating the central role of "humantheir social connections, and in some cases
resources" or human capital in enterpriseseven their pets and children, and alter the
and societies has been a traditional role ofcharacter of a workplace. The term corporate
socialist parties, who claim that value isculture is used to characterize such
primarily created by their activity, andprocesses.
accordingly justify a larger claim of profits
or relief from these enterprises orThe traditional but extremely narrow context
societies. Critics say this is just aof hiring, firing, and job description is
bargaining tactic which grew out of variousconsidered a 20th century anachronism. Most
practices of medieval European guilds intocorporate organizations that compete in the
the modern trade union and collectivemodern global economy have adopted a view of
bargaining  unit.human capital that mirrors the modern
consensus as above. Some of these, in turn,
A contrary view, common to capitalistdeprecate the term "human resources" as
parties, is that it is the infrastructuraluseless.
capital and (what they call) intellectual
capital owned and fused by "management" thatAs the term refers to predictable
provides most value in financial capitalexploitations of human capital in one context
terms. This likewise justifies a bargainingor another, it can still be said to apply to
position and a general view that "humanmanual labor, mass agriculture, low skill
resources" are interchangeable. The unicist"McJobs" in service industries, military and
approach defines the integration of humansother work that has clear job descriptions,
and  business  as  a  sole  unified  field.and which generally do not encourage creative
or  social  contributions.
A significant sign of consensus on this
latter point is the ISO 9000 series ofIn general the abstractions of
standards which requires a "job description"macro-economics treat it this way - as it
of every participant in a productivecharacterizes no mechanisms to represent
enterprise. In general, heavily unionizedchoice or ingenuity. So one interpretation is
nations such as France and Germany havethat "firm-specific human capital" as defined
adopted and encouraged such descriptionsin macro-economics is the modern and correct
especially within trade unions. One view ofdefinition of "human resources" - and that
this trend is that a strong social consensusthis is inadequate to represent the
on political economy and a good socialcontributions of "human resources" in any
welfare system facilitates labor mobility andmodern  theory  of  political  economy.
tends to make the entire economy more
productive, as labor can move from oneThough human resources have been part of
enterprise to another with little controversybusiness and organizations since the first
or  difficulty  in  adapting.days of agriculture, the modern concept of
human resources began in reaction to the
An important controversy regarding laborefficiency focus of Taylorism in the early
mobility illustrates the broader1900s. By 1920, psychologists and employment
philosophical issue with usage of the phraseexperts in the United States started the
"human resources": governments of developinghuman relations movement, which viewed
nations often regard developed nations thatworkers in terms of their psychology and fit
encourage immigration or "guest workers" aswith companies, rather than as
appropriating human capital that isinterchangeable parts. This movement grew
rightfully part of the developing nation andthroughout the middle of the 20th century,
required to further its growth as aplacing emphasis on how leadership, cohesion,
civilization. They argue that thisand loyalty played important roles in
appropriation is similar to colonialorganizational success. Although this view
commodity fiat wherein a colonizing Europeanwas increasingly challenged by more
power would define an arbitrary price forquantitatively rigorous and less "soft"
natural resources, extracting whichmanagement techniques in the 1960s and
diminished  national  natural  capital.beyond, human resources had gained a
permanent role within the firm.



1 A B C D E 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118