Saturday, January 30, 2016

HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

In the opinion of Mayo (2001) the essential difference between HCM and HRM is that the former treats people as assets while the latter treats them as costs. Kearns (2005b) believes that in HCM ‘people are value adders, not overheads’ while in HRM ‘people are (treated as) a significant cost and should be managed accordingly’. According to Kearns, in HRM ‘the HR team is seen as a support service to the line’ – HR is based around the function and the HR team performs ‘a distinct and separate role from other functions’. Conversely, ‘HCM is clearly seen and respected as an equal business partner at senior levels’ and is ‘holistic, organization-wide and systems-based’ as well as being strategic and concerned with adding value. The claim that in HRM employees are treated as costs is not supported by the descriptions of the concept of HRM produced by American writers such as Beer et al (1984). In one of the seminal texts on human resource management, they emphasized the need for: ‘a longer-term perspective in managing people and consideration of people as potential assets rather than merely a variable cost’. Fombrun et al (1984), in the other seminal text, quite explicitly presented workers as a key resource that







managers use to achieve competitive advantage for their companies. Grant (1991) lists the main characteristics of human resources in his general classification of a firm’s potential resources as follows:



● The training and expertise of employees determines the skills available to the firm.


● The adaptability of employees determines the strategic flexibility of the firm.


● The commitment and loyalty of employees determine the firm’s ability to maintain competitive advantage.


Cappelli and Singh (1992) propose that competitive advantage arises from firmspecific, valuable resources that are difficult to imitate, and stress ‘the role of human resource policies in the creation of valuable, firm-specific skills’. Other writers confirmed this view. For example:
HRM is an ‘approach to labour management which treats labour as a valued asset rather than a variable cost and which consequently counsels investment in the labour resource through training and development and through measures designed to attract and retain a committed workforce’. (Storey, 1989)



Human resource management is a distinctive approach to employment management that seeks to obtain competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques. (Storey, 1995)




The HRM argument is that people… are not to be seen as a cost, but as an asset in which to invest, so adding to their inherent value. (Torrington, 1989, emphasis in the original)



Of course, all these commentators are writing about HRM as a belief system, not about how it works in practice. The almost universal replacement of the term ‘personnel management’ with HR or HRM does not mean that everyone with the job title of HR director or manager is basing their approach on the HRM philosophy. Guest commented in 1991 that HRM was ‘all hype and hope’.


 A survey conducted by Caldwell (2004) provided some support to this view by establishing that the five most important HR policy areas identified by respondents were also the five in which the least progress had been made. For example, while 89 per cent of respondents said the most important HR policy was ‘managing people as assets which are fundamental to the competitive advantage of the organization’, only 37 per cent stated that they had made any progress in implementing it.




However, research conducted by Hoque and Moon (2001) found that there were significant differences between the activities of those described as HR specialists and those described as personnel specialists. For example, workplace-level strategic plans are more likely to emphasize employee development in workplaces with an HR specialist rather than a personnel specialist, and HR specialists are more likely to be involved in the development of strategic plans than are personnel specialists. Both HRM in its proper sense and HCM as defined above treat people as assets.


Although, as William Scott-Jackson, Director of the Centre for Applied HR Research at Oxford Brookes University argues (Oracle, 2005), ‘You can’t simply treat people as assets, because that depersonalizes them and leads to the danger that they are viewed in purely financial terms, which does little for all-important engagement.’ However, there is more to both HRM and HCM than simply treating people as assets. Each of them also focuses on the importance of adopting an integrated and strategic approach to managing people, which is the concern of all the stakeholders in an organization, not just the people management function. So how does the concept of HCM reinforce or add to the concept of HRM? The answers to that question are that HCM:

No comments:

Post a Comment