Introduction of HR Practices
Introduction of HR Practices
Introduction of HR Practices
organization that deals with hiring, firing, training, and other personnel issues, typically
referred to as `human resources management'. This article addresses both definitions.
The objective of human resources development (the `s' is important in human resource`s'
in that it underscores indiduality/variability) is to foster human resourcefulness through
enlightened and cohesive policies in education, training, health and employment at all
levels, from corporate to national (Lawrence 2000) Human resource management's
objective, on the other hand, is to maximize the return on investment from the
organization's human capital and minimize financial risk. It is the responsibility of human
resource managers in a corporate context to conduct these activities in an effective, legal,
fair, and consistent manner.
Human resource management serves these key functions:
1. Recruitment & Selection
2. Training and Development
3. Performance Evaluation and Management
4. Promotions
5. Redundancy
6. Industrial and Employee Relations
7. Record keeping of all personal data.
8. Compensation, pensions, bonuses etc in liaison with Payroll
9. Confidential advice to internal 'customers' in relation to problems at work
10. Career development
Modern analysis emphasizes that human beings are not "commodities" or "resources",
but are creative and social beings in a productive enterprise. The 2000 revision of ISO
9001 in contrast requires to identify the processes, their sequence and interaction, and to
define and communicate responsibilities and authorities. In general, heavily unionized
nations such as France and Germany have adopted and encouraged such job descriptions
especially within trade unions. The International Labour Organization also in 2001
decided to revisit, and revise its 1975 Recommendation 150 on Human Resources
Development. One view of these trends is that a strong social consensus on political
economy and a good social welfare system facilitates labor mobility and tends to make
the entire economy more productive, as labor can develop skills and experience in
various ways, and move from one enterprise to another with little controversy or
difficulty in adapting. Another view is that governments should become more aware of
their national role in facilitating human resources development across all sectors.
An important controversy regarding labor mobility illustrates the broader philosophical
issue with usage of the phrase "human resources": governments of developing nations
often regard developed nations that encourage immigration or "guest workers" as
appropriating human capital that is rightfully part of the developing nation and required
to further its growth as a civilization. They argue that this appropriation is similar to
colonial commodity fiat wherein a colonizing European power would define an arbitrary
price for natural resources, extracting which diminished national natural capital.
The debate regarding "human resources" versus human capital thus in many ways echoes
the debate regarding natural resources versus natural capital. Over time the United
Nations have come to more generally support the developing nations' point of view, and
have requested significant offsetting "foreign aid" contributions so that a developing
nation losing human capital does not lose the capacity to continue to train new people in
trades, professions, and the arts.
An extreme version of this view is that historical inequities such as African slavery must
be compensated by current developed nations, which benefited from stolen "human
resources" as they were developing. This is an extremely controversial view, but it echoes
the general theme of converting human capital to "human resources" and thus greatly
diminishing its value to the host society, i.e. "Africa", as it is put to narrow imitative use
as "labor" in the using society.
In a series of reports of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, a broad intersectoral approach to developing human resourcefulness has been outlined as a priority for
socio-economic development and particularly anti-poverty strategies. This calls for
strategic and integrated public policies, for example in education, health, and
employment sectors that promote occupational skills, knowledge and performance
enhancement (Lawrence, J.E.S. 2000).
In the very narrow context of corporate "human resources" management, there is a
contrasting pull to reflect and require workplace diversity that echoes the diversity of a
global customer base. Foreign language and culture skills, ingenuity, humor, and careful
listening, are examples of traits that such programs typically require. It would appear that
these evidence a general shift through the human capital point of view to an
acknowledgment that human beings do contribute much more to a productive enterprise
than "work": they bring their character, their ethics, their creativity, their social
connections, and in some cases even their pets and children, and alter the character of a
workplace. The term corporate culture is used to characterize such processes at the
organizational level.
The traditional but extremely narrow context of hiring, firing, and job description is
considered a 20th century anachronism. Most corporate organizations that compete in the
modern global economy have adopted a view of human capital that mirrors the modern
consensus as above. Some of these, in turn, deprecate the term "human resources" as
useless. Yet the term survives, and if related to `resourcefulness', has continued and
emerging relevance to public policy.
In general the abstractions of macro-economic treat it this way - as it characterizes no
mechanisms to represent choice or ingenuity. So one interpretation is that "firm-specific
human capital" as defined in macro-economics is the modern and correct definition of
"human resources" - and that this is inadequate to represent the contributions of "human
resources" in any modern theory of political economy.