HRM Guide publishes articles and news releases about HR surveys, employment law, human resource research, HR books and careers that bridge the gap between theory and practice.
This guide is based on Human Resource Management in a Business Context,
and includes links to extra articles, notes, tips and exercises.
From personnel to human resource management
HRM-type themes, including 'human capital theory' (discussed in Part 2) and 'human asset accounting' can be found in literature dating as far back as the 1970s. But the modern view of human resource management first gained prominence in 1981 with its introduction on the prestigious MBA course at Harvard Business School. The Harvard MBA provided a blueprint for many other courses throughout North America and the rest of the world, making its interpretation of HRM particularly influential (Beer et al, 1984; Guest, 1987; Poole, 1990). Simultaneously, other interpretations were being developed in Michigan and New York.
These ideas spread to other countries in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly Australia, New Zealand, parts of northern Europe - especially the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia - and also South and South-East Asia and South Africa. Today, the HRM approach is influential in many parts of the world.
Pages 22-25 provide a discussion on why HRM seemed to be different - and
preferable - to personnel management but also examine some common prejudices against the notion of HRM.
Tips for students using the book
Activity 1:5 At face value, the answer is straightforward - HRM is
strategic, involving top management, etc. - but only if we accept the rhetoric of HRM
without debate. The question of whether or not there is a real difference between
'personnel management' and HRM is dealt with in more depth in the next chapter.
Activity 1:6 Certainly, personnel management had an image problem -
and for some people, such as Lucy Kellaway, HRM is no different. Why has personnel/HR
had such a bad press? Why change the label from 'personnel' to HRM? Is there a substantive
difference in philosophy, theory or practice? What are the motives of practitioners in
adopting (or resisting) the change of label?