The modern view of human resource management first gained prominence in 1981 with its introduction on the MBA course at Harvard Business School. Other interpretations were developed in Michigan and New York.
Different interpretations of Human Resources.
The Harvard interpretation sees employees as resources. However, they are viewed as being different from other resources in how they are to be managed
The Harvard model outlines four HR policy areas:
- Human resource flows - recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, appraisal and assessment, promtion, termination, etc.
- Reward systems - pay systems, motivation, etc.
- Employee influence - delegated levels of authority, responsibility, power
- Work systems - definition/design of work and alignment of people.
Which in turn lead to the 'four C's' or HR policies that have to be achieved:
- Commitment
- Congruence
- Competence
- Cost effectiveness
Michigan Business School - A harder approach
A different view is associated with the Michigan Business School. The Michigan model has a harder, even less humanistic edge, holding that employees are resources in the same way as any other business resource. They must be:
- obtained as cheaply as possible
- used sparingly
- developed and exploited as much as possible
- Selection of the most suitable people to meet business needs
- Performance in the pursuit of business objectives
- Appraisal, monitoring performance and providing feedback to the organization and its employees
- Rewards for appropriate performance
- Development of the skills and knowledge required to meet business objectives
Wouldn't good old "Personnel" be a more appropriate term? I find it degrading to employees (often quoted as "our most valuable resource" in company propaganda) to refer to them as "resources". Ultimately, isn't slave labour the most cost effective?
Cheers and keep smiling
Roger
