When the flexible concept of HRM emerged in the 1980s, in the times of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, it “could not help but look more desirable than personnel management” (Hope-Hailey). The attractiveness of the theory of managing personnel led to a proliferation of HRM language. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen if there is more to HRM than only a new and shining rhetoric.
A number of authors stress the difficulties of identifying clear differences between personnel management and HRM, and maintain that the most obvious change is a “re-labelling process”. Torrington agrees that “a change of label” is obvious, though one cannot be sure that the content differentiates to any extent. However, the new terminology may at least rid personnel management from its unfavourable welfare image and other negative connotations and thus, save the ailing function of managing personnel from marginalisation. Accordingly, some HR academics maintain that new labels on old bottles may have their uses, even if it is only for marketing purposes. Furthermore, a valuable contribution of HRM is to direct the attention to regarding people as the key resource of organisations and lending the management of personnel increased importance. In this essay, the similarities and differences between personnel and HR management are analysed with regard to their theoretical approaches as well as their practical implementation. Before sketching the similarities and differences in some detail, two different models of HRM, the ‘soft’ and the ‘hard’ approach, will be introduced. Finally, the question will be examined if HRM models are manipulative and exploitative, and a conclusion will summarise the results briefly.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Personnel Management versus Human Resource Management
2.1 ‘Soft’ and ‘Hard’ Models of HRM
2.2 Theory and Philosophy
2.2.1 Similarities
2.2.2 Differences
2.3 Practical Implementation
3. Is HRM manipulative and exploitative?
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the ongoing debate regarding the differences and similarities between traditional Personnel Management and the concept of Human Resource Management (HRM). The central research goal is to critically analyze whether HRM represents a revolutionary departure from personnel management or merely a strategic re-labeling of existing practices, while also investigating the ethical concerns of manipulation and exploitation inherent in HRM models.
- Theoretical distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' models of HRM.
- Comparative analysis of personnel management and HRM in theory and practice.
- Evaluation of strategic integration and the role of line management.
- Critical assessment of the manipulative potential in HRM rhetoric.
- Empirical evidence on the practical implementation of HRM initiatives.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Personnel Management versus Human Resource Management
The view that there are more similarities than differences between personnel and HR management is shared by a number of authors. Legge, for instance, is tempted to say that there are “not a lot” (1989: 27) differences between the two approaches, but nevertheless manages to detect some diverging aspects. These however cannot be qualified as substantial differences, but are rather a matter of emphasis and meaning (Legge 1995: 74). Torrington regards personnel management as a continuing process of evolution and growth, in which more and more fields of expertise are acquired and assimilated. Within this evolutionary process HRM is only adding “a further dimension to a multi-faceted role” (1989: 66), and is not at all a revolutionary concept. However, the effect of HRM should not be underestimated. Armstrong (1987: 34) maintains that although the procedures and techniques strongly resemble those of personnel management, the strategic and philosophical context of HRM makes them appear more purposeful, relevant, and consequently, more effective.
On the other side, authors like Storey regard HRM as a “radically different philosophy and approach to the management of people at work” (1989: 4). In this view, HRM provides a completely new form of managing personnel and can therefore be regarded as a “departure from [the] orthodoxy” (Storey 1989: 8) of traditional personnel management.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical emergence of HRM in the 1980s and introduces the central debate regarding whether it represents a substantive shift or a mere change in terminology from personnel management.
2. Personnel Management versus Human Resource Management: Provides a detailed comparison of the two approaches, analyzing the 'soft' and 'hard' models of HRM, theoretical differences, and empirical evidence from various studies on practical implementation.
3. Is HRM manipulative and exploitative?: Critically explores the ethical dimensions of HRM, examining how its rhetoric may serve to manipulate employee behavior and facilitate the exploitation of human resources through subtle cultural controls.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, reiterating that while HRM emphasizes strategic integration and cultural change, it is better understood as a continuous evolution of personnel management rather than a revolutionary transformation.
Keywords
Human Resource Management, Personnel Management, Strategic HRM, Soft HRM, Hard HRM, Employee Commitment, Organizational Culture, Personnel Function, Management Rhetoric, Employee Relations, Industrial Relations, Workplace Flexibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The research investigates the relationship between Personnel Management and HRM, questioning if the latter constitutes a distinct, revolutionary practice or simply a rebranded evolution of traditional methods.
What are the primary thematic pillars of the work?
The central themes include the theoretical dichotomy between 'soft' and 'hard' HRM, the practical implementation of these models in organizations, and the ethical critique regarding potential manipulation and exploitation.
What is the core objective of the study?
The primary objective is to evaluate the validity of claims that HRM significantly differs from personnel management, both in theoretical philosophy and actual organizational practice.
Which methodologies are employed to analyze the topic?
The author employs a comprehensive literature review, synthesizing academic perspectives and examining empirical case studies and surveys published throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.
How is the main body structured?
The main body breaks down HRM into 'soft' and 'hard' models, analyzes similarities and differences in theory, explores practical implementation through empirical research, and concludes with an ethical assessment of HRM practices.
Which key terms best describe this research?
The most relevant keywords are Human Resource Management, Personnel Management, Strategic HRM, Employee Commitment, Organizational Culture, and Ethical Exploitation.
How do 'soft' and 'hard' HRM models differ in their treatment of employees?
In 'hard' models, employees are primarily viewed as a cost-effective economic resource to be controlled, whereas 'soft' models emphasize the human aspect, valuing employees as assets and focusing on commitment and culture.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the "manipulative" nature of HRM?
The author suggests that while HRM is often accused of manipulation—particularly through cultural initiatives that seek to align employee values with corporate interests—this effect may be a byproduct of management's need to achieve ends within a competitive environment.
- Quote paper
- Marco Köster (Author), 2002, Human Resource Management versus Personnel Management, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/25299
