Human Resource Management Cannot Be Distinguished from Personnel Management Other Than in the Name
Of particular interest and complexity to academics is the introduction of Human Resource Management and whether it really differs from the traditional personnel management. Human Resource Management has been described by Storey (1995:5) as "...a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personal techniques."
The subject is problematic as there is no agreed definition of the meaning of the concept of human resource management and little evidence of take-up and implementation, (Storey and Sisson, 1993:15).
This paper will firstly consider how human resource management is similar to personnel management and can be considered only as a new title. It will then examine how human resource management is unique and set apart from personnel management. There are many features which are associated with human resource management, however due to space limitations this paper cannot discuss them all. This paper will concentrate on individualism, integration with business planning, commitment by employees and responsibility of driving and delivering the human resource policies by all managers.
Many writers such as Torrington, Guest and Armstrong have argued that human resource management is simply a new title for the orthodox personnel management.
Guest has argued that human resource management was designed to give personnel specialists more status, (1987:506 cited by Sisson, 1989:31). For example a large-scale survey was carried out on corporate managers and found that 80% of personnel chiefs admitted they had an overall human resource policy but when asked could not describe it, (Marginson, 1988 cited in Blyton and Turnbull, 1992:3).
Human resource management can be seen as merely an ideology designed to assist unilateral management in justifying their actions by persuading employees
The subject is problematic as there is no agreed definition of the meaning of the concept of human resource management and little evidence of take-up and implementation, (Storey and Sisson, 1993:15).
This paper will firstly consider how human resource management is similar to personnel management and can be considered only as a new title. It will then examine how human resource management is unique and set apart from personnel management. There are many features which are associated with human resource management, however due to space limitations this paper cannot discuss them all. This paper will concentrate on individualism, integration with business planning, commitment by employees and responsibility of driving and delivering the human resource policies by all managers.
Many writers such as Torrington, Guest and Armstrong have argued that human resource management is simply a new title for the orthodox personnel management.
Guest has argued that human resource management was designed to give personnel specialists more status, (1987:506 cited by Sisson, 1989:31). For example a large-scale survey was carried out on corporate managers and found that 80% of personnel chiefs admitted they had an overall human resource policy but when asked could not describe it, (Marginson, 1988 cited in Blyton and Turnbull, 1992:3).
Human resource management can be seen as merely an ideology designed to assist unilateral management in justifying their actions by persuading employees
Bibliography: Blyton, P., and Turnbull, P. (1992). Reassessing Human Resources Management. London. Sage Publishing Rose, E. (2001). Employment Relations; Continuity and Change: Policies and Practices. Harlow. Financial Times/Prentice Hall Sisson, K. (1989). Personnel Management in Britain. Oxford. Blackwell. Storey, J., & Sisson, K. (1990) Limits to transformation: Human resources management in the British context. IRJ, Vol, 21:60-65 Storey, J. 1995. Is Human Resources Management catching on? International Journal of Manpower, Vol 16:3-10