Managerialism and the concept of HRM
The new managerialism
Schuler (1990) emphasized that the HR function had
an opportunity to shift from being an 'employee advocate' (associated with personnel management)
to a 'member of the management team'. More at:
>
The concept of HRM
What exactly is 'human resource management'? Many people
find HRM to be a vague and elusive concept - not least because it seems
to have a variety of meanings. This confusion reflects the different interpretations
found in articles and books about human resource management. Human Resource Management in a Business Context includes a reasoned discussion on this topic.
Additional notes: Townley (1994) argues that much of the confusion over the role of
human resource managers is due to two factors:-
1. The conflict between the 'welfare' tradition of personnel management
and the strategic orientation of modern HRM
2. A gender divide between:
- 'female' or 'soft' personnel management (particularly in respect of the welfare
tradition) at lower management and administrative levels;
- 'male', hard-nosed human resource managers within upper management or corporate
headquarters.
She contends that the gender issue should be taken further than 'counting the number of women' into an examination of language, role divisions and power.
In particular, Townley (1994) holds that gender is inherent in how 'personnel' has become a subject of study. In the UK the professional institution has had several different titles since it was founded as the Welfare Workers Association in 1913.
Currently it is the ,
having been unable to face the ultimate change to a name which parallels the Australian Human
Resource Institute (AHRI) or the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in the USA.
Townley (1994) points to the debate about consequences of the name on employment
prospects: 'debates centred on the image projected - welfare was thought to reflect
the feminine'. The consequence was that more 'strenuous terms' were used: in 1924 it
became Industrial Welfare Workers; in 1931 it changed to Institute of Labour Management;
in 1946, the Institute of Personnel Management, a title which remained for the next half
century. Throughout the last century there has been a polarisation between male and female
aspects of people management. As an example, Townley cites industrial relations as a male
preserve in the 1960s and 70s, whereas training was mainly staffed by females.
More recently, she believes that: "The present division between personnel
and HRM ... equally reflects the same gendered elements. Put bluntly, the focus of HRM -
an agenda, in the main, prescribed by men - has been 'important' men in one field talking
to, reflecting and reporting on 'important' men in another."
References:
Schuler, R. S. (1990). `Repositioning the human resource function: transformation or
demise?' Academy of Management Executive, 4:3, 49-60.
Storey, J. (ed) (1995, 2000) Human Resource Management: A Critical Text Thomson Learning
(2nd edition 2000, 1995 edition under the Routledge imprint).
Townley, B. (1994) Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject of Work Sage.
|
Human Resource Management
Contact
HRM Guide Network
