What evidence is there that the typical Australian HR practitioner of the last few years is in any way different or has a different role to a HR practitioner of the mid-1990s or mid-1980s? Describe and explain the difference, if any.
Companies are facing dramatic challenges because of globalisation of the market places. And this is forcing companies to recognize the role of Human resources. The need for a change in HRM has resulted from a perception that HRM could be used as a competitive advantage in this pervasive atmosphere of change (Poole & Jenkins, 1996).
During mid 1990s or mid 1980s, HR practitioners were more concerned with ‘personnel management’. But today’s HR practitioners are more concerned about the achievement of organisational goals (Treuren, G.2008, p.9-11).
Allan, et. al. 1999 stated that the strategy of modernising the domestic operations by a combination of productivity enhancement, cost reduction and increasing work has dominated Australian management in the late 1990s for seeking development and maintaining competitive advantage.
During mid 1990s or mid 1980s, the main roles of HR practitioners were just concerned with hiring and firing, compensation, training, security, safety etc. But now organisations are rethinking about the strategic side of HRM because of the factors like globalisation, more competition, privatisation, innovation, rise of new industries, technology, profitability by growth, changes (Baker, 1999). And because of the above factors, HR practitioners are, now, expanding the area of their roles. With administrative roles, they also act as administrative expert, employee champion, strategic partner and the change agent (Mello 2002).
Traditional way of HRM was to implement and follow without employees’ interference. Today’s HR practitioners help organisation by finding out the procedures which can be done quicker, cheaper, and in better ways. Credibility of HR improves by improving efficiency and that is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document