TRANSFORMATION AND RECOGNITION OF HUMAN RESOURCES

BY ANMOL SINGHMBA

SUBMITTED TO:Ms. RICHA NAGIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Ms. Richa Nagia, my professor, guide and mentor in guiding me throughout the length of this research paper.

Introduction:Before getting into the evolution of HR, it is first very important to understand what is meant Human Resource.Human Resource is a function in organizations designed to maximize employee performance in service of their employers strategic objectives. HR is primarily concerned with how people are managed within organizations, focusing on policies and systems. Human resources are an organization's greatest assets because without them, everyday business functions such as managing cash flow, making business transactions, communicating through all forms of media, and dealing with customers could not be completed. Human resources and the potential they possess are key drivers for an organizations success. With globalization and technological advances, today's organizations are continuously changing. Thus, organizational change impacts not only the business but also its employees. In order to maximize organizational effectiveness, human potentials, individuals' capabilities, time, and talents must be managed and developed. Hence, the practice of human resource management (HRM) works to ensure that employees are able to meet the organization's goals. Definition of Human Resoure: Edwin Flippo, author of Personnel Management, defines HR as:planning, organizing, directing, controlling of procurement,development, compensation, integration , maintenance and separation ofhuman resources to the end that individual, organizational and socialobjectives are achieved. Michael Armstrong, in his Armstrongs Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, defines HRM as: Human resource management is defined as a strategic and coherent approach to the management of an organisation most valued assets the people working there who individually and collectively contribute to the achievement of its object. William R. Tracey, inThe Human Resources Glossarydefines Human Resources as: "The people that staff and operate an organization as contrasted with the financial and material resources of an organization." Human Resource Management, 4th edition provides a working definition of HRM:A philosophy of people management based on the belief that human resources are uniquely important in sustained business success. An organization gains competitive advantage by using its people effectively, drawing on their expertise and ingenuity to meet clearly defined objectives.Birth of HR:The history of HRM is said to have started in England in the early 1800s during the craftsmen and apprenticeship era and further developed with the arrival of the industrial revolution in the late 1800s. In the 19th century, Frederick W. Taylor suggested that a combination of scientific management and industrial psychology of workers should be introduced. In this case, it was proposed that workers should be managed not only from the job and its efficiencies but the psychology and maximum wellbeing of the workers. Moreover, with the drastic changes in technology, the growth of organizations, the rise of unions and government concern and interventions resulted in the development of personnel departments in the 1920s. At this point, personnel administrators were called welfare secretaries (Ivancevich, 2007).Some scholars argued that HRM is said to have started from the term Personnel Management (PM). The term PM emerges after the World War in 1945 as an approach by personnel practitioners to separate and distinguish themselves from other managerial functions and making the personnel function into a professional managerial function. Traditionally, the function of PM is claimed to be hire and fire personnel in organizations other than salary payments and training. But there were many criticisms and concerns of ambiguity expressed about the purpose and role of PM to HRM (Tyson, 1985) in that management planned HRM activities, and did not just respond reactively to different circumstances and situations, but in some cases, to demands of trade unions. In part to reflect these, none outline approaches to the management of employees in the mid 1980s. Therefore, the term HRM gradually tended to replace the term PM (Lloyd and Rawlinson, 1992). However, writers argued that the term HRM has no appreciable difference from PM as they are both concerned with the function of obtaining, organizing, and motivating human resources required by organizations. At the same time, writers are defining the terms HRM and PM in many different ways (Beer and Spector, 1985).The rebranding for the term PM to HRM was argued as due to the evolvement and changes in the world of management and therefore a new term would seem appropriate to take new ideas, concepts and philosophies of human resources (Noon, 1992, Armstrong, 2000). Indeed, some writers commented that there are little differences between PM and HRM and it has been criticized as pouring old wine into new bottle with a different label (Legge, 2005). Whether HRM was considered to be different to personnel management there is a continued debate on the meaning and practice of HRM as opposed to that of PM (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2002; Legge, 2005).

Evolution of HR:HR has evolved over the last hundred years in reaction to significant changes in the way organizations get their work done. Putting the evolution of business and the evolution of the HR name changes into one table (as shown below) shows how reactive the profession has been to changes in the social and economic realities of the time.

The challenge for HR today is to define our own future based on the trends that are eminently predictable now and to step up to the challenge of creating our own future. One other key historical point: The boom and bust economic history of the last 20+ years has formed in large part what HR was asked to support. The HR function went from being challenged with creative recruitment, retention, and compensation strategies during boom times to being challenged with creative restructuring, downsizing, and outplacement during bust times and in the latest wave of mergers and acquisitions.

TABLE 1: EVOLUTION OF HUMAN RESOURCES THROUGH TIME

The HR priorities during these bust times were not conducive to discussions of talent and hot spots: They were more about survival and cost-cutting efficiencies. HR has reactively dealt with the evolving business issues but has rarely independently implemented game changing strategies for the function or for employees. HR too often reacts to a problem or request, and has too rarely anticipated issues and proposed solutions. We in HR did not strategically design the changing deal between employers and employees, but we were the ones to alter the pensions and benefits, and to execute downsizing and restructuring. It is one thing to be service oriented (which HR must be); it is another to be a simple order taker. The evolution we are undergoing requires not only the intellectual and strategic capability to envision a different role, but also the intestinal fortitude to step out, lead, and enact a new role.

Just as the role of the HR professional has changed over the years of this business evolution, so too has the role of the line manager. There continues to be a shift in the activities and accountabilities we expect managers to own based on their management role, what we expect leaders to own in their leadership roles, and what we expect employees to own as they take on greater responsibility for their own learning, growth, and self-management. HR can be the professional HR process designer and owner, and oversee implementation and rollup reporting, but in most cases the work of the process is done by employees and managers (e.g., recruiting, selection, performance appraisal, career development, succession planning, merit increases, stock option distributions). So, who is accountable: the leader, manager, employee, or HR? All have a stake in the success of these processes but companies vary greatly in the extent to which these performance expectations are made explicit as part of a managers job.

This evolution has one other common link. Throughout the development of the HR profession, there has been a tension between the roles of employee advocate and business leader. This is a razors-edge predicament. HR must serve the needs of the business (and, for example, must plan and enact downsizing and outplacement) while serving the needs of employees (to be the fair and impartial third-party advocate and ombudsman where needed).

Sometimes those two hats are hard to wear at the same time; yet, the recent egregious failures and lapses by leaders of large companies in areas like compensation and people management have shown that HR must be ready to step up to the real issues of ethics in organizations and integrity in leadership. To be a great business partner does not mean to be co-opted; sometimes we are the ones who must blow the whistle.

Conclusion:

The role of HR is forever changing as the business world continues to evolve and as organizations discover new issues of importance. With the increased emphasis on employee engagement, organizations are recognizing the importance of facilitating communication between their teams.Simply put, organizations today are realizing that people are the key to success. After all, when people within an organization succeed, the entire company is bound to follow suit

REFERENCES1. www.wikipedia.com2. http://tpd.com/resources/blog/hr-evolution/3. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.hrps.org/resource/resmgr/p_s_article_preview/hrps_issue30.3_evolutionofhr.pdf4. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/41671_1.pdf5. http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/introduction_to_hrm/defining-hrm.htm6. http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryh/f/what_hr.htm7. http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt2/sayi9pdf/haslinda.pdf?origin=publicationDetail