Pragmatic management practices in personnel management
In the past century, personnel management has gained the reputation of being separate from the rest of management departments in organizations. However, Karen Legge (1995) in her analysis of the evolution of personnel management leads us to the understanding that personnel management models may relate to current human resource management practices.
Contrary to the general perception, personnel management involves pragmatic management practices depending on organizational styles and settings. For example in the “hard model” (utilitarian instrumentalism), organizations focus on integration. Corporate strategies incorporate policies and business activities. People are a company’s resource. Organizations manage them in a rational manner to achieve business outcomes. From this Michigan Business School model, one understands that organizations may consider people as a resource just as any other business resource. Thus, human resource should match business needs and help achieve objectives. Management may monitor their performances for recognition and rewards. Furthermore, organizations will always try to acquire them as cheaply as possible, and exploit them to maximize profits. This model may sound less humanistic but the objective of achieving humanism should not compromise the objectives of organizations (Legge 1995).
There is another model known as the soft or developmental humanism model developed by Harvard Business School. The soft model also considers integration critical for the development of business strategies. At the same time, it also emphasises on treating people as valued assets. They should be treated as human capital that are fundamentally different from other business resources. The soft model encourages developing employees so that they become proactive in organizational development and progress (Legge 1995).
From the soft and hard models, one learns that personnel management may acquire similar characteristics of human resource management. Personnel managers may consider people as a resource requiring effective management processes and activities such as recruitment, selection, placement, promotion and appraisal. They may take into account of strategic integration and corporate policies to achieve business objectives before they can be optimized (Legge 1995).
At the same time, one also understands that in the past personnel management has not been flexible which explains why it has been limited to the hiring and firing practices. Modern day personnel departments can change and integrate policies and strategic activities to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the business.
Human resource management is different from personnel management. Theorists like Legge consider it a trend that changes with time. Yet it is this dynamic nature of HRM, which makes it valuable to modern day organizations. Unlike conventional personnel management, HRM is flexible and adapts to changing socio-economic, political, and governmental environments easily. It allows organizations to become flexible in restructuring systems by involving and committing employees, to achieve high quality standards. It also promotes organizational specialization to gain strategic edge (Legge 1995). Thus, HRM has perked the interests of organizations, management experts, the government and academy alike because it is a comprehensive management approach. It integrates people management with long-term and short-term business strategies, business policies, industrial relations, and quality standards and procedures (Legge 1995).
Not only this, HRM also encourages all members to participate in the choices and decisions made in the organization thereby inducing organizational ownership. The management is not isolated from the employees but in fact, all work as a team to achieve common objectives. The management recognizes achievements by adopting a complex appraisal process for gauging accountability and responsibility. It recognizes and awards individuals who contribute to the development of the organization. Thus, the management is more responsible and responsive to people’s needs whether they are the stakeholders or the shareholders (Legge 1995).
It has different tools and techniques at its disposal to resolve issues under different scenarios and situations and that are best suited to the organization. This kind of flexibility has been absent in the old personnel management approach, which makes HRM a more viable management approach for implementation.
Effective HRM system requires control measures to gauge the commitment and value of human resources. The control system helps gauge elements like training and development, required skill sets, achievement, professional development, career paths, competitive edge, and individual contribution for their value and strategic roles. Choosing a performance management system may not be easy as it depends on the HRM model an organization has adopted. For example if the organization has adopted the soft model then the appraisal system concentrates on commitment, trust, training and development, and autonomy of work control. On the other hand, adopting a hard model would mean control is tight over individuals. Goals are set beforehand to secure competitive advantage. Adopting either of these models poses problems (Legge 1995; Truss et al 1997). By focussing too much on the soft appraisal model, the organization may miss its business focus, as it would be concentrating on the individual motivation, commitment and value rather than on the objectivity of the business. The hard model on the other hand would disregard the emotional side, and manage people by treating them as assets in an operational manner. This kind of approach emphasises too much on control. Consequently, experts have come to the conclusion that no single model is ideal. It is better to combine both. Even then, an organization may face problems when appraising employees because it may develop HR policies that complement the needs of the organization at one time but may prove useless at a later stage of the business lifecycle.
Moreover, most appraisal processes and policies concentrate on the quantitative aspect of performance outcome (Legge 1995; Truss et al 1997). They tend to quantify human behaviours with pounds, which is not appropriate. Yet even though one cannot equate emotions like motivation, commitment, esteem, power and values into pounds amount, these elements can contribute to the overall business success. Appraising the employee’s level of adaptation and fit therefore needs an alternative approach before it can be useful for gauging the employee’s value to the company (Legge 1995; Truss et al 1997).
Tags: evolution of personnel management, human resource management, management models, resource management practices, resource organizations
