Human Resource Management Past Present And Future
Table of Contents
Summary
“Early beginnings”: 1400s-1700s
“Personnel”: 1800s
“Labor relations/human relations”: 1900s-1970s
“Strategic Human Resource Management”: 1980s and present
Summary
The abstract of this document is a brief overview of the main points discussed. It summarizes the key ideas and provides a general description of the contents of the document.
HRM has a chequered history. We will examine how a number of changes in the economic and social environment have influenced HRM. While most historians begin their HRM studies in the U.S. during the 19th-century industrialization period, we begin much earlier, focusing on the formation of tribes, followed by the establishment of apprenticeships and independent contractors systems, all of which date back to the late medieval period. (Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1985; Ling, 1966). The reason is to illustrate the evolution of employment relations over time. This short historical overview isn’t meant to be comprehensive; rather, it serves as a context to appreciate the strides that we have made in HRM, which we now refer. A companion special issue focusing on HRM’s present and future will be published later in this year.
“Early beginnings”: 1400s-1700sHistorically, HRM probably was the earliest evolved management function, predating other functions such as finance,accounting, and marketing. The management of human resources has probably been going on since people were first organized into functional units like tribes. A division of labour was undoubtedly created as tribes evolved, especially from hunting to farming. In this development, different individuals occupied various roles within a productive society. Undoubtedly, a division in labor occurred as a result of the emergence of craftsmen who could create tools to support farmers. As a result, trade developed to capitalize on the differences in productivity between various occupations and crafts. The management of human resources was a problem, whether it was managed by a leader of a tribe or through the market’s natural function and the allocation of roles.
In the late 1800s, the Industrial Revolution spread from Europe to the United States. The Industrial Revolution changed how people made their living. It led us to move from an agricultural society into an industrialized or manufacturing one. The factory system began when machines replaced human skills and crafts. The factories and manufacturing revolutionized production and employment. These systems, such as the one that replaced independent contractors and self-employment, created permanent wage-earners who were employed in organizations. This led to an increase in productivity and the division of labour. Workers who used to be skilled contractors were now tenders for machines, performing highly specialized tasks. The new manufacturing systems also required supervision of large groups of workers. Management practices tended towards autocracy and paternalism (Dulebohn and others, 1995). The management was not concerned about the welfare or safety of their workers. They controlled them with force and terror (Slichter, 1919). This management style continued into the late 19th century.
“Personnel”, 1800s Around 1800, an English industrialist named Robert Owens, who owned a factory in England, changed the nature of the relationship between employers and employees. He developed “welfare systems” to improve working and social conditions. Some of these paternalistic practices developed into elaborate systems that provided workers with housing, stores, schools, apprenticeships and life and accident insurance. Welfare-to work systems are defined as “anything that is done to improve the intellectual and social well-being of employees in addition to the wages they receive, but which does not meet the requirements of law or industry” (U.S. Bureau of Labor 1919, p.8). These new systems were created to improve worker relations and management, boost productivity and avoid conflict between workers and unionization. This is why many of today’s employee incentives are based on these practices. These practices have become commonplace in many Western countries’ benefit systems.
Labor-management conflicts began in the years following the Civil War (1860s). Employers hoped to undermine unions by changing the working conditions (Dulebohn, et. al. 1995). These programs, which were intended to benefit workers, did not work. Instead, they were designed as a way for employers to gain an advantage. As the programs became more widespread in the late 1900s, companies hired welfare managers to oversee them. The welfare manager role eventually evolved into “personnel management”. It was the primary function of this position to hire and fire employees, to discipline them, and to reward them. The line managers were no longer required to manage and retain their workforce.
As expected, employers fought the growth of unions and took a number of steps to curtail it, including court injunctions or forcing applicants to sign yellow dog contracts indicating that they would not join a union. The employers, as one might expect, fought against unionization and took many steps to limit it. These included court injunctions to prevent unionization or forcing workers to sign yellow-dog contracts.
“Labor relations/human relationships”: 1900s-1970sWith industrialization, employers were looking for ways to improve productivity and efficiency. Engineers like Frederick Taylor, Industrial Psychologists and Organizational Psychologists such as Lillian Gilbreath and Sociologists Max Weber developed new management approaches and focused on strategies that would increase the efficiency of organizations. Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management approach (1947) for example, emphasized rationalizing work through scientific analysis, dissecting it into its component parts, and determining how to do the job best. This approach emphasized the need for close supervision of employees in order to ensure that their work was performed exactly as required. Max Weber suggested in 1927 that a legitimate authority system and rules could increase organizational efficiency.
The autocratic management system and new job design led to even more conflict between organizations and workers. The National Labor Relations Act of 1930, the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, the Wagner Act of 1935 and other laws promoted the growth in unions. In the 1930s, as a result increased unionization, scientific management principles were used to increase personnel departments. These departments focused on using job analysis for selection, training and evaluation of employees, as well compensation. Wagner Act (Kaufman, 1993, P. 61) also defines the New Deal’s industrial relations system. It states that the aim of public policy should be to encourage the use of collective bargaining. These policies led to the creation of industrial relations (IR), which was responsible for managing collective bargaining agreements.
Following the war there were increased demands for HRM. Post-war workers wanted to regain lost wages and renewed union interest. The federal wage control laws and labor laws also increased the demand for personnel departments. Taft Hartley Act also passed due to growing union power and labor unrest. The act aimed to equalize labor’s power with that of management. In the U. S. during the 1940s-’50s, unions made up 47% and 95% companies had atleast one union. In the 1940s and 1950s, unions represented 47% of the U.S. labor force. 95% of companies had at least one union (Dulebohn et al., 1995).
In the early 1930s, employers began to argue poor management practices and inefficient work systems were to blame for conflicts. In order to test the effect of different systems of work on worker productivity, researchers carried out a series experiments (Roethlisberger & Dickson (1939). Researchers found that social factors and worker needs were important in determining the output of the workers and their well-being. Human Relations was the new name for this approach that emphasized social needs among workers. Human Relations was a new approach to HRM that went beyond individualism and the workplace. It also emphasized the social structure of the organization and its work groups (Dulebohn et.al., 2005; Scarpello, 2008).
Human Relations Movement, in HRM, began to challenge the assumption that workers did not like to work. Instead, they emphasized the important role that human resources played within organizations. Human Resource Management was created to replace “personnel-management” and emphasize the value of human resources in organizations. In the 1960s-70s, Human Relations evolved into Quality of Work Life. This approach aimed to satisfy both the needs of employees and employers by focusing on employee productivity and well-being. As an example, the management created new programs to emphasize job enrichment and professional development. New policies were also designed to improve employees’ quality of life and increase their commitment to the organization.
During the QWL era, managers developed collaborative programs to improve worker’s quality of life. They also focused on labor and management cooperation. Legislation highlighting fair employment practice, including the Civil Rights Acts in 1964, Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970 and Employee Retirement and Income Security Acts in 1974, facilitated QWL. These acts and the new QWL program promoted the need for HR managers in organizations and for new HR policies and practices.
“StrategicHRM”, 1980s – present. These changes and challenges prompted a “new” function of HRM (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie, 1986) to be developed. Human resources are a critical component of the success of any organization in the knowledge and service economies. This new HRM function has become a strategic partner for organizations. HRM is also called upon to promote a sense trust between workers and managers (Dulebohn et.al., 1995). American organizations began emphasizing non-unionized management practices, as well as adopting many Japanese management concepts that emphasize employees’ importance in gaining a competitive edge. HRM has evolved into a variety of functions, including human relations (formerly “personnel”), labor relations (now called industrial relations), and strategic HRM.
This evolution is explained in the following articles, both as a general event and as a specific one. Kaufman’s (2014-in the current issue) history of HRM traces its development from the labor issues that emerged in the nineteenth century to the complex strategic HRM, industrial relations and personnel economics of today. De Nisi and Biteman (2014, in this issue) examine the evolution of HRM over the last century. They focus on the HR Research-Practice Gap. Boudreau and Lawler’s (2014, this issue) unique perspective on the evolution is a more perceptual one. Basing their findings on two decades of data collected by HR leaders, Boudreau and Lawler share the evolving role of HRM.
Two articles, published in this issue of HRM (2014-in this issue), explain the shift in HRM with respect to our societal and organizational ideologies regarding “diversity”. Nkomo, Hoobler and others (2014 – in this issue), explain how HRM has changed in response to our organizational and societal ideologies on “diversity”. In the early part of the 21st century we moved from an “inclusional” to a more “white supremacist” perspective. Gowan’s (2014-in the current issue) focus is on the history and evolution of unemployment studies.
This article is very relevant to the current “strategic role” we play in many organizations. Sikora & Ferris argue that HR implementation is the key issue for strategic HRM. The authors explain the importance of focusing on the line manager responsible for implementing HR strategies, rather than “strategic” HRM. This special issue will focus on HRM in the present and future.
