A debate about the differences, if any, between HRM and personnel management went on for some time. It has died down recently, especially as the terms HRM and HR are now in general use both in their own right and as synonyms for personnel management. But understanding of the concept of HRM is enhanced by analysing what the differences are and how traditional approaches to personnel management have evolved to become the present day practices of HRM.
Some commentators (Hope-Hailey et al, 1998; Keenoy, 1990b; Legge, 1989, 1995; Sisson, 1990; Storey, 1993) have highlighted the revolutionary nature of HRM. Others have denied that there is any significant difference in the concepts of personnel management and HRM. Torrington (1989) suggested that: ‘Personnel management has grown through assimilating a number of additional emphases to produce an even richer combination of experience… HRM is no revolution but a further dimension to a multi-faceted role.’
The conclusion based on interviews with HR and personnel directors reached by Gennard and Kelly (1994) on this issue was that ‘it is six of one and half a dozen of the other and it is a sterile debate’. An earlier answer to this question was made by Armstrong (1987):
HRM is regarded by some personnel managers as just a set of initials or old wine in new bottles. It could indeed be no more and no less than another name for personnel management, but as usually perceived, at least it has the virtue of emphasizing the virtue of treating people as a key resource, the management of which is the direct concern of
top management as part of the strategic planning processes of the enterprise. Although there is nothing new in the idea, insufficient attention has been paid to it in many organizations.
Some commentators (Hope-Hailey et al, 1998; Keenoy, 1990b; Legge, 1989, 1995; Sisson, 1990; Storey, 1993) have highlighted the revolutionary nature of HRM. Others have denied that there is any significant difference in the concepts of personnel management and HRM. Torrington (1989) suggested that: ‘Personnel management has grown through assimilating a number of additional emphases to produce an even richer combination of experience… HRM is no revolution but a further dimension to a multi-faceted role.’
The conclusion based on interviews with HR and personnel directors reached by Gennard and Kelly (1994) on this issue was that ‘it is six of one and half a dozen of the other and it is a sterile debate’. An earlier answer to this question was made by Armstrong (1987):
HRM is regarded by some personnel managers as just a set of initials or old wine in new bottles. It could indeed be no more and no less than another name for personnel management, but as usually perceived, at least it has the virtue of emphasizing the virtue of treating people as a key resource, the management of which is the direct concern of
top management as part of the strategic planning processes of the enterprise. Although there is nothing new in the idea, insufficient attention has been paid to it in many organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment